OK Obama You don't Want Keystone.. you want another Exxon Valdez???

[healthmyths]

I'm trying to understand Obama/environmentalists logic which I know sounds like an oxymoron "Obama/environmentalists logic".. but WHY would any one want to risk another Exxon Valdez whereas the Keystone exposes at the most one mile to 325 barrels of oil in a spill?

Really explain to me how it is MORE risk to have a static pipeline that can be shut down in minutes if there is a leak and the worst spill could be in one mile of pipe with less then 80 barrels in a 1/4 of mile.. 160 barrels in a half mile.. YET...
To ship the oil to China 1 million barrels a day in a Tanker on the Pacific exposing thousands of square miles and coastlines as well as 100,000s of wild life... all to the risk of
an oil tanker with crew subject to weather and equipment malfunctions every day!

And this is a SMART president??

More importantly though.. EXPLAIN to me where the MSM is on this question..
Why Mr. President are you in favor of the higher chance and greater damage of another Exxon Valdez?

Please environmentalists... explain why a pipeline with 325 barrels is a greater risk then a 1 million barrel tanker on the ocean damaging thousands of miles?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It's not Obama's fault that he had to make this choice. And make it badly.

It is all those evil Republicans who thought that three years of sitting on the pot needed to produce some solid result.

 

[healthmyths]

It's not Obama's fault that he had to make this choice. And make it badly.

It is all those evil Republicans who thought that three years of sitting on the pot needed to produce some solid result.

I know! And I would really like someone to pick up on this fact that there is a greater risk and MORE damage done by another Exxon Valdez versus 325 barrels in one mile of pipe!

WHERE IS the environmentalists on this?
Where is the MSM explaining the differences!

I think a lot of people hear 800,000 barrel pipeline and naively don't realize there
isn't 800,000 barrels in one mile, 10 miles but total 2,147 miles!

And so there is NOT 1 million barrels at ONE time in ONE tanker.. but in
one mile less then 325 barrels!

 

[BlindBoo]

Envronmentalist in Canada are fighting the Kitimat pipeline as well.

The Keystone segment coming to Texas does not require ferderal approval.

The border crossing section will be approved this year.

The refined product will be exported and will not lead to lower fuel cost in the US.

 

[rdean]

I'm trying to understand Obama/environmentalists logic which I know sounds like an oxymoron "Obama/environmentalists logic".. but WHY would any one want to risk another Exxon Valdez whereas the Keystone exposes at the most one mile to 325 barrels of oil in a spill?

Really explain to me how it is MORE risk to have a static pipeline that can be shut down in minutes if there is a leak and the worst spill could be in one mile of pipe with less then 80 barrels in a 1/4 of mile.. 160 barrels in a half mile.. YET...
To ship the oil to China 1 million barrels a day in a Tanker on the Pacific exposing thousands of square miles and coastlines as well as 100,000s of wild life... all to the risk of
an oil tanker with crew subject to weather and equipment malfunctions every day!

And this is a SMART president??

More importantly though.. EXPLAIN to me where the MSM is on this question..
Why Mr. President are you in favor of the higher chance and greater damage of another Exxon Valdez?

Please environmentalists... explain why a pipeline with 325 barrels is a greater risk then a 1 million barrel tanker on the ocean damaging thousands of miles?

AUGUSTA — Kalamazoo County officials declared a state of emergency Tuesday afternoon as more than 800,000 gallons of oil released into a creek began making its way downstream in the Kalamazoo River.

“I just came from Fort Custer and you can smell it now,” Kalamazoo County Undersheriff Pali Matyas said. “... It’s all rolling downhill and there are a lot of complications.”

Oil spill update: State of emergency declared as 800,000 gallons of leaked oil begins flowing through Kalamazoo County | MLive.com

Maybe this will help.

I LOVE helping the "ignert".

 

[healthmyths]

800,000 GALLONS is NOT 1 million barrels!
Here let me help you ... a barrel is 42 gallons so ... 20,000 barrels more or less...
THAT is 1% of what an Exxon Valdez carried!

