- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
China & Canada are doing very well economically. I'm sure their both just sitting back laughing at our Dummy President. So much for 'Shovel-Ready Jobs' i guess.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Good for the President. Now let see how long before he caves.......again.
So, the NRDC has opened a volatile can of wiggling hydrocarbons. Bitumen is an extreme and difficult product that puts more wear and tear on crude infrastructure. The NRDC has asked a good question about pipeline safety based on good industry data.
Although the ERBC doesn't want to answer the question about bitumen's corrosive properties, new safety regulations are probably in order.
Despite what sheepish regulators might say, petroleum engineers recognize that bitumen is one nasty feedstock and hell on wheels for refineries as well as upgraders. (Pipeline transportation of DilBit is also two times more GHG intensive than shipping fully upgraded synthetic crude.)
Last but not least, diluting bitumen with foreign oil has now created a massive headache for free trade that no one really wants to talk about.
The Tyee – Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
I was reading a article earlier where this environmental group wants you to send your thanks to the Obama for blocking this..
They or the Obama don't give two shits about our country or you people..
get it yet?
Good for the President. Now let see how long before he caves.......again.
So, the NRDC has opened a volatile can of wiggling hydrocarbons. Bitumen is an extreme and difficult product that puts more wear and tear on crude infrastructure. The NRDC has asked a good question about pipeline safety based on good industry data.
Although the ERBC doesn't want to answer the question about bitumen's corrosive properties, new safety regulations are probably in order.
Despite what sheepish regulators might say, petroleum engineers recognize that bitumen is one nasty feedstock and hell on wheels for refineries as well as upgraders. (Pipeline transportation of DilBit is also two times more GHG intensive than shipping fully upgraded synthetic crude.)
Last but not least, diluting bitumen with foreign oil has now created a massive headache for free trade that no one really wants to talk about.
The Tyee – Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial
All of that may be very well be true. However, this would be a good time to really try to put yourself in the shoes of one of those evil big oil CEOs. If this stuff is so damn hard do deal with, why do they want so badly to build this pipeline? I mean these are businessmen. Making money is the bottom line. Reducing expenses and maximizing revenue. Do you really think they aren't aware of these potential costs? Yet they're going through with it anyway? Why is that?
Broadly what is confusing is all the worries some have over big oil. Everything you're afraid of big oil doing are things that simply aren't in any business interested in making money best's interest. Who has the greatest interest in preventing a pipe line from leaking? The government? Local citizens? None of the above. The answer is the oil company has the greatest interest in preventing a pipeline from leaking. That's lost revenue to them. The group some claim is so evil and is only interested in money is the same great that has the greatest interest financially to keep bad things from happening.
Rape and Pillage our environment?
Really? What laws are they breaking? My guess is you should be upset with the EPA.Oil companies send our troops to fight wars? Funny...I though Congress did that.
Dont give a flying fuck about anyone else? I guess evcery retailer in the country should be labelled that way. I mean...how insensitive that they make a profit selling shoes and winter coats to children.
Or at the very least, the NIMBY Republican Governor of Nebraska Dave Heineman for throwing cold water on the project to begin with.
Of course oil companies don't send troops to fight wars but the politicians oil companies bribe in any way they can certainly do.
Aww, children..... LOL Puppies and kitties too?
and ponies....dandylions....sunsets....and sex on the beach.
Who do you hold responsible...
the one who bribes...or the one who accepts it?
If congress doesnt accept the bribe, it is like the bribe never exists..
So your beef is with congress....not the oil companies.
Because it isn't a dieing industry. This is case where you really need to see the truth. The reality of oil is this; it is the most efficient and inexpensive source of energy currently available to the most people and we are finding more and more of it all the time. That hardly constitutes a dieing indsutry. There is no currently better alternative. If there was the free market would have brought it to market already. What you mean by better is really only one variable; cleaner. That's it. Unfortunately there are far more variables that go into what constitutes a 'good' energy source (i.e. whether it's profitable for anyone to produce, whether it's affordable, it's utility (how much energy you get out of it). The reality is your environmentally friendly option fail on most of those fronts.
Alternatives are in developmental stages. As long as we keep putting "band-aid", short-term solutions on the table, we Americans become too complacent and the real root of the problem won't get fixed. We should have taken the opportunity after the energy crisis of the 70s to develop alternative fuels and get off oil completely but we didn't. Yes, oil is a dying industry. We don't need to keep pumping money into it. We need to divert our resources towards a long term, cleaner solution.
