Morons Protest Keystone Pipeline

[Mr. H.]

Good, I hope they never build that pipeline, and the Canadian companies that think they are gonna get one over on us can go **** themselves!

"Get one over on us"?

You mean the same way Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait... etc. etc. are "getting one over" on us?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Good, I hope they never build that pipeline, and the Canadian companies that think they are gonna get one over on us can go **** themselves!

"Get one over on us"?

You mean the same way Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait... etc. etc. are "getting one over" on us?

Nope, I meant what I said.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Good, I hope they never build that pipeline, and the Canadian companies that think they are gonna get one over on us can go **** themselves!

"Get one over on us"?

You mean the same way Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait... etc. etc. are "getting one over" on us?

Those countries do not have a huge pipeline running through our country that could cause many oil spills and harm to our country's environment.

So my original statement stands!

 

[Mr. H.]

Good, I hope they never build that pipeline, and the Canadian companies that think they are gonna get one over on us can go **** themselves!

"Get one over on us"?

You mean the same way Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait... etc. etc. are "getting one over" on us?

Nope, I meant what I said.

And you obviously don't understand what I'm saying. Idiot.

 

[Mr. H.]

Good, I hope they never build that pipeline, and the Canadian companies that think they are gonna get one over on us can go **** themselves!

"Get one over on us"?

You mean the same way Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait... etc. etc. are "getting one over" on us?

Those countries do not have a huge pipeline running through our country that could cause many oil spills and harm to our country's environment.

So my original statement stands!

Nah, they just have supertankers plying our waters. And they ain't very friendly folks, neither.

Oh- our country's environment. Kinda like the effect of agriculture on our country's environment?

 

[tinydancer]

And especially not a Misinformation Voter's suit at all.

Somehow a pipeline 1/10 the size of the Keystone XL leaked 22,000 barrels of tar sand and chemical solvents, so obviously the number of barrels in a mile is meaningless to the size of the leak, but that disinformation is infinitely important to the Misinformation Voter.

A little more difficult to stop a leaking tanker, no?

As you well know, the purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to allow Canada to export their products ON TANKERS taking advantage of the deep water ports in the Gulf.

So the Keystone XL does not eliminate the potential tanker leaks from the equation, but instead ADDS in more pipeline leak potential to the equation.
BRILLIANT!

This phase is already proceeding. It was already approved.

TransCanada Proceeds With Cushing To Gulf Coast Portion Of Keystone XL

TransCanada Proceeds With Cushing To Gulf Coast Portion Of Keystone XL | Pipeline & Gas Journal

That will help with some of the bottle neck that's happening at Cushing.

Now as far as needing the Gulf for transportation of Canadian and American crude, who doesn't?

But we also have this.

Look to the left of your screen. See that big blue patch at the edge of British Columbia? It's called the Pacific. And if you look to the right of your screen, that big patch is called the Atlantic.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

"Get one over on us"?

You mean the same way Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait... etc. etc. are "getting one over" on us?

Those countries do not have a huge pipeline running through our country that could cause many oil spills and harm to our country's environment.

So my original statement stands!

Nah, they just have supertankers plying our waters. And they ain't very friendly folks, neither.

Oh- our country's environment. Kinda like the effect of agriculture on our country's environment?

Look, our agricultural issues in this country, and their effect on our environment is a whole other topic of discussion. But since we are in a conundrum already, why on God's green Earth would we want to invite more potential harm? Makes no sense to me. Maybe, just maybe if there was a clause that stipulated Americans would get less than $2 a gallon for gas, I would be more sympathetic to the pipeline argument.

 

[tinydancer]

Good, I hope they never build that pipeline, and the Canadian companies that think they are gonna get one over on us can go **** themselves!

How stupid are you? There are literally millions of miles of pipelines already across America.

Including past Keystone projects.

You're too late to the protest!

Here ya go sparky! Get a helmet on before viewing so you can control the splatter on your parents basement walls when your brain explodes trying to grasp the enormity of what you are witnessing.

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=...epyAHriYDYBw&um=1&itbs=1&sa=X&ved=0CDAQrQMwAg

 

[Mr. H.]

Those countries do not have a huge pipeline running through our country that could cause many oil spills and harm to our country's environment.

So my original statement stands!

Nah, they just have supertankers plying our waters. And they ain't very friendly folks, neither.

Oh- our country's environment. Kinda like the effect of agriculture on our country's environment?

Look, our agricultural issues in this country, and their effect on our environment is a whole other topic of discussion. But since we are in a conundrum already, why on God's green Earth would we want to invite more potential harm? Makes no sense to me. Maybe, just maybe if there was a clause that stipulated Americans would get less than $2 a gallon for gas, I would be more sympathetic to the pipeline argument.

We can get oil from Canada, or we can import it from some crazy motherscratchers.
Considering the tens of thousands of miles of pipelines criss-crossing this country, mishaps are far and few between.

