Why would ANYONE want to risk a 1 million barrel oil spill?

[healthmyths]

AND once again..
NO one seems to refute the minimal risk of 193 barrels of oil traveling 1 mile compared to the massive 20,000 mile risks of 1 million barrels in a tanker on the open ocean!

FOLKS where has your common sense gone?
THINK!!!

 

[healthmyths]

It's not about sense and sensibility.
It's about politics.

I'm just as outraged as you, but it's hydrocarbons- the boogyman cometh.

The outrage is idiocy of people especially those that OBVIOUSLY depend on the biased MSM for their information!

Why are these IDIOTS so anxious to ship 1 million barrels of OIL a day by tankers that can crash!

When a oil pipeline carries ONLY 500 barrels in one mile!

Why is the concept that people aren't grasping here so difficult?

Which would you prefer 1 million barrels on ONE ship that when it travels one mile on the ocean can spill 1 million barrels OR

A pipeline buried, generally accessible within hours and monitored so like turning off a faucet the flow stops!
And in one mile if there is a spill.. at most 1,000 barrels... NOT 1,000,000 maybe spilled and also mostly recovered! Easily versus on the ocean!

I am so amazed at the majority of these people's lack of common sense!

What is worse 1 million barrels or 1,000 barrels??? GEEZ!!!!

If there were no XL pipeline no oil would be spilled. Almost all sources I read have said that the Canadian oil will go on the world market. If this is true, then what's the benefit of having this pipeline built except the jobs provided while it's being built? And also why should people have their land eminent domained for a foreign country (Canada)?

DUH! Again the obvious!
If it goes on world market how does it get there????
IN your magic world how would the 1 million barrels a day be transported... ?
MY point is if you are a true environmentalist.. AND realistic (an oxymoron I know...) you have to consider which is potentially a bigger risk??
1 million barrels traveling one mile on the open ocean or 350 barrels traveling one mile?
Which is the bigger number? Which is a larger area? Which is more difficult to contain?
(

 

[Mr. H.]

Lots of oil traveling by choo-choo trains these days.
Too much IMO.

Ethanol MUST be transported by trains.
You think that shit never spills?

 

[Katzndogz]

After oil, liberals will start attacking natural gas. The goal is to end the use of energy in the country, even if that energy is nothing more than a fireplace or cooking fire. Both of which have already been banned is many places.

 

[healthmyths]

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy......not to worry!!!

BIG OIL can handle.....

Stupid Teabaggers

Exxon Pipeline Breaks in Arkansas - YouTube​

FACTS!!!
On Friday, the ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline, which brings Canadian crude oil from Illinois to Texas, ruptured, leaking at least 80,000 gallons of oil into the Central Arkansas town of Mayflower.

....And, if those Canadian-pipelines went to refineries on THEIR West Coast....MUCH closer to the (eventual) Asian-customers....we'd see ZERO leaks/spills, down here!!!!

The Downside?? Texas refineries would have to concentrate on the THOUSANDS of CAPPED wells, in the Gulf O' Mexico.​

So the refineries would be on Canada west coast you say?
British Columbia Coast is over 25,725 kilometres (15,985 mi), making up about 10% of the Canadian coastline at 243,042 kilometres .
So once Canada has refineries on West Coast... just a simple question...
how would the refined gas get to Asia? Another pipeline?
GEEZ you guys are so f...king stupid!
The whole point is getting oil shipped the least environmentally dangerous way and here you come up with the same point!
1 million barrels of oil floating one mile on the ocean versus 350 barrels in one mile of pipeline!
GEEZ that is so hard to figure!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

FACTS!!!
On Friday, the ExxonMobil Pegasus pipeline, which brings Canadian crude oil from Illinois to Texas, ruptured, leaking at least 80,000 gallons of oil into the Central Arkansas town of Mayflower.

....And, if those Canadian-pipelines went to refineries on THEIR West Coast....MUCH closer to the (eventual) Asian-customers....we'd see ZERO leaks/spills, down here!!!!

