|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Nov 19, 2014 11:36:27 GMT -6
Then that wood make Deace Hiesenberg? No... Deace is the Junkie meth addicted whore. Rob Howe is Heisenberg.... Booom.... Head asplodes...
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Nov 19, 2014 11:36:54 GMT -6
That's the plan.
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Nov 19, 2014 11:37:48 GMT -6
It is planned to run right through the middle of the ND oil patch. What makes you think it would not carry murican oil? Why would an American oil company want to unload their crude on a Canadians companies line to be processed and sold to other countries?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 11:37:51 GMT -6
I guess it could but it is being built for Canuck earl not merican earl. Specifically, it is being built to carry the oil from the boreal forest in canada. The latest proposal being looked at does not have it going thru norf dakota but montana, souf dakato to nebby. Again, this isn't far from norf dakota earl fields.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Nov 19, 2014 11:44:43 GMT -6
It is planned to run right through the middle of the ND oil patch. What makes you think it would not carry murican oil? Doesn't look like it even goes through ND...
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Nov 19, 2014 11:45:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Nov 19, 2014 11:51:57 GMT -6
Momentary victory for the greenies. Once turtleface is in charge, Keystone will be rammed right up the socialist's oval office so often and so hard he'll have no choice but to sign it. Oh, au contraire. If there's one person who's primed to be on the receiving end of Obama's big black veto stick, it's "Make Him A One Termer" Mitch. They might get their stupid Canada=>China via Ogallala pipeline, but it'll cost them a shit ton. We'll see how bad they want it then. The Kenyan Interloper has a vindictive side. You're about to witness it.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFerentz4Prez on Nov 19, 2014 12:10:04 GMT -6
The keystone pipeline would also carry crude from the booming oil fields of Norf Dakota dumbass. That oil is currently traveling by truck and rail which are much more hazardous than a pipeline. You can't be serious with this.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Nov 19, 2014 12:11:26 GMT -6
The GOP will shoot themselves in the foot by trying to tie the Keystone pipeline to everything possible, which will of course make the Dems that voted for it this time, vote against it, which means that it won't be a veto proof vote. Maybe, just maybe, if they had it stand on it's own legs alone, they may get the D votes to make it happen, but many of the D's who voted for it this time will be out of congress come January.
I expect the first version to have something along the lines of repealing Obamacare, or gutting certain parts of it tied to that bill, with of course other kickbacks to get the support they need. It will become the norm for congress and add additional bloat to the bill.
All of this for what, 35 new permanent jobs? The risk of really fucking up our ecosystem with no risk to the Canadians? Look at how many massive leaks Transcanada has had with their pipelines in Canada... There is a reason why they aren't building it to a port city like Vancouver which would be a far shorter run than the Keystone XL.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Nov 19, 2014 12:17:47 GMT -6
The keystone pipeline would also carry crude from the booming oil fields of Norf Dakota dumbass. That oil is currently traveling by truck and rail which are much more hazardous than a pipeline. You can't be serious with this. As a heart attack.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFerentz4Prez on Nov 19, 2014 12:41:32 GMT -6
You can't be serious with this. As a heart attack. Well then you are either stupid or just haven't given it any thought. A tanker truck has a capacity of around 215 barrels of oil. If it goes boom it spills that oil on the surface directly on top of a major roadway. The spill is instantly contained, relatively easy to clean up and the cleanup site is readily identified and accessible. They keystone pipeline has the capacity to spill up to 575 barrels of oil every sixty seconds. If it goes boom it spills that oil directly into our groundwater. The spill is underground and as such can be difficult to locate and contain, difficult to clean up, and the spill site is likely in the middle of no where making it a challenge to get to. The thought that transporting this oil via pipeline is less dangerous to the environment than transporting via tanker truck is mind bottlingly stupid. Have you ever thought to ask why these syrup chuggers wanna send the piece line through US soil? Surely they could build a pipeline through Canadian soil right?
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Nov 19, 2014 12:46:30 GMT -6
Well then you are either stupid or just haven't given it any thought. A tanker truck has a capacity of around 215 barrels of oil. If it goes boom it spills that oil on the surface directly on top of a major roadway. The spill is instantly contained, relatively easy to clean up and the cleanup site is readily identified and accessible. They keystone pipeline has the capacity to spill up to 575 barrels of oil every sixty seconds. If it goes boom it spills that oil directly into our groundwater. The spill is underground and as such can be difficult to locate and contain, difficult to clean up, and the spill site is likely in the middle of no where making it a challenge to get to. The thought that transporting this oil via pipeline is less dangerous to the environment than transporting via tanker truck is mind bottlingly stupid. Have you ever thought to ask why these syrup chuggers wanna send the piece line through US soil? Surely they could build a pipeline through Canadian soil right? /thread
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 12:51:03 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2014 12:54:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Nov 19, 2014 12:58:52 GMT -6
Well then you are either stupid or just haven't given it any thought. A tanker truck has a capacity of around 215 barrels of oil. If it goes boom it spills that oil on the surface directly on top of a major roadway. The spill is instantly contained, relatively easy to clean up and the cleanup site is readily identified and accessible. They keystone pipeline has the capacity to spill up to 575 barrels of oil every sixty seconds. If it goes boom it spills that oil directly into our groundwater. The spill is underground and as such can be difficult to locate and contain, difficult to clean up, and the spill site is likely in the middle of no where making it a challenge to get to. The thought that transporting this oil via pipeline is less dangerous to the environment than transporting via tanker truck is mind bottlingly stupid. Have you ever thought to ask why these syrup chuggers wanna send the piece line through US soil? Surely they could build a pipeline through Canadian soil right? Sorry duff, but the relative safety records of the two methods of transport do not back up your claims. More workers are hurt or killed and more oil is spilled per barrel/mile of oil transported by truck/rail than be pipeline. I will post you a link backing this up later.
