Keystone pipeline Canada

[healthmyths]

Fuzzy Math dude. The pipeline 1,700 miles long, holds 700 gls a mile (according to you), so that is more than your oil tanker.

1,700-miles X 700 bls = 1,190,000 barrels

One fracture would drain the entire pipeline?

Would one fracture drain the entire ship?

OK how about oil tankers???
Approximately 5.7 million tonnes of oil were lost as a result of tanker incidents from 1970 to 2011.
http://www.itopf.com/information-services/publications/documents/STATSPACK2011.pdf

5,700,000 tons of oil spilled over 41 years...

5,700,000 tons is equal to 11.4 billion pounds of oil
one barrel contains 42 gallons or at 16 oz per pound 168 pounds of oil
11.4 billion pounds spilled over 41 years is 67.857 million barrels of oil spilled OR

1,655,052 barrels spilled per year by oil tankers!


Moved by Pipeline transportation
Interstate pipelines deliver over 11.3 billion barrels of petroleum each year.
AOPL*| Why Pipelines?

So if there are 11.3 BILLION barrels per year and pipelines average .88 Gallons per million barrels oil spilled by pipeline:
9,944 barrels.


WHICH SPILLS the more OIL per year????

 

[Bfgrn]

I am truly amazed at the ignorance of people on this board!!!

I am trying to understand WHY this is such a hard concept to handle!

IF you don't have the Keystone pipeline Canada will sell the oil to China.

But not as much as I am amazed at your ignorance!!!

You see the Keystone XL pipeline is intended to divert Canadian oil from the Midwest, where it can only be sold in the USA, to the deep water ports in the Gulf where it can be exported to the world, including China.

That means that either way the oil ends up on tankers going to China, the only difference is without the Keystone XL only Canadian land is at risk while the oil is passing through the pipeline, with the Keystone XL pipeline American soil is at risk. But either way the oil ultimately ends up on ships going to China.

SO YOU WOULD prefer 1 million barrels per day floating on 6,000 miles of ocean completely around the western USA then having a pipeline that at any one time has less then 700 barrels in one mile of USA LANDSCAPE???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? The Risk of the OIL traveling through a pipeline is less dangerous to the USA landscape then the risk of 1 million barrels a day in ONE ship on the open ocean!
Once it gets into the Gulf it would travel IN at least LESS risky open waters environment. But at least NOT on USA coast land!

People don't live in the ocean. The ocean does not provide water to farms in eight states, accounting for a quarter of the nation’s cropland, as well as municipal drinking wells. The the massive Ogallala Aquifer — one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water DOES.

 

[Mr. H.]

I am truly amazed at the ignorance of people on this board!!!

I am trying to understand WHY this is such a hard concept to handle!

IF you don't have the Keystone pipeline Canada will sell the oil to China.

But not as much as I am amazed at your ignorance!!!

You see the Keystone XL pipeline is intended to divert Canadian oil from the Midwest, where it can only be sold in the USA, to the deep water ports in the Gulf where it can be exported to the world, including China.

That means that either way the oil ends up on tankers going to China, the only difference is without the Keystone XL only Canadian land is at risk while the oil is passing through the pipeline, with the Keystone XL pipeline American soil is at risk. But either way the oil ultimately ends up on ships going to China.

ed, you ignorant slut...

A small fraction of the crude may be exported, but that is inconsequential.
While you're at it, reference a credible source that states otherwise.

"American soil at risk"?

Agriculture spreads 750 million pounds of poisons on our soil every year, and they will continue to do so in perpetuity. Crude is no more the "toxic".

 

[edthecynic]

I am truly amazed at the ignorance of people on this board!!!

I am trying to understand WHY this is such a hard concept to handle!

IF you don't have the Keystone pipeline Canada will sell the oil to China.

But not as much as I am amazed at your ignorance!!!

You see the Keystone XL pipeline is intended to divert Canadian oil from the Midwest, where it can only be sold in the USA, to the deep water ports in the Gulf where it can be exported to the world, including China.