Yes, the ag issue is a different animal but it's not that dissimilar. It puts perspective on the issue, as does rail transportation. Canadian oil is already reaching the target refineries. I don't much hear you protesting oil by rail.

 

[tjvh]

Forward with more costly, ineffecient, alternative energy technologies......for the common regressive good !!!

I suspect the protesters didn't get to the protest site riding bicycles.

 

[edthecynic]

A little more difficult to stop a leaking tanker, no?

As you well know, the purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to allow Canada to export their products ON TANKERS taking advantage of the deep water ports in the Gulf.

So the Keystone XL does not eliminate the potential tanker leaks from the equation, but instead ADDS in more pipeline leak potential to the equation.
BRILLIANT!

This phase is already proceeding. It was already approved.

TransCanada Proceeds With Cushing To Gulf Coast Portion Of Keystone XL

TransCanada Proceeds With Cushing To Gulf Coast Portion Of Keystone XL | Pipeline & Gas Journal

That will help with some of the bottle neck that's happening at Cushing.

Now as far as needing the Gulf for transportation of Canadian and American crude, who doesn't?

But we also have this.

Look to the left of your screen. See that big blue patch at the edge of British Columbia? It's called the Pacific. And if you look to the right of your screen, that big patch is called the Atlantic.

So why doesn't Canada build the pipeline to the Pacific? It is much shorter and cheaper and closer to China, the intended destination of the oil!!

 

[Mr. H.]

And if you tree-hugging anti-business anti-hydrocarbon nuts would turn your attention to this, maybe you can explain to me the difference between this project and the Keystone XL project...

From the U.S. State Department -

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Obama approved it, Hillary crowed about it, the State Department sanctioned it with accolades.

WHAT is the difference between this project and the Keystone XL?

They BOTH cross the international border, they BOTH traverse several States in our country, they BOTH terminate at U.S. refineries.

Comments?

 

[edthecynic]

And if you tree-hugging anti-business anti-hydrocarbon nuts would turn your attention to this, maybe you can explain to me the difference between this project and the Keystone XL project...

From the U.S. State Department -

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Obama approved it, Hillary crowed about it, the State Department sanctioned it with accolades.

WHAT is the difference between this project and the Keystone XL?

They BOTH cross the international border, they BOTH traverse several States in our country, they BOTH terminate at U.S. refineries.

Comments?

As if you didn't know!!!!! The best deceivers always leave out the most important info and then pretend to be dumb.

The difference is the Keystone XL terminates at refineries that allow export, thus reducing the crude available to the US and increasing the price to the US by $3.8 trillion, Canada's own estimate, while the Alberta Clipper does not.

 

[Mr. H.]

And if you tree-hugging anti-business anti-hydrocarbon nuts would turn your attention to this, maybe you can explain to me the difference between this project and the Keystone XL project...

From the U.S. State Department -

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Obama approved it, Hillary crowed about it, the State Department sanctioned it with accolades.

WHAT is the difference between this project and the Keystone XL?

They BOTH cross the international border, they BOTH traverse several States in our country, they BOTH terminate at U.S. refineries.

Comments?

As if you didn't know!!!!! The best deceivers always leave out the most important info and then pretend to be dumb.

The difference is the Keystone XL terminates at refineries that allow export, thus reducing the crude available to the US and increasing the price to the US by $3.8 trillion, Canada's own estimate, while the Alberta Clipper does not.

Allow export of what? Refined products? Heaven forbid.

Now look at the similarities.

What about the pollution risks?

 

[tinydancer]

As you well know, the purpose of the Keystone XL pipeline is to allow Canada to export their products ON TANKERS taking advantage of the deep water ports in the Gulf.

So the Keystone XL does not eliminate the potential tanker leaks from the equation, but instead ADDS in more pipeline leak potential to the equation.
BRILLIANT!

This phase is already proceeding. It was already approved.

TransCanada Proceeds With Cushing To Gulf Coast Portion Of Keystone XL

TransCanada Proceeds With Cushing To Gulf Coast Portion Of Keystone XL | Pipeline & Gas Journal

That will help with some of the bottle neck that's happening at Cushing.

Now as far as needing the Gulf for transportation of Canadian and American crude, who doesn't?

But we also have this.

Look to the left of your screen. See that big blue patch at the edge of British Columbia? It's called the Pacific. And if you look to the right of your screen, that big patch is called the Atlantic.

So why doesn't Canada build the pipeline to the Pacific? It is much shorter and cheaper and closer to China, the intended destination of the oil!!

Oh we are. It's in the works right now. Alberta and British Columbia are negotiating finances; of course everyone is very concerned about the suggested path and environmental impacts. Assessments are required by our laws here.

There's Gateway, TransCanada Keystone and I think the other one that is already operating is called Trans Mountain.

The East Coast provinces are screaming for a pipeline to be built to them.

Check this out.

