BlindBoo
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2010
- 56,946
- 16,751
- 2,180
So you like Obama think shipping 1 million barrels a day by the sea in a tanker
(equal to 700,000 barrels in pipeline) IS SAFER then a pipeline buried underground with monitors every xx mile and shut off valves that will limit to at most 300 barrels in one mile is SAFER???
WHAT is your conception of oil tankers versus pipelines?
WHICH would create MORE environmental damage?
THE TANKER!!!! THE PIPELINE creates LESS damage PLUS YOU idiot..
WHERE do you think Canada will sell that oil then???
CHINA which will require the shipping by TANKER each DAY!!!
FACTS are so hard to deal with!!
First Obama isn't shipping anything. It would be Canada doing the shipping. And it's not really crude oil. The stuff is so thick that they need to dilute it to ship it. Event still if they plan to ship it anywhere there is quite a bit of opposition.
http://www.nrdc.org/international/files/PipelineandTankerFS.pdf
FIRST IT doesn't make a difference IF OBAMA/Canada who shitting cares?
IT IS 1 million barrels of oil thick,etc. worse then!
Simply put WHICH IS A BIGGER NUMBER???
1 million barrels by Tanker prone to human errors, Acts of GOD?????
OR
300 barrels which is what one mile of 2,147 miles holds!
WHICH IS THE BIGGER NUMBER??
DUH.. wouldn't you think no you aren't thinking.. the larger number transported by the riskier mechanism would have a greater affect then a smaller number shipped underground???
HOW f..,ing stupid! What are people like you thinking?
I am asking a very fundamental question here..
WHICH IS BIGGER 1 million barrels or 300 barrels???
CAN YOU figure that out???
There are signifcant challenges to Canada shipping via tanker to China. More so than getting this pipeline extended to the gulf coast refineries.
That's what I'm thinking, not if 1,000,000 is bigger than 300.
I'd be all for it if it was to reduce our dependence on foriegn oil. It doesn't. Hell, I'd be for it if it signficantly reduced the price of gas here in the US. It will not.