That means that either way the oil ends up on tankers going to China, the only difference is without the Keystone XL only Canadian land is at risk while the oil is passing through the pipeline, with the Keystone XL pipeline American soil is at risk. But either way the oil ultimately ends up on ships going to China.

SO YOU WOULD prefer 1 million barrels per day floating on 6,000 miles of ocean completely around the western USA then having a pipeline that at any one time has less then 700 barrels in one mile of USA LANDSCAPE???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? The Risk of the OIL traveling through a pipeline is less dangerous to the USA landscape then the risk of 1 million barrels a day in ONE ship on the open ocean!
Once it gets into the Gulf it would travel IN at least LESS risky open waters environment. But at least NOT on USA coast land!

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? The oil is going in a SHIP on the open ocean to CHINA even with the Keystone XL pipeline. It is a longer route to China from the Gulf than from the west coast of Canada putting more of the US coastline in jeopardy.

 

[edthecynic]

I am truly amazed at the ignorance of people on this board!!!

I am trying to understand WHY this is such a hard concept to handle!

IF you don't have the Keystone pipeline Canada will sell the oil to China.

But not as much as I am amazed at your ignorance!!!

You see the Keystone XL pipeline is intended to divert Canadian oil from the Midwest, where it can only be sold in the USA, to the deep water ports in the Gulf where it can be exported to the world, including China.

That means that either way the oil ends up on tankers going to China, the only difference is without the Keystone XL only Canadian land is at risk while the oil is passing through the pipeline, with the Keystone XL pipeline American soil is at risk. But either way the oil ultimately ends up on ships going to China.

ed, you ignorant slut...

A small fraction of the crude may be exported, but that is inconsequential.
While you're at it, reference a credible source that states otherwise.

"American soil at risk"?

Agriculture spreads 750 million pounds of poisons on our soil every year, and they will continue to do so in perpetuity. Crude is no more the "toxic".

You made the claim, reference a credible source that supports YOUR claim. May I remind you that Canada was asked to make a contract to sell the Keystone XL oil in the USA and they refused citing contracts have already been made for export with companies like Valero that would be lost, so apparently enough will be exported that it would not be profitable without the exports.

 

[healthmyths]

But not as much as I am amazed at your ignorance!!!

You see the Keystone XL pipeline is intended to divert Canadian oil from the Midwest, where it can only be sold in the USA, to the deep water ports in the Gulf where it can be exported to the world, including China.

That means that either way the oil ends up on tankers going to China, the only difference is without the Keystone XL only Canadian land is at risk while the oil is passing through the pipeline, with the Keystone XL pipeline American soil is at risk. But either way the oil ultimately ends up on ships going to China.

SO YOU WOULD prefer 1 million barrels per day floating on 6,000 miles of ocean completely around the western USA then having a pipeline that at any one time has less then 700 barrels in one mile of USA LANDSCAPE???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? The Risk of the OIL traveling through a pipeline is less dangerous to the USA landscape then the risk of 1 million barrels a day in ONE ship on the open ocean!
Once it gets into the Gulf it would travel IN at least LESS risky open waters environment. But at least NOT on USA coast land!

People don't live in the ocean. The ocean does not provide water to farms in eight states, accounting for a quarter of the nation’s cropland, as well as municipal drinking wells. The the massive Ogallala Aquifer — one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water DOES.