AGAIN WHAT is so hard to comprehend? 1 million barrels versus 325 barrels in one mile!

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Looks like it already happened...

Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas
March 31, 2013 – Exxon Mobil was working to clean up thousands of barrels of oil in Mayflower, Arkansas, after a pipeline carrying heavy Canadian crude ruptured, a major spill likely to stoke debate over transporting Canada's oil to the United States.

Exxon shut the Pegasus pipeline, which can carry more than 90,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil from Pakota, Illinois, to Nederland, Texas, after the leak was discovered on Friday afternoon, the company said in a statement. Exxon, hit with a $1.7 million fine by regulators this week over a 2011 spill in the Yellowstone River, said a few thousand barrels of oil had been observed. A company spokesman confirmed the line was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude. That grade is a heavy bitumen crude diluted with lighter liquids to allow it to flow through pipelines, according to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), which referred to Wabasca as "oil sands" in a report.

The spill occurred as the U.S. State Department is considering the fate of the 800,000 bpd Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry crude from Canada's oil sands to the Gulf Coast. Environmentalists, concerned about the impact of developing the oil sands, have sought to block its approval. Supporters say Keystone will help bring down the cost of fuel in the United States. The Arkansas spill was the second incident this week where Canadian crude has spilled in the United States. On Wednesday, a train carrying Canadian crude derailed in Minnesota, spilling 15,000 gallons of oil. Exxon expanded the Pegasus pipeline in 2009 to carry more Canadian crude from the Midwest to the Gulf Coast refining hub and installed what it called new "leak detection technology".

Exxon said federal, state and local officials were on site and the company said it was staging a response for a spill of more than 10,000 barrels "to be conservative". Clean-up crews had recovered approximately 4,500 barrels of oil and water. "The air quality does not likely present a human health risk, with the exception of the high pooling areas, where clean-up crews are working with safety equipment," Exxon said in a statement. U.S. media said the spill was in a subdivision. Mayflower city police said the oil had not reached Lake Conway nearby. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency categorized the rupture as a "major spill," Exxon said, and 22 homes were evacuated following the incident.

Read more: Exxon pipeline leaks thousands of barrels of Canadian oil in Arkansas | Fox Business

 

[edthecynic]

800,000 GALLONS is NOT 1 million barrels!
Here let me help you ... a barrel is 42 gallons so ... 20,000 barrels more or less...
THAT is 1% of what an Exxon Valdez carried!

AGAIN WHAT is so hard to comprehend? 1 million barrels versus 325 barrels in one mile!

Obviously 20,000 barrels can leak no matter how many barrels are in a mile! Also tar sand leaks are more environmentally damaging than the light sweet crude in a tanker at sea.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm trying to understand Obama/environmentalists logic which I know sounds like an oxymoron "Obama/environmentalists logic".. but WHY would any one want to risk another Exxon Valdez whereas the Keystone exposes at the most one mile to 325 barrels of oil in a spill?

Really explain to me how it is MORE risk to have a static pipeline that can be shut down in minutes if there is a leak and the worst spill could be in one mile of pipe with less then 80 barrels in a 1/4 of mile.. 160 barrels in a half mile.. YET...
To ship the oil to China 1 million barrels a day in a Tanker on the Pacific exposing thousands of square miles and coastlines as well as 100,000s of wild life... all to the risk of
an oil tanker with crew subject to weather and equipment malfunctions every day!

And this is a SMART president??

More importantly though.. EXPLAIN to me where the MSM is on this question..
Why Mr. President are you in favor of the higher chance and greater damage of another Exxon Valdez?