Ottawa gives nod to west-to-east oil pipeline
Pipeline could benefit Irving refinery in Saint John

Ottawa gives nod to west-to-east oil pipeline - New Brunswick - CBC News

 

[Mr. H.]

But, but... what if China takes some of that Canadian oil, refines it, then EXPORTS it to another country (which they undoubtedly will do)?

The horror....

 

[tinydancer]

And if you tree-hugging anti-business anti-hydrocarbon nuts would turn your attention to this, maybe you can explain to me the difference between this project and the Keystone XL project...

From the U.S. State Department -

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Obama approved it, Hillary crowed about it, the State Department sanctioned it with accolades.

WHAT is the difference between this project and the Keystone XL?

They BOTH cross the international border, they BOTH traverse several States in our country, they BOTH terminate at U.S. refineries.

Comments?

As if you didn't know!!!!! The best deceivers always leave out the most important info and then pretend to be dumb.

The difference is the Keystone XL terminates at refineries that allow export, thus reducing the crude available to the US and increasing the price to the US by $3.8 trillion, Canada's own estimate, while the Alberta Clipper does not.

Illinois and Oklahoma were Phase One and Phase Two. What on earth are you talking about? They were designed to deliver to MidWest Markets and to Cushing.



The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase 1 and Phase II and two separate proposed pipeline expansion segments Phases III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project, and Phase IV, Keystone XL.

Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.

The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area."

After the Keystone XL pipeline segments are completed, American crude oil would enter the XL pipelines at Baker, Montana on their way to the storage and distribution facilities at Cushing, Oklahoma, Cushing is a major crude oil marketing/refining and pipeline hub.

Operating since 2010, the original Keystone Pipeline System is an 3,461-kilometre (2,151 mi) pipeline delivering Canadian crude oil to U.S. Midwest markets and Cushing, Oklahoma.

In Canada, the first phase of Keystone involved the conversion of approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of existing 36-inch (910 mm) natural gas pipeline in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to crude oil pipeline service.

It also included approximately 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline, 16 pump stations and the Keystone Hardisty Terminal.[10]

The U.S. portion of the Keystone Pipeline included 1,744 kilometres (1,084 mi) of new, 30-inch (760 mm) diameter pipeline in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri and Illinois.[10] The pipeline has a minimum ground cover of 4 feet (1.2 m).

It also involved construction of 23 pump stations and delivery facilities at Wood River and Patoka, Illinois

. In 2011, the second phase of Keystone included a 480-kilometre (298 mi) extension from Steele City, Nebraska to Cushing, Oklahoma and 11 new pump stations to increase the capacity of the pipeline from 435,000 to 591,000 barrels per day (69,200 to 94,000 m3/d)

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edthecynic]

And if you tree-hugging anti-business anti-hydrocarbon nuts would turn your attention to this, maybe you can explain to me the difference between this project and the Keystone XL project...

From the U.S. State Department -

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

Obama approved it, Hillary crowed about it, the State Department sanctioned it with accolades.

WHAT is the difference between this project and the Keystone XL?

They BOTH cross the international border, they BOTH traverse several States in our country, they BOTH terminate at U.S. refineries.

Comments?

As if you didn't know!!!!! The best deceivers always leave out the most important info and then pretend to be dumb.

The difference is the Keystone XL terminates at refineries that allow export, thus reducing the crude available to the US and increasing the price to the US by $3.8 trillion, Canada's own estimate, while the Alberta Clipper does not.

Illinois and Oklahoma were Phase One and Phase Two. What on earth are you talking about? They were designed to deliver to MidWest Markets and to Cushing.



The Keystone Pipeline system consists of the operational Phase 1 and Phase II and two separate proposed pipeline expansion segments Phases III, the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project, and Phase IV, Keystone XL.

Construction of Phase III, from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas in the Gulf Coast area, began in August 2012 as an independent economic utility.

The Keystone XL Pipeline Project (Phase IV) revised proposal in 2012 consists of a new 36-inch pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska, to "transport of up to 830,000 barrels per day (132,000 m3/d) of crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada, and from the Williston Basin (Bakken) region in Montana and North Dakota, primarily to refineries in the Gulf Coast area."

Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As already pointed out, deceivers always leave something out.

You left this out from your own link:

Proponents for the Keystone XL pipeline argue that it would allow the U.S. to increase its energy security and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.[76][77] TransCanada CEO Russ Girling has argued that "the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil" and the debate over the proposed pipeline "is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria."[78] However an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute refers to some studies (e.g. a 2011 study by Danielle Droitsch of Pembina Institute) according to which "a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States". It also states that the project will increase the heavy crude oil price in the Midwestern United States by diverting oil sands oil from the Midwest refineries to the Gulf Coast and export markets.[22]

 

[buckeye45_73]

Why are they protesting it?

well why are they, you agree with these people. So what are the reasons?

 

[ScienceRocks]

They're protesting the pipeline because they want people to pay more for gas. They hate industrial society.