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

Wildlife value is measured by the cost to obtain or rehabilitate them. For example, zoos pay as much as $50,000 dollars to capture an otter. The cost of losing 2,800 of these endangered species is $140 million. Exxon paid between $40,000-$90,000 to rehabilitate them, confirming the otter's value. Harbor seals go for $20,000, so losing 302 costs $604,000. Most sea birds cost $300 each, so losing 250,000 costs $75 million. Eagles cost $22,000 to rehabilitate, so 140 are worth $3 million. Total cost for just these four species in the first week was $218.6 million. (Source: Replacement Costs of Birds and Mammals)
Economic Impact of Exxon Oil Spill:

Fisheries for salmon, herring, crab, shrimp, rockfish and sablefish were closed, with some Shrimp and salmon commercial fisheries remaining closed through 1990. Herring and salmon species never fully recovered, which means the commercial fishing industry that depends on them haven't either. Over 2,000 Alaskan Native Americans and 13,000 other subsistence permit holders lost the source of their food. This continues today, as many are afraid of being poisoned by contaminated fish.
The tourism industry immediately lost over 26,000 jobs and more than $2.4 billion in sales. By 2003, it had recovered somewhat. Passive use cost the state $2.8 billion, and it too has never fully recovered since vacationers still think of the area as contaminated. (Source:NOAA)

Now, 20 years after the spill, about 20 acres of Prince William Sound shoreline are still contaminated with oil. Two species have never come back, ten species haven't quite come back, and five are unknown. Until all species recover, the economy that depends upon them cannot fully recover, either.
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Facts

NOW give me FACTS about the Ogallala Aquifer?
How many miles will the pipeline be in contact with the Ogallala Aquifer?

GIVE ME FACTS LIKE I just gave you!

 

[healthmyths]

FACTS!!!

Seventy-five to 80 percent of the aquifer lies west of the proposed pipeline route.
The aquifer is sloped downward going east.
If there were a spill, that entire section is unavailable to be harmed because water cannot move uphill.
The 15 to 20 percent left, Goeke says, is in very little risk thanks to abundant fine-grain clays, sediment and sandstone separating the aquifer and potential contaminants from the pipeline.
While Goeke agrees 20 percent would be a problem, he thinks the chances of a leak reaching the aquifer are very minimal.
“It can’t get down to the water table because of the nature of the sediments in the unsaturated zone,” he said.

http://www.dailynebraskan.com/endowment/article_2b26fc40-a547-11e2-9605-001a4bcf6878.html

FACTS NOT hysteria!!!

 

[Bfgrn]

Keystone XL pipeline may threaten aquifer that irrigates much of the central U.S. - Washington Post

The spongelike aquifer formed more than 20 million years ago, when erosions of gravel and sand from the Rocky Mountains were washed downstream. It is replenished by rain and melting snow, but it gets just two to five inches of precipitation a year, according to a *TransCanada filing to the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Much of the water it holds was absorbed thousands or millions of years ago.

In some places the aquifer is buried 1,200 feet deep, but in many places it is at or very close to the surface, often less than five feet below ground. In these places, you can literally stick a stake in the ground and hit water. Extensive stretches of Nebraska’s plains require no irrigation; to keep cattle watered, ranchers just dig a hole and the water flows in.

That’s where concerns about the Keystone XL came in. Its original route traversed 92 miles of the Sand Hills and the Ogallala. TransCanada, which said it would bury the pipeline at least four feet underground, could in many places be putting it in water.

If the pipeline should spring a leak where it touches the aquifer or even above it, Kleeb and other opponents say, oil could quickly seep into and through the porous, sandy soil. The Ogallala, Kleeb said last year in a television interview, is “a very fragile ecosystem, literally made of sand. . . . To have a pipeline crossing that region is just mind-boggling.”

She cited University of Nebraska civil engineering professor John Stansbury, who drew on pipelines’ history and TransCanada regulatory filings to predict that during the projected 50-year life span of the pipeline, “there would be 91 leaks . . . that could potentially put 6.5 million gallons of tar sands oil in the Ogallala aquifer and essentially contaminate our drinking water.”

He maintained that a worst-case spill in the Sand Hills region could pollute 4.9 billion gallons of groundwater with a “plume” of contaminants 40 feet thick, 500 feet wide and 15 miles long.

The message rallied Nebraskans from ranches to cities, and it was what President Obama pointed to in January when he rejected the initial Keystone XL route. In May, TransCanada submitted a revised route to the State Department, bypassing the Sand Hills but still passing over some parts of the aquifer.

