Obama/Democrats will create jobs if NO Keystone built... here is how..

[healthmyths]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.
With the below spill the cleanup required about 10,000 workers,
1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

On March 23, 1989, at 9:12 pm the Exxon Valdez oil tanker left the Alyeska Pipeline to cross Prince William Sound carrying approximately 53 million gallons of crude oil. The tanker was headed for Long Beach, California. Three hours later, just after midnight on March 24th, the Exxon Valdez ran into Bligh Reef, spilling 10.8 million gallons of oil into the sound.

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

 

[Mr. H.]

There is no rhyme or reason as to why the KXL is not already built and operational.

We've been functioning under the thumb of a President that lies, is not in the least transparent, and who could give a flying fuck rat's ass about the United States of America.

He also has the full unquestioning support of multi-billion dollar media outlets, and a voting public that has long been placated by the trinkets of welfare.

Fuck that Arab.

 

[whitehall]

That's a good point. The radical left seems to have no qualms about oil tanker traffic on the fragile ocean ecosystem but they seem to think a pipeline is a threat. It should be noted that the eco aware left didn't seem concerned about Hussein's executive order granting windmill corporations the right to kill migratory birds for the next 30 years.

 

[Pogo]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

You'd be amazed how many of your fellow travelers just don't seem to get that. Why don't you stop in and set them straight.

 

[SAYIT]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

 

[Pogo]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

You'd be amazed how many of your fellow travelers just don't seem to get that. Why don't you stop in and set them straight.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

You're "giving me 5 minutes"? Who the fuck do you think you ARE, dood??

And do not edit my posts.

 

[SAYIT]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed his ass to the wall, and there it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

 

[Pogo]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I've been telling everybody. It's not the question here.
You see, had you gotten off your mental stoop and clicked my link you'd see a thread full of denialists claiming Keystone "creates 42,000 jobs" and "eliminates dependence on Middle East oil" and even "increases supply to refineries", all of which are bullshit, and took the trouble to explain how such a pipeline serves only to cut production costs for Big Oil, the pipeline's only beneficiary. And for this too I was excoriated (though not refuted). And here's a thread that starts right off in its first line admitting that product is bound for Asia. Which is what I've been saying as long as this issue has existed. So over there, the oil is bound for Dubuque; in here it's admitted right up front that it goes to China. Can't have it both ways.

Capice?

You would have seen that if you bothered to look instead of marching in here like Herr MessageBord Polizei "giving five minutes".

Let me know if you need an even lower grade-level guide to navigate all this, authoritarian freak.

And btw, easier flow to China does not in itself translate to prices falling. OPEC is still a cartel with a large market share. When it sees somebody off the cartel plantation pouring in more supply, it just cuts its own supply and goes to lunch. That's why it exists.

 

[Kosh]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I've been telling everybody. It's not the question here.
You see, had you gotten off your mental stoop and clicked my link you'd see a thread full of denialists claiming Keystone "creates 42,000 jobs" and "eliminates dependence on Middle East oil" and even "increases supply to refineries", all of which are bullshit, and took the trouble to explain how such a pipeline serves only to cut production costs for Big Oil, the pipeline's only beneficiary. And for this too I was excoriated (though not refuted). And here's a thread that starts right off in its first line admitting that product is bound for Asia. Which is what I've been saying as long as this issue has existed. So over there, the oil is bound for Dubuque; in here it's admitted right up front that it goes to China. Can't have it both ways.

Capice?

You would have seen that if you bothered to look instead of marching in here like Herr MessageBord Polizei

Let me know if you need an even lower grade-level guide to navigate all this, authoritarian freak.

Here is one of the reasons why the far left is against the pipeline..

Buffett should know. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, purchased Burlington Northern Santa Fe for $34 billion four years ago. FORBES estimates its value has doubled since then. Part of the reason: hauling oil out of the Bakken formation of North Dakota.

Warren Buffett Is Still Bullish On Rail--And Keystone - Forbes

Despite all the far left drone propaganda they post the Big Money will always guide their path..

 

[SAYIT]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I've been telling everybody. It's not the question here.
You see, had you gotten off your mental stoop and clicked my link you'd see a thread full of denialists claiming Keystone "creates 42,000 jobs" and "eliminates dependence on Middle East oil" and even "increases supply to refineries", all of which are bullshit, and took the trouble to explain how such a pipeline serves only to cut production costs for Big Oil, the pipeline's only beneficiary...