|
|
|
Post by BrainFerentz4Prez on Nov 19, 2014 13:04:06 GMT -6
Well then you are either stupid or just haven't given it any thought. A tanker truck has a capacity of around 215 barrels of oil. If it goes boom it spills that oil on the surface directly on top of a major roadway. The spill is instantly contained, relatively easy to clean up and the cleanup site is readily identified and accessible. They keystone pipeline has the capacity to spill up to 575 barrels of oil every sixty seconds. If it goes boom it spills that oil directly into our groundwater. The spill is underground and as such can be difficult to locate and contain, difficult to clean up, and the spill site is likely in the middle of no where making it a challenge to get to. The thought that transporting this oil via pipeline is less dangerous to the environment than transporting via tanker truck is mind bottlingly stupid. Have you ever thought to ask why these syrup chuggers wanna send the piece line through US soil? Surely they could build a pipeline through Canadian soil right? Sorry duff, but the relative safety records of the two methods of transport do not back up your claims. More workers are hurt or killed and more oil is spilled per barrel/mile of oil transported by truck/rail than be pipeline. I will post you a link backing this up later. Every worker kilt is another job created.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Nov 19, 2014 13:16:36 GMT -6
This cant be sold as a jobs creator. It is reducing our dependance on mid east oil, nothing more. Canada does not have to sell this oil to china when it reaches the gulf. It will be cheaper for us to buy it than to put it in a tanker and move it half way around the globe.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Nov 19, 2014 13:24:25 GMT -6
This cant be sold as a jobs creator. It is reducing our dependance on mid east oil, nothing more. Canada does not have to sell this oil to china when it reaches the gulf. It will be cheaper for us to buy it than to put it in a tanker and move it half way around the globe. I don't think that's true.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Nov 19, 2014 13:26:35 GMT -6
This cant be sold as a jobs creator. It is reducing our dependance on mid east oil, nothing more. Canada does not have to sell this oil to china when it reaches the gulf. It will be cheaper for us to buy it than to put it in a tanker and move it half way around the globe. How does it reduce our dependence on mid-east oil when the vast majority of said oil will be shipped overseas? You are just flat out wrong if you think that this very toxic sludge would reduce our dependence on that oil? If China/Russia are willing to pay transcanada more for the oil, why would they sell it to us? Why aren't they building a pipeline from Alberta to Vancouver? It's a far shorter distance (yes, there are the rockies to navigate) and cost would likely be less. However, their record of spills is rather atrocious and the Canadian government makes it very difficult for them to actually build a pipeline to go that direction, or east to another port. Who takes on the risk should/when there is a spill? How would you feel about the fact that if it did spill over the Ogallala aquifer that it would fuck up one of our largest supplies of fresh water? This bitumen is highly toxic, moreso than the crude that is pumped out in America, and especially compared to the middle east. Where a semi or train may have an accident and dump maybe a few hundred barrels of oil, the location and clean up of said spill would be faster and cheaper compared to a pipeline that can spill 800 barrels a minute. And those spills may not be noticeable immediately and cleanup would take months and be very costly. And when that does happen, how do we then decontaminate the ground water that is polluted by all of this highly toxic sludge? Bootstraps? Drill baby drill?
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Nov 19, 2014 13:28:14 GMT -6
This cant be sold as a jobs creator. It is reducing our dependance on mid east oil, nothing more. Canada does not have to sell this oil to china when it reaches the gulf. It will be cheaper for us to buy it than to put it in a tanker and move it half way around the globe. I don't think that's true. I don't understand his line of thinking in all honesty. Why would a company that makes billions in profits every quarter try to sell to the lowest bidder? Transcanada doesn't "pay" for those tankers. The buyers pay for it. Now, if transcanada had their own ships, I'm sure they'd roll that into the price they sell for a profit as well. They ain't shipping that shit for free.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 19, 2014 13:31:17 GMT -6
DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO! if this environmental holocaust waiting to happen went through mitchy mcturtleface's neighborhood, it would never even be considered Alaska pipeline.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 19, 2014 13:35:14 GMT -6
We should get rid of all pipelines in the name of job creation. Everyone could just put in a LNG tank at their house so we wouldn't have all those buried pipes carrying dangerous gas. The true solution is an easy one and one that JDM can get behind... Propane for all! Not the same thing.....
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 19, 2014 13:37:49 GMT -6
It is planned to run right through the middle of the ND oil patch. What makes you think it would not carry murican oil? Why would an American oil company want to unload their crude on a Canadians companies line to be processed and sold to other countries? JFC you're stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Stan's Field on Nov 19, 2014 13:40:29 GMT -6
It is planned to run right through the middle of the ND oil patch. What makes you think it would not carry murican oil? Doesn't look like it even goes through ND... That's still pretty much through the middle of the bakken, I think.
|
|
|
Post by A boy named Sioux on Nov 19, 2014 13:47:48 GMT -6
This cant be sold as a jobs creator. It is reducing our dependance on mid east oil, nothing more. Canada does not have to sell this oil to china when it reaches the gulf. It will be cheaper for us to buy it than to put it in a tanker and move it half way around the globe. I don't think that's true. The price at the end of the pipeline will be the same if it goes on a tanker or is pumped into one of our refineries. The difference is we would not have to added on the tanker delivery cost so we can buy it for less than the chinese could. Why is that so hard to understand?
|
|