“The Ogallala aquifer is the greatest underground water source, I believe, in the world,” said Gerald E. Happ, whose ranch in Greeley the pipeline originally would have crossed. “And it’s the purest. . . . And we need the water, and maybe the water may be way more precious than the oil sometime in the future.”

 

[Mr. H.]

Agriculture is responsible for most of the depletion of groundwater, along with up to 70 per cent of the pollution. Both are accelerating.

Content : Groundwater depletion and pollution

There was a good newspaper article written about the devastating effects of agriculture on the Ogallala aquifer. It's been happening for decades.

Well... the powers that be must have wiped it from cyber space because I never had a problem finding it via Google search until recently.

 

[Mr. H.]

Found it...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/polluting-the-ogallala-aquifer.html?_r=1&

 

[Bfgrn]

The Impact of Tar Sands Pipeline Spills on Employment and the Economy
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

About this report

This report examines the potentially negative impacts of tar sands oil spills on employment and the economy. It draws attention to economic sectors at risk from a tar sands pipeline spill, particularly in the six states along Keystone XL’s proposed route Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This report also shows how Michigan’s Kalamazoo River spill in 2010—to date the largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S.—caused significant economic damage and negatively impacted the quality of life of local communities.

The information was collected from employment and economic data in the pipeline states, as well as from interviews with businesspeople, landowners, farmers, and ranchers who live and work along the proposed route for the Keystone XL or near the Kalamazoo River oil spill.

Main Findings

• The negative impacts on employment and the economy of tar sands pipelines have largely been ignored. To date, a comprehensive spills risk assessment for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has not been conducted. Such an assessment would provide an independent review of both the risk of spills and their economic consequences.

• The Keystone XL pipeline would cut through America’s breadbasket. Agricultural land and rangeland comprise 79 percent of the land that would be affected by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It would cross more than 1,700 bodies of water, including the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers and the Ogallala and Carrizo-Wilcox aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer alone supplies 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S. It also supplies two million people with drinking water.

• Farming, ranching, and tourism are major sources of employment along the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed route. Water contamination resulting from a Keystone XL spill, or the cumulative effect of spills over the lifetime of the pipeline, would have significant economic costs and could result in job loss in these sectors. Approximately 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the six states along the Keystone XL corridor. Total agricultural output for these states is about $76 billion annually.

• Many of the land areas and bodies of water that Keystone XL will cross provide recreational opportunities vital to the tourism industry. Keystone XL would traverse 90.5 miles of recreation and special interest areas, including federal public lands, state parks and forests, and national historic trails. About 780,000 workers are employed in the tourism sector in the states along the Keystone XL pipeline. Tourism spending in these states totaled more than $67 billion in 2009.

• Recent experience has demonstrated that tar sands spills pose additional dangers to the public and present special challenges in terms of clean up. There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks. Therefore both the frequency and particular nature of the spills have negative economic implications.

• The Kalamazoo River tar sands spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S. occurred on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. This spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The Kalamazoo spill is the most expensive tar sands pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, with overall costs estimated at $725 million.

• The public debate around Keystone XL has focused almost exclusively on job creation from the project, yet existing jobs and economic sectors could suffer significantly from one or more spills from Keystone XL. According to the U.S. State Department, the six states along the pipeline route are expected to gain a total of 20 permanent pipeline operation jobs. Meanwhile, the agricultural and tourism sectors are already a major employer in these states. Potential job losses to these sectors resulting from one or more spills from Keystone XL could be considerable.

• Renewable energy provides a safer route to creating new jobs and a sustainable environment. The U.S. is leading the world in renewable energy investments, and employment in this sector has expanded in recent years.

The full report can be downloaded here: Cornell University - ILR School: Global Labor Institute - Tar Sands Pipeline Spill

 

[Surfer]

Send the American workers to Canada and build the pipeline on their land, not ours.

