Anyone who disputes this .. have lost touch with reality...

[healthmyths]

Facts and rationality never got in the way of a Liberal or an environmentalist.

Keystone is the hot-button topic du jour. They are having a field day with it and the only way to defeat it is to appeal to emotional irrational fears.

you know, h… i'd say that it's kind of bizarre for the right to not give a flying whatever about our environment.

so maybe before you dismiss everyone who hasn't been sucked in by multi-national corporations, the discussion should at least be had.

i think that's the problem with the right… the totally dismissive way anything that's socially responsible is treated.

I sit on a petroleum industry-funded board and we spend about $100,000/year by partnering with our state's Department of Natural Resources in identifying abandoned drilling and production facilities throughout the state. We take it upon ourselves to pay for the clean up and remediation of these "brownfields".

Our next project we are working on is partnering with soil and water conservation districts toward the remediation of similarly brine-damaged sites. We've gone through about $50,000 just in the planning stages. It will ultimately end up being a million dollar project. I, and my peers, do give a flying whatever.

THANK YOU!

The truly sad thing is there are a majority of people like you silently without fanfare doing the "Golden Rule" in a practical common sense manner regarding the environment, helping the poor again living the "Golden Rule"!

Unfortunately the MSM intent on reporting the EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE which is what you guys have done.
The low information 30 second sound bite idiots that blather about "save the trees" are nothing but publicity whores!
Instead of quietly helping without fanfare such as you've done.. the MSM loudly and inaccurate report the exceptions.

Thank you again for your quiet behind the scenes help again.. practicing the "Golden Rule" on a very practical common sense level!
Thank you!

 

[ABikerSailor]

One of the reasons that I have a problem with the Keystone pipeline is because of some of the areas it goes through (one of those places is right next to the Black Hills), and because of the type of oil that is going to be shipped via the pipeline.

You people DO realize that tar sands oil is thicker, and in order to make it flow through the pipeline, it needs an additive that allows it to flow, but if the pipe ever breaks, the additives will evaporate leaving only the thick tar sands oil, which DOESN'T float, but rather sinks to the bottom of whatever body of water it hits.

You thought cleaning up places like the Milk River in Montana was tough enough with regular oil, how much worse do you think it's going to be when you have to clean up oil that SINKS?

Especially in some of the water table areas that it goes through. Until the oil companies can assure us absolutely that they know how to effectively clean it up if catastrophe should strike, I say no to the pipeline.

Remember that farmer who had a pipeline break on his property, ruining several acres of good farming land for a long time?

Nope. We don't need the pipeline. The jobs created would be limited to around 2,500, the risk is too great, and the oil companies would simply use the Gulf to ship the oil to other countries around the world, which would then sell it back to us at an inflated price.

If the pipeline is such a good idea, why can't Canada run it from the tar sands area over to the port of Vancouver?

 

[Politico]

I would just for once see if there can be a 100% agreement about ANYTHING!
Even this dumb question of which has the greater environmental impact:
1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean one mile in a tanker
or 703 barrels traveling one mile in a pipe?

There shouldn't be any disagreement but obviously the people that don't agree again are not in touch with reality!!!

Agreement about what? It doesn't matter how many pipelines there are. There will always be tanker ships.

 

[DiamondDave]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

Yup... and..25,200,000 gallons from
The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response.
The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


SO??? Which is worse 25 million gallons or 38,000 gallons???
You can't possibly equate Kalamazoo river with 11,000 miles of ocean???

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF OIL SPILLS FROM ALL SOURCES

http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_statistics/paper1.pdf

And out come the environazi winger sources

 

[Interpol]

What I want to know is why pro-Keystoners are so keen to do Canada's work for them!

Canada needs the pipeline more than America does.

They're basically shipping the oil through America and out to mostly China.

America will take a kickback, but when a leak does happen, Americans will be suckers left cleaning it up.

Now, would I prefer pipelines over carrying oil by train? Yes. The train situation right now in North America doesn't seem to be working.

In the overall scheme, oilsands oil is the dirtiest oil around. It's also not economical. When you have to spend .50 cents to make a buck, it makes me wonder why we're not investing in alternative energy sources that don't require us to burn so much oil to get energy to send to China!

The jobs estimates when they did the pipeline in Alaska were totally wrong. The internet meme is that 500,000 Americans will gain jobs from this, but in reality there will only be a few thousand permanent jobs created.

Now, if we had cleaner, renewable energy sources, we'd create more jobs, we'd power ourselves cheaper, we'd have no more environmental disasters, whether that be hundreds of thousands of barrels spilled, or a few thousand.

The OP argues that it's okay to have just 700 barrels of oil spilled in your backyard. Anyone who argues it's okay to incur environmental disasters where we live is stupid.

America used to be able to do big things. After Pearl Harbor the President insisted we built 100,000 war planes over the next year. A monumental task. But 6 months later we had built twice that amount.