And right there you are wrong. More oil from the Americas means less demand for OPEC's. Guess what happens to the price when desperate suppliers need - and OPEC nations desperately need - to sell their oil? Even if the only benefit was to fuck OPEC where the sun don't shine, I'd go build that pipeline with my own two hands.

 

[tinydancer]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I've been telling everybody. It's not the question here.
You see, had you gotten off your mental stoop and clicked my link you'd see a thread full of denialists claiming Keystone "creates 42,000 jobs" and "eliminates dependence on Middle East oil" and even "increases supply to refineries", all of which are bullshit, and took the trouble to explain how such a pipeline serves only to cut production costs for Big Oil, the pipeline's only beneficiary. And for this too I was excoriated (though not refuted). And here's a thread that starts right off in its first line admitting that product is bound for Asia. Which is what I've been saying as long as this issue has existed. So over there, the oil is bound for Dubuque; in here it's admitted right up front that it goes to China. Can't have it both ways.

Capice?

You would have seen that if you bothered to look instead of marching in here like Herr MessageBord Polizei "giving five minutes".

Let me know if you need an even lower grade-level guide to navigate all this, authoritarian freak.

And btw, easier flow to China does not in itself translate to prices falling. OPEC is still a cartel with a large market share. When it sees somebody off the cartel plantation pouring in more supply, it just cuts its own supply and goes to lunch. That's why it exists.

80 % of what you produce out of your refineries according to the EIA is consumed domestically. Less than 4% goes to China and that's shipped mainly from your west coast. You know. The coast that borders on the Pacific Ocean.

 

[tinydancer]

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I've been telling everybody. It's not the question here.
You see, had you gotten off your mental stoop and clicked my link you'd see a thread full of denialists claiming Keystone "creates 42,000 jobs" and "eliminates dependence on Middle East oil" and even "increases supply to refineries", all of which are bullshit, and took the trouble to explain how such a pipeline serves only to cut production costs for Big Oil, the pipeline's only beneficiary...

And right there you are wrong. More oil from the Americas means less demand for OPEC's. Guess what happens to the price when desperate suppliers need - and OPEC nations desperately need - to sell their oil? Even if the only benefit was to fuck OPEC where the sun don't shine, I'd go build that pipeline with my own two hands.

Yuppers. Energy security by dealing with people who don't have a desire to behead Americans or fly planes into your tall buildings.

Sorry about Celine Dione and Beiber but we have great beer and donuts.

 

[Politico]

And right there you are wrong. More oil from the Americas means less demand for OPEC's. Guess what happens to the price when desperate suppliers need - and OPEC nations desperately need - to sell their oil? Even if the only benefit was to fuck OPEC where the sun don't shine, I'd go build that pipeline with my own two hands.

And how does that help us when gas prices here go up when the oil refineries in Ohio, Illinois, etc are no longer getting oil?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.
With the below spill the cleanup required about 10,000 workers,
1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

On March 23, 1989, at 9:12 pm the Exxon Valdez oil tanker left the Alyeska Pipeline to cross Prince William Sound carrying approximately 53 million gallons of crude oil. The tanker was headed for Long Beach, California. Three hours later, just after midnight on March 24th, the Exxon Valdez ran into Bligh Reef, spilling 10.8 million gallons of oil into the sound.

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

Is the Keystone pipeline going all the way to China? Are you mentally retarded?

I'm genuinely curious about the answer to either of those questions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.
With the below spill the cleanup required about 10,000 workers,
1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

And how does the oil from Canada get to Asia or Europe once Keystone is finished?

 

[healthmyths]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

You'd be amazed how many of your fellow travelers just don't seem to get that. Why don't you stop in and set them straight.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

You're "giving me 5 minutes"? Who the fuck do you think you ARE, dood??

And do not edit my posts.

BECAUSE YOU DUMB F...K I've been writing about HOW NOT building the pipeline MEANS YOU DUMB F...K shipping 1 million barrels on the Open ocean regardless to CHINA what ever! BUT The point is DUMMY 1 million barrels on the OPEN OCEAN versus 700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land!
BUT you f...king DUMMIES can't seem to do simple math...i.e. Which is a bigger number 1 million barrels traveling 1 mile on the open ocean or
700 barrels traveling 1 mile on DRY LAND?

