Keystone Pipeline: Yes Or No

[ba1614]

This pipeline is the answer to all of our economic woes.
This pipeline will go a long way to making us energy independent.
There is absolutely no environmental threat posed by this pipeline.
The opponents to this pipeline are all just whacky environmentalists.

Exactly. There's already 20 000 some miles of pipeline on this Aquifer they are worried about, 2 000 of which is used for hazardous liquids. There are cities and industry polluting it, farms using their fertilizers and chemicals. But these environmentalists would have the brainwashed believe this new state of the art pipeline is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.

 

[Sarah G]

I think it is going backwards, we should be looking harder at alternative energy/fuel. Even if you all are thinking it will create jobs, so will new and inovative ideas in this area. We will need to change soon enough.

And they would be what? What do we have tht can replace oil/gas now or any time soon,we have to live now not in a land we would like. Work twords development of new tech,and use what we have available now.

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

 

[ba1614]

I think it is going backwards, we should be looking harder at alternative energy/fuel. Even if you all are thinking it will create jobs, so will new and inovative ideas in this area. We will need to change soon enough.

And they would be what? What do we have tht can replace oil/gas now or any time soon,we have to live now not in a land we would like. Work twords development of new tech,and use what we have available now.

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

We have, at minimum, 200yrs worth left yet, and we put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We can surely come up with a realistic option, in an honest manner, long before we run out.

 

[healthmyths]

This pipeline is the answer to all of our economic woes.
This pipeline will go a long way to making us energy independent.
There is absolutely no environmental threat posed by this pipeline.
The opponents to this pipeline are all just whacky environmentalists.

Exactly. There's already 20 000 some miles of pipeline on this Aquifer they are worried about, 2 000 of which is used for hazardous liquids. There are cities and industry polluting it, farms using their fertilizers and chemicals. But these environmentalists would have the brainwashed believe this new state of the art pipeline is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.

I've not heard these environmentalists retort to what would happen if Canada sells to China that uses 1 million barrel supertankers to move each day equal to pipeline with the frequency of shipwrecks AND potential spillage equal to ENTIRE pipeline emptying into the Arctic Sea spoiling the pure white polar bears BLACK!!!

 

[tinydancer]

I think it is going backwards, we should be looking harder at alternative energy/fuel. Even if you all are thinking it will create jobs, so will new and inovative ideas in this area. We will need to change soon enough.

And they would be what? What do we have tht can replace oil/gas now or any time soon,we have to live now not in a land we would like. Work twords development of new tech,and use what we have available now.

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

Sarah G I know your heart is in the right place. I know you care.

BUT we really won't run out of oil anytime soon. But a big piece of going off the grid from conventional energy is your willingness to rid your hands of the luxuries sp? that come from the grid.

For example I had the best of neighbors, well I hate people but these guys were cool, but their solar panel could not support them because they wanted basically 5 computers off the grid so everyone in the house could have their entertainment.

No way one panel is going to cut it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And they would be what? What do we have tht can replace oil/gas now or any time soon,we have to live now not in a land we would like. Work twords development of new tech,and use what we have available now.

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

We have, at minimum, 200yrs worth left yet, and we put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We can surely come up with a realistic option, in an honest manner, long before we run out.

Proverb: "The best time to plant a tree is 1000 years ago. The next best time is RIGHT NOW"

I, for one, rest assured in the knowledge that the oil industry, with firm guidance from our diligent, responsible, elected officials, will oversee their own extinction in favor of developing new energy technology. They are just waiting for the right time.

They would never desire oil prices that are 10 times what they are now with a populace that still needs the stuff to get by. No way.......why would they?

 

[tinydancer]

This pipeline is the answer to all of our economic woes.
This pipeline will go a long way to making us energy independent.
There is absolutely no environmental threat posed by this pipeline.
The opponents to this pipeline are all just whacky environmentalists.

Exactly. There's already 20 000 some miles of pipeline on this Aquifer they are worried about, 2 000 of which is used for hazardous liquids. There are cities and industry polluting it, farms using their fertilizers and chemicals. But these environmentalists would have the brainwashed believe this new state of the art pipeline is an ecological disaster waiting to happen.

When I learned that there was all this pipeline across Ogallala sp?I knew this was a bs situation.

I think Keystone was only going to be a 200 something. Now I am thrilled to death that they won't go over the aquifer and damn straight they shouldn't even be considering this. But it really makes you wonder why other State individuals allowed 20,000 miles go across the aquifer.