The Downside?? Texas refineries would have to concentrate on the THOUSANDS of CAPPED wells, in the Gulf O' Mexico.​

So the refineries would be on Canada west coast you say?
British Columbia Coast is over 25,725 kilometres (15,985 mi), making up about 10% of the Canadian coastline at 243,042 kilometres .
So once Canada has refineries on West Coast... just a simple question...
how would the refined gas get to Asia?

Probably the SAME way it'd get to Asia.....

....from TEXAS!!!

Stupid Teabaggers...​

 

[LogikAndReazon]

A silly question indeed.........

Everyone knows that our infrastructure, industry, transportation, and domestic energy needs can be met by wind, solar and barley power.............lol

 

[Truthseeker420]

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

 

[Mr. Shaman]

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

.....And, they ALWAYS....

....Do The RIGHT-Thing!!

"Meanwhile, Exxon was quickly in contact with the residents in the North Woods housing development who had been evacuated from their homes and were staying in nearby hotels.

Company agents sat down with residents, estimating their cost of living and cutting checks for each family in weekly amounts, including for hotel rooms, meals and gasoline.

"They said if it didn't cost what I gave you, take the rest and keep it in your pocket," said Andrews, the Mayflower resident. "If I said something cost $140, he said $200. He said he liked round numbers."​

 

[healthmyths]

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

That may all be true!
But you still are ignoring the BIG BIG elephant!
WHY do you think it is SAFER to ship 1 million barrels one mile in a tanker vs 710 barrels in one mile of pipeline?
Even if it is NOT USED in the USA... why would any logical person want a tanker on the very dangerous upper Pacific ocean
carrying 1 million barrels that will at some time have an accident?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

That may all be true!

Of COURSE, it's true!!!

The ONLY reason it'd go (down) to Texas, is to make SURE those Texas oil-intere$t$ get THEIR piece-o'-the-action!!!!!

 

[healthmyths]

So I guess YOU are OK with 1 million barrels of Oil traveling ONE MILE on the open seas with a chance every hour of an accident .. remember Exxon Valdez???

Versus 710 barrels traveling one mile in a secured pipeline ON land with 16,000 monitors for any leaks or spills?

HMMM no wonder you have to make BIG fonts as you evidently don't know the difference between
One million barrels and 710 barrels.. HOW absolutely sad people like you can't even agree to the FACTS!

 

[healthmyths]

By the way your "Glass Stegall Act" comment indicates YOU should of ALL people be aware of what happened on 9/18/08...

 

[Truthseeker420]

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United State for decades to come. Canada doesn’t have nearly enough oil to fill existing pipelines going to the United States. However, existing Canadian oil pipelines all go to the Midwest, where the only buyer for their crude is the United States. Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in Foriegn Trade Zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL's oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

That may all be true!
But you still are ignoring the BIG BIG elephant!
WHY do you think it is SAFER to ship 1 million barrels one mile in a tanker vs 710 barrels in one mile of pipeline?
Even if it is NOT USED in the USA... why would any logical person want a tanker on the very dangerous upper Pacific ocean
carrying 1 million barrels that will at some time have an accident?

Didn't know the Northern Pacific was more dangerous than any other oceans.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are we all forgetting the Deepwater Horizon spill? That stunk up almost half the Gulf of Mexico...

 

[healthmyths]

Are we all forgetting the Deepwater Horizon spill? That stunk up almost half the Gulf of Mexico...

Again you are right!

But again idiots like you don't go and do a little more research! You make stupid hyperbolic unsubstantiated statements without asking
really important questions like WHY in the...f...k do they have to drill in 5,000 feet of water when there are billions of barrels in water less the 200 feet deep?? Dumb f...k!!

• FACT: 4.7 TRILLION BARRELS in USA that Obama could open up!
• in 100 feet or less depth of Gulf 2.8 billion barrels
• off shore Virginia 0.3
• Anwr Alaska 10.0
• Bakken formation 3,600
• CO,UT,WY 1,100
• total .713 Trillion barrels or 686 years at above consumption rate!

