U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What option do you like better?
Building a 1600 mile oil pipeline that goes across the US 15 40.54%
Building a refinery in North Dakota 22 59.46%
Voters: 37. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2012, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,907,156 times
Reputation: 12178

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
For the 27 years prior to that.... putting pipe in the ground. You? Sitting in your living room becoming an arm-chair oil/gas expert? You still haven't answered my questions... Or am I right in the assumption that you don't have a dog in this fight and are just being augmentative for the "fun" of it?
What changed on this subject over three years ago?

PS. I like having fun on C-D. Is that bad?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2012, 11:53 AM
 
Location: N. Ga
3,696 posts, read 3,290,608 times
Reputation: 2058
Don't change the subject... answer my questions first.... look in your crystal ball and tell me, in your own words, how you KNOW what your talking about....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,907,156 times
Reputation: 12178
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
Don't change the subject... answer my questions first.... look in your crystal ball and tell me, in your own words, how you KNOW what your talking about....
What was the question? Spell it out. Once we're done with your pathetic deflection, we will revisit a question of mine you've been running around to avoid. If you need it right now, for more time to think about it, here it is:

"Why wouldn't building an oil refinery over building a pipeline work?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,722 posts, read 4,432,256 times
Reputation: 1376
I was reading a Canadian article on the western gateway to the west and something caught my eye. Here:

Quote:
With the proposed $5.5 billion Northern Gateway project, Enbridge wants to build two 1,172 Km long pipelines from Athabasca, Alberta to Kitimat on the BC coast. One would be a 36 inch diameter pipeline to carry mostly-treated bitumen to Kitmat for export up to 525,000 barrels per day. The other would be 20 inch diameter pipeline that would transport up to 193,00 barrels per day of imported condensates used to dilute bitumen, to ease its flow in the opposite direction.
Did the Keystone XL pipeline include a return line, to return the thinners used to make the tar sands pumpable. If not, what is the plan for handling these toxic chemicals?

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 12:08 PM
 
Location: N. Ga
3,696 posts, read 3,290,608 times
Reputation: 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
What was the question? Spell it out. Once we're done with your pathetic deflection, we will revisit a question of mine you've been running around to avoid. If you need it right now, for more time to think about it, here it is:

"Why wouldn't building an oil refinery over building a pipeline work?"
See my post #40 for the questions I ask of you..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 12:08 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,449,199 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Would you re-build the tracks for BNSF so that Warren Buffet can profit even more from Obama's rejection of the Keystone Pipeline?
warren buffet isn't the only shareholder of BNSF. sure, you can look at it cyncically and believe that Obama rejected the Keystone Pipeline so Buffet could profit. But then what prevents people from saying that the people who wanted it built only wanted it so their cronies could profit? Bottom line is - what's the benefit, what's the risk? I view it as Obama appeasing his supporters who take issue with his environmental record in an election year. I believe he will eventually approve it, if re-elected. But he can't alienate that group of supporters right now.

I also don't see the benefit to the United States. Pick you're poison on who to believe on how many jobs it will create. But in the end, the oil is to be shipped off shore. It does nothing to reduce dependancy.

Why not focus on projects that further reduce our need for oil altogether? Why build a pipeline that hopefully we won't need in the future, because we'll be moving further and further away from consuming oil?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 12:12 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,449,199 times
Reputation: 3689
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
Re Nebraska. Nebraska opposed it over the aquifir. It was a legitimate concern. While I didn't share the concern, knowing about pipeline construction as I do. I never called them dumb. And... they got what they wanted. A re-route. It was the best solution for all involved. So... therefore... it is now a NON-ISSUE. If you had been following the time line all along you would know this. My questioning in all this is the time-line and the information being passed along by not only NE's elected officials, but our own federal government. They all are using this as a political bargaining chip. Every last one of them. Right and Left. And those of us who have been following this drama for over 3 years now knows this.