If our grandparents and great grandparents could do that, than we can transition faster to alternative energy solutions that both create jobs, lower cleanup costs, save us money, and give us clean energy. Doing that is less complicated than putting our faith in the idea that building the longest pipeline the world has ever seen and thinking nothing could possible go wrong with it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

How can anyone dispute these facts.

Exxon Valdez carried nearly 1,264,155 barrels in one tanker in one mile.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response.
The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A train carried about 40,000 barrels in 73 cars in one mile.

Keystone pipeline will carry over 1,179 miles 830,000 barrels in 24 hours or in one mile: 703 barrels of oil.

One tanker accident puts at risk 1.2 million barrels in the ocean probably worst weather situation.

One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.

One mile of pipeline having a leak in ALL of the ONE mile will spill 703 barrels.

Now for all you Keystone critics..i.e. people out of touch with reality...
Dispute the above facts...

Keystone pipeline will carry over 1,179 miles 830,000 barrels in 24 hours or in one mile: 703 barrels of oil.

sounds great

would cut down dramatically the risk of transporting oil

and can be used in the reverse to sell propane to the northern states

up until now there was no way in hell obama would have

signed off on the pipeline you see

his crony buddy warren buffett is a major stake holder

in the trains that bring the oil out of the fields BNSF

although now obama may be more then willing to sign off

since his crony buddy warren buffett became a major player

in the pipeline

of course after crony buddy warren buffetts train BNSF

crashed and burned in Casselton, North Dakota

Warren Buffett Bought Stake in Pipeline Company on Same Day as North Dakota Oil Train Explosion | DeSmogBlog

 

[Freewill]

One of the reasons that I have a problem with the Keystone pipeline is because of some of the areas it goes through (one of those places is right next to the Black Hills), and because of the type of oil that is going to be shipped via the pipeline.

You people DO realize that tar sands oil is thicker, and in order to make it flow through the pipeline, it needs an additive that allows it to flow, but if the pipe ever breaks, the additives will evaporate leaving only the thick tar sands oil, which DOESN'T float, but rather sinks to the bottom of whatever body of water it hits.

You thought cleaning up places like the Milk River in Montana was tough enough with regular oil, how much worse do you think it's going to be when you have to clean up oil that SINKS?

Especially in some of the water table areas that it goes through. Until the oil companies can assure us absolutely that they know how to effectively clean it up if catastrophe should strike, I say no to the pipeline.

Remember that farmer who had a pipeline break on his property, ruining several acres of good farming land for a long time?

Nope. We don't need the pipeline. The jobs created would be limited to around 2,500, the risk is too great, and the oil companies would simply use the Gulf to ship the oil to other countries around the world, which would then sell it back to us at an inflated price.

If the pipeline is such a good idea, why can't Canada run it from the tar sands area over to the port of Vancouver?

How is the Alaskan pipe line working out? The only leaks I have heard of was when someone intentionally shot the pipe line. The same arguments I hear today I heard then so I am wondering if the predictions of environmental damage for the Alaskan pipeline ever came true. And as pointed out, we have pipe lines EVERY where and once in awhile a natural gas line will rupture with explosive results.

 

[BlindBoo]

I would just for once see if there can be a 100% agreement about ANYTHING!
Even this dumb question of which has the greater environmental impact:
1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean one mile in a tanker
or 703 barrels traveling one mile in a pipe?

There shouldn't be any disagreement but obviously the people that don't agree again are not in touch with reality!!!

Pipelines account for more spills by volume than tankers.

 

[Edgetho]

How can anyone dispute these facts.

Exxon Valdez carried nearly 1,264,155 barrels in one tanker in one mile.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California struck Prince William Sound's Bligh Reef and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters. The Valdez spill was the largest ever in U.S. waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released. However, Prince William Sound's remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, and boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response.
The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline, and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.
Exxon Valdez oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A train carried about 40,000 barrels in 73 cars in one mile.

Keystone pipeline will carry over 1,179 miles 830,000 barrels in 24 hours or in one mile: 703 barrels of oil.

One tanker accident puts at risk 1.2 million barrels in the ocean probably worst weather situation.

One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.

One mile of pipeline having a leak in ALL of the ONE mile will spill 703 barrels.

Now for all you Keystone critics..i.e. people out of touch with reality...
Dispute the above facts...

I didn't read the rest of the posts, I just wanted to comment that I think the lying scumbag in chief okays the Keystone XL Pipeline in early to Mid October.

To dimocrap scum, EVERYTHING is about politics. EVERYTHING is about what benefits THEM.

 

[BlindBoo]

Anyone who is against the pipeline shouldn't be on a computer.
I mean how hypocritical can you get?
The environmental damage in the making/using/disposal of electronics is HUUUGE.
Planet haters.

I support the new pipeline mainly because we've seen the results of sending bitumen slurry through old pipelines.