U.S. oil resources: President Obama?s ?non sequitur facts? - The Washington Post

But due to DUMB f..ks like you and Obama you stupidly force drilling in deeper waters how f...king STUPID~~~

 

[healthmyths]

But again.. Ignoring FACTS and this question is just one more indication of how truly dumb you irrational, illogical idiots are!
What is more dangerous 1 million barrels traveling one mile on the open ocean or 710 barrels traveling one mile ON THE LAND?

Let's make it even simpler:
A) Which holds more oil : 1 million barrels in a tanker going one mile OR one mile of pipeline with 710 barrels???
B) If there is an accident which will cause more damage : 1 million barrels or 710 barrels?
C) If there is an accident, which is easier to contain.. 1 million barrels floating on MILES of oceans or 710 barrels on dry land?

If you can't see the difference... truly you need someone 24 hours a day to take care of you!
I mean someone that can't recognize a danger of one million barrels versus 710 barrels can't use sharp instruments, feed themselves, change their own diapers!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are we all forgetting the Deepwater Horizon spill? That stunk up almost half the Gulf of Mexico...

Again you are right!

But again idiots like you don't go and do a little more research! You make stupid hyperbolic unsubstantiated statements without asking
really important questions like WHY in the...f...k do they have to drill in 5,000 feet of water when there are billions of barrels in water less the 200 feet deep?? Dumb f...k!!

• FACT: 4.7 TRILLION BARRELS in USA that Obama could open up!
• in 100 feet or less depth of Gulf 2.8 billion barrels
• off shore Virginia 0.3
• Anwr Alaska 10.0
• Bakken formation 3,600
• CO,UT,WY 1,100
• total .713 Trillion barrels or 686 years at above consumption rate!

U.S. oil resources: President Obama?s ?non sequitur facts? - The Washington Post

But due to DUMB f..ks like you and Obama you stupidly force drilling in deeper waters how f...king STUPID~~~

Wow. Wasn't expecting a response like that from you. I in fact support drilling for resources, but your thread was leaving out one critical problem with it. There's a difference between drilling properly and drilling irresponsibly. Obama is indeed being careless (or purposefully careless) in not drilling where we have the most oil. I am a staunch Conservative, but I have a certain respect for our environment that most do not. I want people to be able to get cheap gas, but not for want of allowing careless oil companies such as BP to drill in deep water like that without proper regulatory and safety standards.

Oh,. and I do support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, if you call me a dumbfuck again, I will be more than happy to make you feel like one.

I'm on your side dude.

 

[healthmyths]

Are we all forgetting the Deepwater Horizon spill? That stunk up almost half the Gulf of Mexico...

Again you are right!

But again idiots like you don't go and do a little more research! You make stupid hyperbolic unsubstantiated statements without asking
really important questions like WHY in the...f...k do they have to drill in 5,000 feet of water when there are billions of barrels in water less the 200 feet deep?? Dumb f...k!!

• FACT: 4.7 TRILLION BARRELS in USA that Obama could open up!
• in 100 feet or less depth of Gulf 2.8 billion barrels
• off shore Virginia 0.3
• Anwr Alaska 10.0
• Bakken formation 3,600
• CO,UT,WY 1,100
• total .713 Trillion barrels or 686 years at above consumption rate!

U.S. oil resources: President Obama?s ?non sequitur facts? - The Washington Post

But due to DUMB f..ks like you and Obama you stupidly force drilling in deeper waters how f...king STUPID~~~

Wow. Wasn't expecting a response like that from you. I in fact support drilling for resources, but your thread was leaving out one critical problem with it. There's a difference between drilling properly and drilling irresponsibly. Obama is indeed being careless (or purposefully careless) in not drilling where we have the most oil. I am a staunch Conservative, but I have a certain respect for our environment that most do not. I want people to be able to get cheap gas, but not for want of allowing careless oil companies such as BP to drill in deep water like that without proper regulatory and safety standards.

Oh,. and I do support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, if you call me a dumbfuck again, I will be more than happy to make you feel like one.

I'm on your side dude.