You should fight to the death over allowing anything to venture a gain over water.

 

[BOBO]

Big Money enviros work for the crude extraction companies as 'front men'. The louder the enviros scream about environmental impact the more negative the public opinion is towards extraction/refinement. This cuts back on both crude extraction & refinement allowing the crude extraction corporations to raise the price of their products due to supply & demand. Does one make more profit by selling a lot of milk at 1.03$ per gallon or selling a little less milk at 3.89$ a gallon? I found out about the enviro/crude extraction companies in it together when I was working up in Alaska. When it comes to the squeaky wheel gets greased, WHY do you think the enviros SQUEAK so loud?!!!!

 

[Sarah G]

And they would be what? What do we have tht can replace oil/gas now or any time soon,we have to live now not in a land we would like. Work twords development of new tech,and use what we have available now.

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

We have, at minimum, 200yrs worth left yet, and we put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We can surely come up with a realistic option, in an honest manner, long before we run out.

We do? Or the middle east does..

 

[ba1614]

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

We have, at minimum, 200yrs worth left yet, and we put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We can surely come up with a realistic option, in an honest manner, long before we run out.

We do? Or the middle east does..

Between America and Canada

 

[mudwhistle]

I think it is going backwards, we should be looking harder at alternative energy/fuel. Even if you all are thinking it will create jobs, so will new and inovative ideas in this area. We will need to change soon enough.

The only way alternatives become feasible is if fossil fuels become more expensive.

Do you see now why Democrats want higher gas prices?

The reason Solyndra went bankrupt is because there was no market for their government subsidized product. Even with the subsidies they couldn't be competitive.....because of government regulations. The Chinese make a cheaper product thanks to the EPA.

The liberals are the biggest supporters and yet the biggest road-block to alternative energy.

 

[healthmyths]

And they would be what? What do we have tht can replace oil/gas now or any time soon,we have to live now not in a land we would like. Work twords development of new tech,and use what we have available now.

We have to get serious about research, continuous drilling mentality isn't getting us any closer to that end. We'll run out of oil soon and then everyone will be suffering.

We have, at minimum, 200yrs worth left yet, and we put a man on the moon in less than a decade. We can surely come up with a realistic option, in an honest manner, long before we run out.

OH..OH.. hand wringing time again...

Evidently YOU ARE NOT old enough to remember AS I do when my son was born 1970 and the oil crisis of 1973!!!


I was like you hand wringing "why this dependency on oil" mentality!
Then I read "Whale oil, Arab oil and No oil"
Technology: whale oil, arab oil and ... - Gould Inc - Google Books

OH... my.. and the point was at one time what were we going to do for lights when "whale oil" was gone cause no more dead whales!
Then we had Arab Oil... and then "NO OIL"!
30 years ago!
The point is "hand wringing" about OIL is cyclical!
200 year supply! Wow..

The problem of course was that all these horses produced huge amounts of manure. A horse will on average produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day
Each horse also produced about a quart of urine daily, which added up to around 40,000 gallons per day for New York and Brooklyn.
This in turn attracted huge numbers of flies, and the dried and ground-up manure was blown everywhere.
Hospitals Search Form

One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows.
“Crossing sweepers” stood on street corners; for a fee they would clear a path through the mire for pedestrians
In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn
vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003;
Dead horses were extremely unwieldy, and although special horse removal vehicles were employed, the technology of the era could not easily move
such a burden. As a result, street cleaners often waited for the corpses to putrefy so they could more easily be sawed into pieces and carted off.
The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

POINT IS wring your hands... but have a little faith that in 200 years from now WE PROBABLY we'll be "beam me up Scotty"!!!
You know that today.. there are Internet sensitive gloves that provide feed back to distance servers as to where you move your mouse?

Well future enhancements will be "pulse" sensors that will advise web site of your titillation rate..i.e. how excited you were to viewing their images!

Why do you need to drive then to a massage parlor OK???

 

[Old Rocks]

This is especially tough for me. I find myself on the opposite side of my poster friends here who i'm usually with on issues. And my point of view on this is taking a pounding in this poll too. But i really do believe in preserving our beautiful nature in this country. It's not about the money for me. This is one we should definitely pass on.

Tar Sands Basics

Both mining and processing of tar sands involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land; impacts on wildlife and air and water quality. The development of a commercial tar sands industry in the U.S. would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Of special concern in the relatively arid western United States is the large amount of water required for tar sands processing; currently, tar sands extraction and processing require several barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced, though some of the water can be recycled.