 

[Care4all]

So you admit the end product is destined for China, and that therefore the pipeline benefits nobody but Big Oil's operation.

I know you're not stupid, Pogo, so I'm giving you 5 minutes to delete that silliness (and I will delete this response) before I help you make a complete jackass of yourself.

Why in the hell would I do that? I nailed the ass of this double standard hypocrisy to the wall, and on that wall it stays.

OK ... I guess I gave you too much credit for smarts. Oil is relatively fungible and it's pricing is global. That means getting it more efficiently to China means a reduction in the global price per barrel. More efficient supply routes are good for everyone and bad for OPEC.

No shit Sherlock. That's what I've been telling everybody. It's not the question here.
You see, had you gotten off your mental stoop and clicked my link you'd see a thread full of denialists claiming Keystone "creates 42,000 jobs" and "eliminates dependence on Middle East oil" and even "increases supply to refineries", all of which are bullshit, and took the trouble to explain how such a pipeline serves only to cut production costs for Big Oil, the pipeline's only beneficiary. And for this too I was excoriated (though not refuted). And here's a thread that starts right off in its first line admitting that product is bound for Asia. Which is what I've been saying as long as this issue has existed. So over there, the oil is bound for Dubuque; in here it's admitted right up front that it goes to China. Can't have it both ways.

Capice?

You would have seen that if you bothered to look instead of marching in here like Herr MessageBord Polizei

Let me know if you need an even lower grade-level guide to navigate all this, authoritarian freak.

Here is one of the reasons why the far left is against the pipeline..

Buffett should know. His company, Berkshire Hathaway, purchased Burlington Northern Santa Fe for $34 billion four years ago. FORBES estimates its value has doubled since then. Part of the reason: hauling oil out of the Bakken formation of North Dakota.

Warren Buffett Is Still Bullish On Rail--And Keystone - Forbes

Despite all the far left drone propaganda they post the Big Money will always guide their path..

Tell me something Kosh...

IS IT BAD THAT AN AMERICAN COMPANY EMPLOYS THOUSANDS OF American citizens with a job?

WHY WOULD YOU prefer to make THESE CITIZENS unemployed?

WHY?

 

[healthmyths]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.
With the below spill the cleanup required about 10,000 workers,
1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

And how does the oil from Canada get to Asia or Europe once Keystone is finished?

Goes by SHIP through the safest waters the Gulf of Mexico and then through the safest waters Panama canal.. THEN through the warmer safest
southern Pacific waters to CHINA most likely!
But it won't be traveling through the harshest already proven (Remember Exxon Valdez?)) waters of the Arctic Pacific!

 

[rightwinger]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.
With the below spill the cleanup required about 10,000 workers,
1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

On March 23, 1989, at 9:12 pm the Exxon Valdez oil tanker left the Alyeska Pipeline to cross Prince William Sound carrying approximately 53 million gallons of crude oil. The tanker was headed for Long Beach, California. Three hours later, just after midnight on March 24th, the Exxon Valdez ran into Bligh Reef, spilling 10.8 million gallons of oil into the sound.

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

How do you propose to get an oil tanker into Alberta?

 

[healthmyths]

It is simple. No Keystone means 1 million barrels by tanker to China.
With the below spill the cleanup required about 10,000 workers,
1,000 boats and roughly 100 airplanes and helicopters.

On March 23, 1989, at 9:12 pm the Exxon Valdez oil tanker left the Alyeska Pipeline to cross Prince William Sound carrying approximately 53 million gallons of crude oil. The tanker was headed for Long Beach, California. Three hours later, just after midnight on March 24th, the Exxon Valdez ran into Bligh Reef, spilling 10.8 million gallons of oil into the sound.

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

How do you propose to get an oil tanker into Alberta?

I DON"T! I'm making FUN of those ANTI-KEYSTONE idiots!
My point is simple!
Which is more dangerous, more risk of greater damage to the environment..
SHIPPING 1 million barrels one mile in one tanker on the open ocean OR
Moving 700 BARRELS one mile in one mile of pipeline on the dry land?
WHICH is the bigger number?
Which would cause the most damage if there was an accident? 1 million barrels on the open ocean? OR at the most 1,500 barrels over 2 miles
of dry land?
That is MY simple point that is seemingly going WAY over the heads of truly dumb people!