Bad News For the Keystone XL

[Mott the Hoople]

Not disagreeing that it is harder to clean up. But a new pipeline also means... a new pipeline. Not one that has been used for years/decades.

True but the very nature of one increases the risk of liability. Considering the long term impact of large oil spills you can see why the permitting process is so stringent.

 

[zappasguitar]

which is exactly what did not happen. not even close.

Oh bullshit, it was your very first contribution to this discussion...

So you think we should stop transporting all oil?

No...we just think if the oil companies want to make money off transporting their product across our property, then they need to do a better job of maintaining their pipelines than the piss poor job they did in Arkansas.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Is a pipeline infrastructure?

I have no problem with Keystone if it's safe to the environment, brings benefits to the US, and creates sustainable, not temporary, jobs.

It can and it will but it's also a situation with the inherent risks involved that a lot of i's and t's need to be dotted and crossed to help lower risk levels and/or to mitigate them.

 

[Phantasmal]

So no more manufacturing then huh? Or is Canadian environment not connected to ours and therefore not worth worrying over?

Canadian pipelines, like Alaskan's are highly regulated and monitored. They worry about their own environment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

how about a new infrastructure that is not hazardous to our environment?

Well that's a fine sentiment but our energy sources need to come from somewhere. What would you sugggest to replace petroleum that could meet public demand now?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

lol... so because eventually (which can be anywhere from tomorrow-100 years in the future) it will have an accident, we shouldn't build it?

Planes eventually have accidents. So do auto's. So do buildings. Etc... nothing is meant to last forever. It is blatantly silly to pretend that because things eventually break down, we shouldn't build them to begin with.

So what's your contingency plan for when they do?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yes. Also notice that when he's refusing to give sources for his DixieFacts*, he's demanding them from us.

*DixieFact: An unsubstantiated claim based on what the voices in your head are saying.

What are you referring to? What is so hard for you to say 'x' is what I disagree with? Just point out what you think is incorrect with what I have stated. Don't fall into Zappas non stop bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So what's your contingency plan for when they do?

For when what do?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Canadian pipelines, like Alaskan's are highly regulated and monitored. They worry about their own environment.

yes, but their left, like our left, doesn't want to build the infrastructure. They just want the oil to magically appear. Note they also blocked the pipeline going through BC.

 

[Howey]

What are you referring to? What is so hard for you to say 'x' is what I disagree with? Just point out what you think is incorrect with what I have stated. Don't fall into Zappas non stop bullshit.

Just like Dixie you put words together as a statement of fact when they are mere opinion. Rarely do you provide a source. But whenever someone else makes a claim, you demand one.

 

[Althea]

They do not have the refining capacity. Texas does. Saying it should be refined there is all fine and good... but it is not what either country desires. We want to open up our own capacity that is available and Canada wants to avoid building out capacity as the price of oil has to remain high for the sand tar oil to be produced economically. If they build out capacity and prices drop, they are stuck with the refineries and nothing to refine.

Texas does NOT have the refining capacity for that sludge. That's why taxpayers will be on the hook for $1 billion in subsidies to multinational refineries in Texas if the pipeline goes through http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/h.

 

[Phantasmal]

yes, but their left, like our left, doesn't want to build the infrastructure. They just want the oil to magically appear. Note they also blocked the pipeline going through BC.

It's the not in my backyard mentality.

 

[Howey]

Texas does NOT have the refining capacity for that sludge. That's why taxpayers will be on the hook for $1 billion in subsidies to multinational refineries in Texas if the pipeline goes through http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-benefits-from-taxpayer-subsidies/h.

With all those record breaking profits why can't they build their own refineries?

 

[Althea]

With all those record breaking profits why can't they build their own refineries?

If you check that link, the comments section has some amazing insight. The answer to your question is simple....investors want higher ROI.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

For when what do?

For when pipelines have an accident (i.e. a spill).

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Canadian pipelines, like Alaskan's are highly regulated and monitored. They worry about their own environment.

The insinuation is that we are incapable of such regulation. We're not. There is another pipeline being build, literally in my backyard from Canada to the Detroit refinery. And I'm just as supportive of that.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

yes, but their left, like our left, doesn't want to build the infrastructure. They just want the oil to magically appear. Note they also blocked the pipeline going through BC.

That's not an accurate assesment. What if they we're building an oil pipeline right next to your property? I'm sure you'd be concerned too and would want the most stringent permitting requirements possible and it goes with out saying you'd prefer them to build it someplace else. So it's not about political ideologues being niave. It's about all politics being local. I'm sure you could give a rats ass if they build a pipeline through my back yard....be a different ballgame when its your back yard.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The insinuation is that we are incapable of such regulation. We're not. There is another pipeline being build, literally in my backyard from Canada to the Detroit refinery. And I'm just as supportive of that.

Uhh correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't Alaska part of "We"?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Uhh correct me if I'm wrong...but isn't Alaska part of "We"?

Apparently not listening to some people here.

 

[Phantasmal]

That's not an accurate assesment. What if they we're building an oil pipeline right next to your property? I'm sure you'd be concerned too and would want the most stringent permitting requirements possible and it goes with out saying you'd prefer them to build it someplace else. So it's not about political ideologues being niave. It's about all politics being local. I'm sure you could give a rats ass if they build a pipeline through my back yard....be a different ballgame when its your back yard.

Exactly.