 

[Old Rocks]

Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands Development in Alberta | Energy Bulletin

Oil sands development is carbon-intensive. The production and upgrading required to produce synthetic crude oil from oil sands mining results in greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 62 to 164 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per barrel. In situ development, which is generally more carbon-intensive than mining, results in emission rates between 99 and 176 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per barrel.10 Although there is a high degree of variation, industry average emissions for oil sands production and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as conventional crude produced in North America.11 Canadian government reports similarly suggest that “GHG emissions from oil sands mining and upgrading are about five times greater than those from conventional light/medium crude oil production.”12 Even if you look at it from a full life-cycle “well-to-wheels” basis, oil sands are overall still one of the most greenhouse gas intensive fuel sources.13

While Canada was one of the 39 industrialized countries that signed on to the Kyoto Protocol in 2002 to reduce its national greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels,14 it has since backed down from these obligations. Canada has earned the reputation of being obstructionist to international climate change negotiations as we approach the Copenhagen summit.15 More on this topic can be found in the report: The Climate Implications of Canada’s Oil Sands Development and Carbon Capture and Storage in Canada.

 

[Old Rocks]

Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands Development in Alberta | Energy Bulletin

Water Use
Producing a barrel of synthetic crude oil from the oil sands by mining requires two to four barrels of fresh water after taking into account water recycling.16 Companies are currently licensed to withdraw over 590,000,000 cubic metres of water per year, which is roughly equivalent to what a city of 3 million people would require.17 Water for oil sands mining is pumped from the Athabasca River, a river that fluctuates seasonally as well as year to year, and withdrawing water during natural low flow periods (which occur primarily in the winter) has the potential to harm aquatic life in the river.18 This water cannot be returned to the river system because it becomes toxic in the extraction process and must be retained in tailings ponds.

In situ development is less water intensive at approximately 0.9 barrels of water per barrel of oil, yet this is still higher than water use for conventional oil production, which averages 0.1-0.3 barrels of water per barrel of oil.19 In situ operations produce steam from fresh and saline water sources that is then injected to “help reduce the viscosity" (melt) the bitumen in the reservoir so it can be pumped out. Wastewater produced by in situ development is not contained in tailings ponds, but rather injected into deep aquifers on site.20 See Down to the Last Drop: The Athabasca River and Oil Sands and Troubled Waters, Troubling Trends for more information on water in the oil sands.

 

[Old Rocks]

Environmental Impacts of Oil Sands Development in Alberta | Energy Bulletin

The liquid tailings, a by product of the oil sands mining process, contain naphthenic acids, unrecovered hydrocarbons and trace metals, making it toxic to aquatic organisms21 and mammals22.

Operators are required to store tailings waste on site in large containment dykes because the water is too toxic to be returned to the Athabasca River under water quality guidelines.

There are currently over 720 billion litres of toxic tailings on the landscape in the Athabasca oil sands area.23 These ponds cover an area of more than 130 square kilometres. By 2040 these tailings are expected to occupy 310 square kilometres, an area nearly the size of Vancouver.24 No tailings ponds have been reclaimed to date. More information on tailings and reclamation can be found in Pembina’s report Fact or Fiction: Oil Sands Reclamation.

One of the major concerns associated with tailings ponds is the migration of pollutants through the groundwater system, which can in turn leak into surrounding soil and surface water.25 There is currently a lack of publicly available information on the rate and volume of seepage from oil sands tailings ponds, despite known incidents involving tailings seepage.26

A dominant plan for reclaiming liquid tailings at mine closure is to deposit them in end pit lakes. Tailings would be dumped into old mine pits and capped with water from the Athabasca River.27 This method is unproven. The concern is that the water and tailings layers will mix and there is also some fear that the end pit lakes will be unable to sustain aquatic life. However, many mining projects to date have been approved based on dealing with tailings in this manner. A fully realized end pit lake has not yet been constructed.28

 

[ba1614]

Oldrocks is the king of dismissing links, then uses links from the "post carbon institute" like they don't have an agenda and are to be blindly believed. lol

 

[Mr. H.]

Mr. Rocks, this thread is about a pipeline.
Jobs, economic activity, development, reduction of imports from very bad people, etc.

If you want to attack a really dirty, polluting industry I suggest you focus more on agriculture and it's pet offshoot ethanol.