Again you illustrate my pointy perfectly. All you idiot environmentalists care about is cleaner. That's the only variable that determines whether an energy source is 'good' in your eyes. That is not reality. Reality is America and the world needs energy. Since it is something we truly do need as oppose to want than the variables that best fill the need component are going to be the most essential. We NEED our energy source to be affordable so it is available for low income earners as well. It needs to be reliable. People are dependent on energy to heat their homes. A problem I know you Californians in fantasy land don't understand a lot of the rest of the country has to deal with. It's 10 below here now. No one could afford for the wind to stop blowing. Our energy source needs to be energy efficient. Some energy is always lost when potential energy is converted to usable energy (which you should remember from high school physics). The goal is to mimimize how much energy is lost and reduce the input relative to output. And stop kidding yourself into thinking there aren't trade offs in more environmentally friendly energy sources. If you wind to replace coal, you're going to trade mariginally cleaner air for more a loss of physical acerage as it will take more land in windmills to create the same amount of power. And of course there's the jobs. I wish you libs would grow a pair and admit that you care more about the envirnoment than you do anyone's standard of living. Because if you insist the government should force us off of fossil fuels MILLIONS of jobs will be lost.
Alternatives are in developmental stages. As long as we keep putting "band-aid", short-term solutions on the table, we Americans become too complacent and the real root of the problem won't get fixed. We should have taken the opportunity after the energy crisis of the 70s to develop alternative fuels and get off oil completely but we didn't. Yes, oil is a dying industry. We don't need to keep pumping money into it. We need to divert our resources towards a long term, cleaner solution.
Again you illustrate my pointy perfectly. All you idiot environmentalists care about is cleaner. That's the only variable that determines whether an energy source is 'good' in your eyes. That is not reality. Reality is America and the world needs energy. Since it is something we truly do need as oppose to want than the variables that best fill the need component are going to be the most essential. We NEED our energy source to be affordable so it is available for low income earners as well. It needs to be reliable. People are dependent on energy to heat their homes. A problem I know you Californians in fantasy land don't understand a lot of the rest of the country has to deal with. It's 10 below here now. No one could afford for the wind to stop blowing. Our energy source needs to be energy efficient. Some energy is always lost when potential energy is converted to usable energy (which you should remember from high school physics). The goal is to mimimize how much energy is lost and reduce the input relative to output. And stop kidding yourself into thinking there aren't trade offs in more environmentally friendly energy sources. If you wind to replace coal, you're going to trade mariginally cleaner air for more a loss of physical acerage as it will take more land in windmills to create the same amount of power. And of course there's the jobs. I wish you libs would grow a pair and admit that you care more about the envirnoment than you do anyone's standard of living. Because if you insist the government should force us off of fossil fuels MILLIONS of jobs will be lost.
I'll be the first to admit that I care more about the environment than I do your standard of living.
Because if your standard of living is ruining the environment, then the environment in turn is ruining everyone else's standard of living. They kind of go hand in hand, see?
Yes, I know....there is no way we could build enough turbines and solar panels to fuel our energy demands today. But what we can build will certainly help. Besides, there are lots of other alternative energy sources being tested and developed today.
Algae-based ethanol. Wave energy. Biodiesel. Geothermal. New battery technology. Cold fusion.
People seem to think if we destroy the Earth's atmosphere, we have another planet to move to and start all over again. Conservatives are so stuck in the "we've been using it for years so it must still be good" mindset and refuse to think outside the box. We need to get away from the filthy, polluting coal and oil of yesteryear and look ahead to the future and not just a few years into the future, we need to think long term.
And in other news, the Democrats plan to solve the energy crisis by encouraging people to ride unicorns to work and hop on a flying pig for air travel ...
why scamble after the dregs of a dying industry when we can pave the path to the future with new safer industries that provide better alternatives?
Becsuse then bohner wont make as much money?
why do you do this?
The pipeline would have been a disaster for the nation ecological wise.
You see the shit they send throught this pipe is eull of grit that woudl canstantly be sanding down the inside of the pipe.
It was a disator waiting to happen and would have traveled over huge areas with underground water tables that would have been contaminated by spill after spill.
The people who run these companies have already prove they dont care as much about safety as profit.
Why do you pretend NOTHING matters but short term corporate profit?
Short term coporate profit?
There you go again...all about money....you greedy selfish jealous phony.
I simply want to stop sending money to countries that hate us.
Short term corporate profit?
TM....there is more to life than money....and who is and who is not making it;
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Then ungrip the cock of the oil industry long enough to join the people who dont want profit to be the main human endevor.
The future is alternative energy sources.
Do you want the US on top of the emerging market or clinging to the dying industry?
Tell me, how can oil be a dying industry? Oil provides more than just energy. It provides the chemicals needed in countless products, including plastics.
As long as we use plastic, oil will not be a dying industry.