 

[Edgetho]

I would just for once see if there can be a 100% agreement about ANYTHING!
Even this dumb question of which has the greater environmental impact:
1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean one mile in a tanker
or 703 barrels traveling one mile in a pipe?

There shouldn't be any disagreement but obviously the people that don't agree again are not in touch with reality!!!

Pipelines account for more spills by volume than tankers.

Maybe because there's more pipelines than there are tankers?

dimocraps are such morons

 

[kaz]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

Are you seriously arguing it's safer to put oil on boats and sail them across the ocean than to transport oil over land in a pipeline?

 

[BlindBoo]

I would just for once see if there can be a 100% agreement about ANYTHING!
Even this dumb question of which has the greater environmental impact:
1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean one mile in a tanker
or 703 barrels traveling one mile in a pipe?

There shouldn't be any disagreement but obviously the people that don't agree again are not in touch with reality!!!

Pipelines account for more spills by volume than tankers.

Maybe because there's more pipelines than there are tankers?

dimocraps are such morons

Pretty tough to get a tanker from Cushing OK to the refineries in Texas.

 

[healthmyths]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

Are you seriously arguing it's safer to put oil on boats and sail them across the ocean than to transport oil over land in a pipeline?

I KNOW!
It is so hard to understand why these people just can't face the reality that there is a greater chance of an accident on the ocean and if there is an accident greater damage done on the ocean!

No one argues pipelines won't have spills.

What is trying to be illustrated is there is a greater chance and a greater amount of damage with 1 million barrels on the open ocean traveling one mile versus one mile of pipeline carrying a MAXIMUM of 703 barrels.

 

[kaz]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

Are you seriously arguing it's safer to put oil on boats and sail them across the ocean than to transport oil over land in a pipeline?

I KNOW!
It is so hard to understand why these people just can't face the reality that there is a greater chance of an accident on the ocean and if there is an accident greater damage done on the ocean!

No one argues pipelines won't have spills.

What is trying to be illustrated is there is a greater chance and a greater amount of damage with 1 million barrels on the open ocean traveling one mile versus one mile of pipeline carrying a MAXIMUM of 703 barrels.

Not only do we ship the oil over the ocean, but in addition:

1) Most of the world's oil is under despotic governments and we're funding them by buying their oil

2) We're not providing jobs in America but to foreign countries. This while the left stretch we're exporting jobs.

BlindBoo is just making a classic leftists argument. If we want our solution, we have to prove that our solution is absolutely perfect. He is under no such constraint, if our solution is not perfect, he gets his. He has to prove nothing other than our solution is not in every way perfect.

 

[kaz]

Pipelines account for more spills by volume than tankers.

Maybe because there's more pipelines than there are tankers?

dimocraps are such morons

Pretty tough to get a tanker from Cushing OK to the refineries in Texas.

What is the relevance to providing a map which includes local transportation of refined gas to every region in the country which would be completely unaffected by the decision to pipe or ship crude oil to refineries?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For maybe 50 permanent jobs and no oil for the US.

Doesn't really matter how "oil" is moved.

 

[BlindBoo]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

Are you seriously arguing it's safer to put oil on boats and sail them across the ocean than to transport oil over land in a pipeline?

Who said anything about safety? It numbers. In reality the amount of oil spilled from just this one incident far exceeds the amount of oil the OP cites is in one mile of pipeline.

As far as safety goes, wouldn't it depend on where the accident at sea happened? Even if pipeline spills were less than tankers, the close proximity of the pipelines to humans make them more dangerous.

 

[rightwinger]

Who needs it?

What is in it for me?

 

[kaz]

703 barrels = 38,665 gallons.

In reality that's about 4.5% of what spilled from this pipeline.

Kalamazoo River oil spill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Sunday, July 25, 2010, at about 5:58 p.m. EDT, a 40-foot pipe segment in Line 6B, located approximately 0.6 of a mile downstream of the Marshall, Michigan pump station, ruptured.[1] The rupture in the Enbridge Energy pipeline caused a 877,000 US gallons (3,320 m3) spill of diluted bitumen also called tar sands or heavy crude oil originating from Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) into Talmadge Creek in Calhoun County, Michigan, which flows into the Kalamazoo River.

Are you seriously arguing it's safer to put oil on boats and sail them across the ocean than to transport oil over land in a pipeline?

Who said anything about safety? It numbers. In reality the amount of oil spilled from just this one incident far exceeds the amount of oil the OP cites is in one mile of pipeline.

As far as safety goes, wouldn't it depend on where the accident at sea happened? Even if pipeline spills were less than tankers, the close proximity of the pipelines to humans make them more dangerous.

What point are you arguing regarding pipelines and shipping?

BTW, only measuring the amount of oil as you did also misses the point that oil going into the ocean does a lot more damage than on land and is harder to contain. "Kaz" is short for my home town, Kalamazoo, Michigan. That spill did NOTHING like what happened in Alaska.