Democrats solution for jobs.. cause another Exxon Valdez

Discussion in 'Politics' started by healthmyths, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. healthmyths
    Online

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,230
    Thanks Received:
    2,044
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,850
    YUP the Dems WANT Canada to ship 1 million barrels a DAY in another Exxon Valdez type tanker! When the next wreck occurs that will put 10,000 people to work cleaning up!

    ON the other hand if you anti-pipeline idiots JUST think for a second..
    HOW much OIL is in any one mile of the pipeline at one time?
    Simple to calculate pipeline carries in 24 hours 700,000 barrels.
    Pipeline is 2,000 miles long. 700,000/2,000 miles -- at most 350 barrels!
    All on land easily SHUT down if a leak monitored closely occurs!
    Worst case 350 barrels in a one mile span!

    BUT you anti-pipeline idiots evident WANT a high risk 1 million tanker floating on dangerous waters in winter possibly captain by a simple human prone to mistakes like EXXON Valdez!!

    Here are some of the most startling statistics about the effects of the Exxon Valdez spill on marine wildlife, fisheries and the region's economy:

    The amount of oil spilled could fill 125 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

    As many as 2,800 sea otters, 300 harbor seals, 900 bald eagles and 250,000 seabirds died in the days following the disaster.

    1,300 miles of coastline were hit by the oil spill.

    1,000 harlequin ducks were killed by the oil spill, in addition to many chronic injuries that occurred as a result of the long term effects of the spill.

    The cleanup required about 10,000 workers, 1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

    Four deaths were directly associated with cleanup efforts.
    The spill caused over $300 million of economic harm to more than 32 thousand people whose livelihoods depended on commercial fishing.
    Tourism spending decreased by eight percent in south central Alaska and by 35 percent in southwest Alaska in the year after the spill.
    There was a loss of 9,400 visitors and $5.5 million in state spending.
    Many fish populations were harmed during the spill. For example, sand lance populations went down in 1989 and 1990, herring returns were significantly fewer in 1992 and 1994 and adult fish had high rates of viral infections.
    Pink salmon embryos continued to be harmed and killed by oil that remained on stones and gravel of stream banks through at least 1993. As a result, the southwestern part of Prince William Sound lost 1.9 million or 28 percent of its potential stock of wild pink salmon. By 1992, this part of the sound still had 6 percent less of the wild pink salmon stock than was estimated to have existed if the spill had not occurred.
    Two years following the Exxon Valdez spill, the economic losses to recreational fishing were estimated to be $31 million.
    Twelve years after the spill, oil could still be found on half of the 91 randomly selected beaches surveyed.
    Three species of cormorant, the common loon, the harbor seal, the harlequin duck, the pacific herring and the pigeon guillemot still have not fully recovered

    Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Facts.
     
  2. buckeye45_73
    Offline

    buckeye45_73 Lakhota's my *****

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2011
    Messages:
    16,835
    Thanks Received:
    1,737
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +5,967
    but they're so for the environment, are there carbon credits involved, because that's where the real money is.
     
  3. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,117
    Thanks Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,394
    Tankers are safer now.
    Plus, democrats believe in rail cars not pipelines.
     
  4. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    Just because the capacity of the pipeline is all you say, doesn't mean that the production will be such.

    Lastly....fuck oil. It's caused us enough trouble. We can do better.
     
  5. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,117
    Thanks Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,394
    Yet, for the last 150 years we have failed to "do better".

    And according to the EIA, it looks like we never will.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    Wow..going back 150 years?....that's ludicrous. The technology is there...we simply need to invest and develop it. But because of big oil and other fossil fuel entities lobbying and donating to campaigns in exchange for suppressing that research....it keeps getting shoved to the backburner and anyone who tries to change the status quo is labeled a pariah. But you're too brainwashed to get that.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. healthmyths
    Online

    healthmyths Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    15,230
    Thanks Received:
    2,044
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,850
    I have to LAUGH at you armchair EXPERTS spouting laughable comments...
    You said "we simple need to invest and develop it"....EASY For you to say as it's NOT YOUR BILLIONS!!!

    Read what an expert who made millions has said WHY companies like Exxon don't
    do as you say so laughably!!!

    In 2008, Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, was facing a General Shareholders Meeting with a request, almost a demand, by a California pension fund, a group of nuns and the Rothschild family. The requirement: to dedicate a substantial portion of its investment program to renewable energy. It was the culmination of a process of harassment of U.S. oil majors that started with the then young administration of President Obama. The request was unsuccessful. The general meeting of shareholders rejected it by a majority. Not even to make a "wink" to an administration hostile to the sector.

    The explanation was simple. It is a different business.

    Alternative energies generate returns of 11-12% with a debt of c80%[approximately 80%] at project level, which is impossible to for oil companies, who know you can not gear by more than 25% an energy project, being a cyclical business.

    So the integrated utilities, which have a lower cost of capital and relatively low but stable returns, are more willing to include alternative energy in their investment plans. At the end of the day, renewable energies are utility-type of businesses, as we have seen now that the "supernormal growth" prospects have moderated to more logical 5-6% pa.
    Energy, Markets and Money: Exxon was right. Where will oil companies invest in 2015?


    Now Armchair expert... it is a simple reason why it is NOT a as you so expertly writes:
    "we simple need to invest and develop it" take it from an Expert Tillerson...
    Oil companies CAN NOT make enough money from alternative to meet the bankers needs when getting development money...
    BUT utilities ARE moving because there are incentives that make financial sense!!!
     
  8. Lakhota
    Offline

    Lakhota Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    47,700
    Thanks Received:
    4,706
    Trophy Points:
    1,855
    Location:
    Native America
    Ratings:
    +15,978
    Is this another Einstein thread like the one you posted last night accusing Democrats of passing Roe v. Wade?
     
  9. Vidi
    Offline

    Vidi CDZ prohibited

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,869
    Thanks Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings:
    +343
    You obviously dont know the risks involved with the Keystone Xl pipeline. perhaps youd like to look up the OTHER keystone pipeline and see how much its ALREADY spilled before you completely embarass yourself in the future.
     
  10. Mr. H.
    Offline

    Mr. H. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    44,117
    Thanks Received:
    9,265
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    A warm place with no memory.
    Ratings:
    +15,394
    With respect, you are one stupid fuck.
     

Share This Page