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.
They wouldn't willingly join the U.S nor would Canada simply allow simple dissolution- you'd have to take em by force and peeve off the rest of the civilized world.. Besides at the end of the day you'd still end up with tar sand oil and guess what - build Keystone yourself lol so what differnce would it make. Go ahead give it a shot
second part of your post, I think Canada is a good economic partner to the U.S now but if you think Venezuela are more trustworthy than by all means invite Maduro home for dinner - he gunuinely loves the U.S
And you like most eastern Canadians know very little about the Prairie Provinces. Lose Quebec and watch how long it takes. Canada without Quebec offseting Ontario is unacceptable in the west.
And note you exist as a nation at the sufferance of your southern neighbor. We love you guys...but don't ever get pushy...
Because, once refined, it will ship off to China or another country.
It gets sold on the global market. I've never been a big fan of the project because its asking America to take on a tremendous amount of liability with minimal benefit in terms of employment and profit.
Because the price of extracting oil from the tar sands is substantially higher, you really wouldn't see any real decreases in gas prices, for this to make sense, oil prices necessarily have to sit fairly high.
And you like most eastern Canadians know very little about the Prairie Provinces. Lose Quebec and watch how long it takes. Canada without Quebec offseting Ontario is unacceptable in the west.
And note you exist as a nation at the sufferance of your southern neighbor. We love you guys...but don't ever get pushy...
You underestimate Canadian unity and somehow think you can convince me that I don't know enough about Canada... strange... As for the issue of Quebec, ask Pauline the state of the seperatist mvt in Quebec, looks like Quebecers made their views on unity abundently clear not long ago... Somehow I don't think Albertans are thrilled with D.C right now either... wonder why lol...hint, has a bit to do with this thread.
I'm sorry did you say Canada exists cuz of the U.S.... what in the same way everyone else in the world exists because certain countries didn't go trigger happy with nukes ... gee whiz thank you for not nuking us and destroying yourself in the process.
Yes Canada doesn't love the U.S uhem 9/11, hurricane Katrina, 160 dead in Afghanistan, largest trading relationship in the world and border shopping, omnipresent American retail here and having to watch Honey Boo Boo...pffft.... you have nerve I tell ya
Anyway you and I both know Tar sand oil is and will continue to flow from Can to the U.S by both existing pipelines and increased rail cuz Keystone is practically dead so when a train blowsup a town or city like it did with Lac Megantic there shouldn't be a big omg why'd this happen...Simple fact is the world isnt ready to give up fossil fuels by a long shot and Obama won't change that... You think Modi and Xiping give a hoot about burning fossil fuels... look at their actions for the answer. Heck even y'all burn fossil fuels like nuts... some of you make it look like the U.S is inhabited by 315 million Darryl Hannah's - who you kidding lol...
It gets sold on the global market. I've never been a big fan of the project because its asking America to take on a tremendous amount of liability with minimal benefit in terms of employment and profit.
Because the price of extracting oil from the tar sands is substantially higher, you really wouldn't see any real decreases in gas prices, for this to make sense, oil prices necessarily have to sit fairly high.
I agree with you. I hope it is indeed dead. The extraction process is more expensive and more environmentally damaging. That on top of putting the middle of the country at risk for no reward is crazy.
Someone said that it would be a back-up in case supplies from other countries are limited. I respectfully disagree. This is a global asset and they will sell to the highest bidder. The US has back-ups already.
You folks do know that China is a major investor and owns a substantial chunk of the Tar Sands, right? What do you think the Northern Gateway project is all about, if not to ship oil to China?
Well, I managed to slog through all nine pages of this gobbledegook, and just as I suspected, NOBODY admitted that 25% of the XL pipeline capacity has been dedicated to the highly volatile Bakken crude!
Yes, that's right, 25% of the crude that flows through the pipeline will be extracted from North Dakota and Montana!
THAT is the crude that was involved in the train derailments! THAT is the crude that is more volatile than nearly any other crude!
Even Mircea, who I normally highly respect, failed to mention that crude in his latest diatribe!
I see a lot of crying about people "losing their homes". Seems to me from what I have seen of the pipeline route, it goes through mostly farmland, and it will be buried deep underground, so the surface will still be usable for agriculture just as it is now. It will use easements, not outright purchase, in most cases, so nothing will be lost. I could be wrong about that. It happens frequently.
Anyway, from what I have read, VERY few (if any) "homes" will be destroyed, and the land will go back to whatever use it was put to before the pipeline was buried. Yes, there will be a quarter acre or so at intervals along the route for pump stations etc. The payments for those little dabs of land will be most welcome to most landowners.
"How do you make a million dollars farming? Start with two million!" Cash money is ALWAYS welcome to a farmer!
Sure there is no perfect solution and there are some risks with pipelines and rail but for whatever reason someone in the U.S wants that oil shipped to the U.S and as I mentioned Canada is the biggest exporter of oil to the U.S over any country. I'd almost like to see Canada freeze all oil exports to the U.S just to see how much the biggest consumer of oil in the world would fare. Something tells me Keystone would be approved mightily quickly thereafter... Shall we give it a whirl and see what happens? Hey we could just make N.A amish and call it a day... A cleaner, simpler and enviro friendly way of life...
And we can just invade Canada and take over your country. Then we get your oil for free. How's that sound?
Well, I managed to slog through all nine pages of this gobbledegook, and just as I suspected, NOBODY admitted that 25% of the XL pipeline capacity has been dedicated to the highly volatile Bakken crude!
Yes, that's right, 25% of the crude that flows through the pipeline will be extracted from North Dakota and Montana!
THAT is the crude that was involved in the train derailments! THAT is the crude that is more volatile than nearly any other crude!
Even Mircea, who I normally highly respect, failed to mention that crude in his latest diatribe!
I see a lot of crying about people "losing their homes". Seems to me from what I have seen of the pipeline route, it goes through mostly farmland, and it will be buried deep underground, so the surface will still be usable for agriculture just as it is now. It will use easements, not outright purchase, in most cases, so nothing will be lost. I could be wrong about that. It happens frequently.
Anyway, from what I have read, VERY few (if any) "homes" will be destroyed, and the land will go back to whatever use it was put to before the pipeline was buried. Yes, there will be a quarter acre or so at intervals along the route for pump stations etc. The payments for those little dabs of land will be most welcome to most landowners.
"How do you make a million dollars farming? Start with two million!" Cash money is ALWAYS welcome to a farmer!
Umm....no.
You do know that this thing would go over the Ogalalla reservoir in Nebraska, which runs only feet below ground, correct?
And that, of course, has nothing to do with climate change, that only refers to the environmental disasters that would occur and even the most strident and scientifically illiterate conservative could not deny.
You do know that this thing would go over the Ogalalla reservoir in Nebraska, which runs only feet below ground, correct?
And that, of course, has nothing to do with climate change, that only refers to the environmental disasters that would occur and even the most strident and scientifically illiterate conservative could not deny.
Actually not true. The problem with tar sands oil is in the amount of pollution from using it as a fuel. But that decision is not up for discussion. It is going to be used. So shipping it by pipeline is probably the safest way. Leak detection and limiting is dependent on technology in the pipeline.
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.
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.