Please environmentalists... explain why a pipeline with 325 barrels is a greater risk then a 1 million barrel tanker on the ocean damaging thousands of miles?

they would rather have a train wreck carrying crude oil

spilling thousands of gallons of oil

in a city or in a pristine area

Massive oil spill in Minnesota as freight train carrying haul from Canada derailed and spilled 30,000 GALLONS of crude | Mail Online

 

[NYcarbineer]

800,000 GALLONS is NOT 1 million barrels!
Here let me help you ... a barrel is 42 gallons so ... 20,000 barrels more or less...
THAT is 1% of what an Exxon Valdez carried!

AGAIN WHAT is so hard to comprehend? 1 million barrels versus 325 barrels in one mile!

So you admit that tankers aren't safe to carry oil.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm trying to understand Obama/environmentalists logic which I know sounds like an oxymoron "Obama/environmentalists logic".. but WHY would any one want to risk another Exxon Valdez whereas the Keystone exposes at the most one mile to 325 barrels of oil in a spill?

Really explain to me how it is MORE risk to have a static pipeline that can be shut down in minutes if there is a leak and the worst spill could be in one mile of pipe with less then 80 barrels in a 1/4 of mile.. 160 barrels in a half mile.. YET...
To ship the oil to China 1 million barrels a day in a Tanker on the Pacific exposing thousands of square miles and coastlines as well as 100,000s of wild life... all to the risk of an oil tanker with crew subject to weather and equipment malfunctions every day!

And this is a SMART president??

Ohhhhhhhhhhh.....you White-Wingers prefer to FLY it , to China??!!!!

Stupid Fuckin' Teabaggers​

 

[auditor0007]

I'm trying to understand Obama/environmentalists logic which I know sounds like an oxymoron "Obama/environmentalists logic".. but WHY would any one want to risk another Exxon Valdez whereas the Keystone exposes at the most one mile to 325 barrels of oil in a spill?

Really explain to me how it is MORE risk to have a static pipeline that can be shut down in minutes if there is a leak and the worst spill could be in one mile of pipe with less then 80 barrels in a 1/4 of mile.. 160 barrels in a half mile.. YET...
To ship the oil to China 1 million barrels a day in a Tanker on the Pacific exposing thousands of square miles and coastlines as well as 100,000s of wild life... all to the risk of
an oil tanker with crew subject to weather and equipment malfunctions every day!

And this is a SMART president??

More importantly though.. EXPLAIN to me where the MSM is on this question..
Why Mr. President are you in favor of the higher chance and greater damage of another Exxon Valdez?

Please environmentalists... explain why a pipeline with 325 barrels is a greater risk then a 1 million barrel tanker on the ocean damaging thousands of miles?

I actually do support the pipeline and think it should be built, but there is another side to the issue.

[ame=http://youtu.be/u30m8U6VP3E]Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube[/ame]

These pipeline breaks happen more than you may think.

http://albertandp.ca/news/details/faulty_oil_pipelines_burst_50_more_often

How often do oil pipelines burst? | GreenAnswers

The Truth About Leaky Pipelines - DailyFinance

 

[ba1614]

Envronmentalist in Canada are fighting the Kitimat pipeline as well.

The Keystone segment coming to Texas does not require ferderal approval.

The border crossing section will be approved this year.

The refined product will be exported and will not lead to lower fuel cost in the US.

The ones financed by the likes of the Sierra club.

 

[Borillar]

800,000 GALLONS is NOT 1 million barrels!
Here let me help you ... a barrel is 42 gallons so ... 20,000 barrels more or less...
THAT is 1% of what an Exxon Valdez carried!

AGAIN WHAT is so hard to comprehend? 1 million barrels versus 325 barrels in one mile!

If the oil is to go to China, it will go on a tanker regardless of this pipeline. I do agree though that a breached pipeline poses less of an environmental threat than another Exxon Valdez type of incident, or a deep sea spill like the BP spill in the Gulf.

 

[healthmyths]

Thank you for obviously being smarter then the opponents who pretend they are environmentally concerned but evidently can't comprehend that 1 million barrels traveling one mile is a greater environmental risk then 325 barrels traveling one mile in a pipeline.