Then at least be smart enough to counter these idiots who don't seem to know that 1 million barrels traveling on the open seas for one mile has a greater chance
of an accident with a larger amount of damage then 710 barrels in one mile of pipeline!
I am just flabbergasted that even common sense people like you still haven't admitted that!

It's like Obamacare counting 46 million 'uninsured" when 10 million are not citizens, 14 million ARE cOVERED by Medicaid and 18 million don't want, don't need
make over $50k and pay their expenses out of their own pocket.. YET Obama and other idiots count them!
And this tendency by even conservatives NOT to jump the hell all over STUPID idiotic objections like against the pipeline based on the above and Obamacare
based on the fact there are ONLY 4 million that truly want and need.. THIS doesn't help counter the MSM bias that keeps pumping these bogus stories!
Same as with gun bans..! over last 31 years 62 incidences with 8 people per year shot .. yet what gets the headlines when 1.5 million babies are killed each year?
Come on conservatives fight back with common sense.. 1 million barrels is bigger then 710 barrels!
There are ONLY 4 million people that are uninsured.. not 46 million and 1.5 million babies killed versus 8 deaths per year per shooter.. BUT which facts are getting out to the public via the biased MSM???

 

[TemplarKormac]

Again you are right!

But again idiots like you don't go and do a little more research! You make stupid hyperbolic unsubstantiated statements without asking
really important questions like WHY in the...f...k do they have to drill in 5,000 feet of water when there are billions of barrels in water less the 200 feet deep?? Dumb f...k!!

• FACT: 4.7 TRILLION BARRELS in USA that Obama could open up!
• in 100 feet or less depth of Gulf 2.8 billion barrels
• off shore Virginia 0.3
• Anwr Alaska 10.0
• Bakken formation 3,600
• CO,UT,WY 1,100
• total .713 Trillion barrels or 686 years at above consumption rate!

U.S. oil resources: President Obama?s ?non sequitur facts? - The Washington Post

But due to DUMB f..ks like you and Obama you stupidly force drilling in deeper waters how f...king STUPID~~~

Wow. Wasn't expecting a response like that from you. I in fact support drilling for resources, but your thread was leaving out one critical problem with it. There's a difference between drilling properly and drilling irresponsibly. Obama is indeed being careless (or purposefully careless) in not drilling where we have the most oil. I am a staunch Conservative, but I have a certain respect for our environment that most do not. I want people to be able to get cheap gas, but not for want of allowing careless oil companies such as BP to drill in deep water like that without proper regulatory and safety standards.

Oh,. and I do support the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline.

However, if you call me a dumbfuck again, I will be more than happy to make you feel like one.

I'm on your side dude.

Then at least be smart enough to counter these idiots who don't seem to know that 1 million barrels traveling on the open seas for one mile has a greater chance
of an accident with a larger amount of damage then 710 barrels in one mile of pipeline!
I am just flabbergasted that even common sense people like you still haven't admitted that!

It's like Obamacare counting 46 million 'uninsured" when 10 million are not citizens, 14 million ARE cOVERED by Medicaid and 18 million don't want, don't need
make over $50k and pay their expenses out of their own pocket.. YET Obama and other idiots count them!
And this tendency by even conservatives NOT to jump the hell all over STUPID idiotic objections like against the pipeline based on the above and Obamacare
based on the fact there are ONLY 4 million that truly want and need.. THIS doesn't help counter the MSM bias that keeps pumping these bogus stories!
Same as with gun bans..! over last 31 years 62 incidences with 8 people per year shot .. yet what gets the headlines when 1.5 million babies are killed each year?
Come on conservatives fight back with common sense.. 1 million barrels is bigger then 710 barrels!
There are ONLY 4 million people that are uninsured.. not 46 million and 1.5 million babies killed versus 8 deaths per year per shooter.. BUT which facts are getting out to the public via the biased MSM???

Deal, so long as you refrain from making unfounded assumptions about my political affiliation. Any such assumption will result in a negative rep. And what exactly have I not admitted to? I just pointed out that nobody remembers that little disaster in the Gulf that was fudged over by the Obama administration. If I may ask, where do you get your 4 million uninsured figure from? Do you mind linking me to that?