So they can pay into the Canadian system, buying and renting Canadian properties, buying Canadian products, paying Canadian taxes and keeping Canada working?
What an absolutely foolish idea.

 

[Moonglow]

please tell me Einsteins, are you wanting a pipe line built to China also?

 

[Bfgrn]

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

Main Findings

The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:

• The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.

• The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

• The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

• There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

• The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

• KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

• KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

• Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.

• Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.

• By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf

 

[JoeBlam]

First, the Ogallala Aquifer is being avoided in the new plan, not that it was in any danger of a spill from oil with the viscosity of warm mud. And secondly, the only refined products leaving Houston for asia will be the crap we don't sell here anymore....like white gas/ low-grade kerosene. The Keystone XL will end any need we have to buy oil from Venezuela which rubs our stalinsts raw I'm sure. Not that it really matters to these moron leftists....you can silence them with facts yet an hour later they're muttering the same lies.....I call it the Kelly Bundy Syndrome....they have to forget something before they can learn something new....only so much useable space between their ears.

 

[JoeBlam]

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

Main Findings

The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:

• The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.

• The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

• The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

• There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

• The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

• KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

• KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

• Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.

• Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.

• By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf

Check into who funded this crock.....I know you're not interested but cluster-fucks of assumptions by pinhead Ivy League enviros have nothing in common with reality. In fact this one is so weak, I won't bother destroying it.

 

[hortysir]

But not as much as I am amazed at your ignorance!!!

You see the Keystone XL pipeline is intended to divert Canadian oil from the Midwest, where it can only be sold in the USA, to the deep water ports in the Gulf where it can be exported to the world, including China.

That means that either way the oil ends up on tankers going to China, the only difference is without the Keystone XL only Canadian land is at risk while the oil is passing through the pipeline, with the Keystone XL pipeline American soil is at risk. But either way the oil ultimately ends up on ships going to China.

SO YOU WOULD prefer 1 million barrels per day floating on 6,000 miles of ocean completely around the western USA then having a pipeline that at any one time has less then 700 barrels in one mile of USA LANDSCAPE???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? The Risk of the OIL traveling through a pipeline is less dangerous to the USA landscape then the risk of 1 million barrels a day in ONE ship on the open ocean!
Once it gets into the Gulf it would travel IN at least LESS risky open waters environment. But at least NOT on USA coast land!

People don't live in the ocean. The ocean does not provide water to farms in eight states, accounting for a quarter of the nation’s cropland, as well as municipal drinking wells. The the massive Ogallala Aquifer — one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water DOES.

People live on the ocean
People live off of the ocean's resources

Rivers and other tributaries connect to the oceans and gulfs

But nevermind tham

 

[G.T.]

obsessed much?>

US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum - Search Results

 

[Bfgrn]

SO YOU WOULD prefer 1 million barrels per day floating on 6,000 miles of ocean completely around the western USA then having a pipeline that at any one time has less then 700 barrels in one mile of USA LANDSCAPE???

DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? The Risk of the OIL traveling through a pipeline is less dangerous to the USA landscape then the risk of 1 million barrels a day in ONE ship on the open ocean!
Once it gets into the Gulf it would travel IN at least LESS risky open waters environment. But at least NOT on USA coast land!

People don't live in the ocean. The ocean does not provide water to farms in eight states, accounting for a quarter of the nation’s cropland, as well as municipal drinking wells. The the massive Ogallala Aquifer — one of the world’s largest underground sources of fresh water DOES.

People live on the ocean
People live off of the ocean's resources

Rivers and other tributaries connect to the oceans and gulfs

But nevermind tham

Then we sure as hell shouldn't be drilling for oil in the ocean, now should we? But nothing can happen...it's perfectly safe...

 

[Surfer]

The pathetic thing is that we have enough oil for 10 lifetimes. We should be drilling more of the Gulf, ANWR and anywhere else we want. This is *OUR* land to use and live off. God did not put oil in the earth for it just to sit there. Stupid liberal tree-hugging morons...