Re: Promoting and conserving is a good thing. But... do you still drive a car? Do you heat your home? And don't tell me yes, but electric. A big part of electric production is generated from... gasp... natural gas.. delivered in part by pipelines to the generating station. And you can thank my family for that. You willing to go saddle up Mr. Ed to get to work? Willing to go cut and stack cords of wood for your heat? Nah... I didn't think so. Willing to pay 10.00 per gallon at the pump? See.. it's not quite so black and white is it?
to make progress, are we supposed to stop driving our car and stop heating our homes overnight? Or can we not move to increase efficiencies of the cars, increase efficiency of heating homes, and look to alternative forms of generation?

I recognize natural gas is part of our energy generation for a few decades at least. but we need to start investing in alternative methods to oil and natural gas to move forward. does that mean don't build the keystone pipeline? maybe, maybe not. I don't know that answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,722 posts, read 4,432,256 times
Reputation: 1376
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
For the 27 years prior to that.... putting pipe in the ground. You? Sitting in your living room becoming an arm-chair oil/gas expert? You still haven't answered my questions... Or am I right in the assumption that you don't have a dog in this fight and are just being augmentative for the "fun" of it?
Laying pipe in the ground doesn't make you an expert in anything but laying pipe in the ground. When I was with MKFerguson I was trained as a process piping designer, refinery work, but that doesn't make me an expert on anything beyond what I was trained to do. If you need a depropanizer plumbed or a pipe rack laid out I could help you, but none of that make me an expert.

Fact, the product inside the pipe would be nasty, it is highly abrasive, corrosive and needs to be thinned with nasty chemicals to make it flow.

The multi-national oil industry is trying to play us for a sucker again. They are using our infrastructure and risking our environment for their profits.

Why is our navy, two carrier task force plus, guarding the oil traveling thru the strait of hormuz when 85% is traveling directly to China and the surrounding area. We are now defending foreign oil used by foreigners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 12:20 PM
 
Location: N. Ga
3,696 posts, read 3,290,608 times
Reputation: 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
I view it as Obama appeasing his supporters who take issue with his environmental record in an election year. I believe he will eventually approve it, if re-elected. But he can't alienate that group of supporters right now.
This is spot on! The question at this time is if Trans-Canada even reapplies. I'm thinking that if they do they'll have to file with FERC first, so it will be at least another 3 years before it gets back to this point... I hope I'm wrong, but since the whole project was canned instead of approved conditionally I think we're back to square one.

Quote:
I also don't see the benefit to the United States. Pick you're poison on who to believe on how many jobs it will create. But in the end, the oil is to be shipped off shore. It does nothing to reduce dependancy.
The number of jobs is very subjective. Take out the high by Trans-Canada, Take out the low by the nay-sayers and look somewhere right in the middle. But.. don't forget the impact to other industries and the towns along the path. As far as dependency... anything we can do helps us. Unless of course, you know something that none of the rest of us do other than personal speculation.

Quote:
Why not focus on projects that further reduce our need for oil altogether? Why build a pipeline that hopefully we won't need in the future, because we'll be moving further and further away from consuming oil?
I always love this thinking when folks are talking about moving away from oil? Just what? What's the best, newest thing? Solyndra? I'm serious.. I'd love to know where to invest.. but currently there is nothing in the works that can seriously reduce our consumption that in itself doesn't take oil/gas to produce....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2012, 12:21 PM
 
4,749 posts, read 3,610,614 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus10 View Post
Three reasons you'll never see a refinery in N.D.

1. It takes 4 to 6 years to build one.
2. Cost 6 Billion or more.
3. You think it's hard getting approval for a pipeline? The EPA, FERC, and the State Depart (don't forget, you're still talking about transporting the crude across national borders) would all be involved again. Hypothetically, even if it were purposed, do you see anything being decided by oh say, 2025? You think Canada is going to wait that long to sell?
The point is, building a pipeline will not have as much impact as building a refinery, which would expand our capacity to refine oil. We need that before we can add a pipeline and increase raw supply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top