Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,778,277 times
Reputation: 24863

Advertisements

To quote myself:

"The Canadians should refine the crude and ship us the fuels. IIRC there are already pipelines down the Mississippi River that could carry the product. Besides a ready supply of gasoline and diesel fuel would be an economic boon to the northern tier of Midwestern States. We do not need to risk polluting a huge water supply just to feed the petroleum greed heads in Huston even if the shrub is a Texan."

Add all pipelines leak eventually and the ioil company will never pay for the spill and you have a couple of good reasons to kill this foolish project.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:24 PM
 
4,042 posts, read 3,528,918 times
Reputation: 1968
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Why are we refining Canada's crude? Build refineries up there, we keep hearing we need more anyhow.

Why ship China's oil over our land? Let them ship it west.

Why are pipelines bad? Google Wellington Ohio pipeline leak. Just happened last Thursday, they still haven't got a look at the pipe itself, still dealing with the environmental damage.
Which is worse, a potential leak in a pipeline or not having enough oil to meet one's needs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,479 posts, read 59,778,277 times
Reputation: 24863
All oil pipelines eventually leak and a leak into the big aquifer would be devastating. The pipeline company would bankrupt before cleaning up the mess anyway. The Canadials can refine their own oil and supply it to the Northern Midwest through existing pipelines and other transport. That would be a boon to this economically deprived part of the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,163,062 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieA View Post
Your thoughts, please ? Why not ?
Quote:
Resource Guide for Jobs on TAPS

There are more than 2000 people employed on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company operates the pipeline and has over 800 employees. The rest of the work force are hired by contractors providing necessary work to operate, maintain and support the pipeline.
TAPS Resources (http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/employment/TAPS%20Resources.asp - broken link)

It's a pipeline, not an assembly line. I just thought I'd clarify that for the ignorant and ill-informed.

Will it create 25,000 jobs? No, not all at once. Over a period of 6-9 years its possible that a total of 25,000 people might have worked from 3 months to 2-3 years on it. Maybe.

Canada needs two things, expanded port facilities and processing facilities.

For Canada, piping the oil to Texas where it can be processed and have the water and particulate matter and heavy metals like vanadium, chromium, uranium, nickel and mercury removed and then shipped elsewhere to be refined makes sense.

Only 16 of the 26 refineries in Texas produce gasoline. Valero runs West Texas Intermediate, Citgo runs Tijuana Light (Venezuela), Total (a French company) runs Bonny Light (Nigeria). Most of the refineries are petro-chemical, meaning The Extravagant American Life-Style. Gasoline is merely a by-product; and afterthought. Delek and Premcor run West Texas Sour, which doesn't have as much sulfur as East Texas Sour, but they are independent suppliers to like Swifty and other independent gasoline stations.

You can run heavy oil through a sour intermediate or sweet intermediate refinery any more than you can run light oil through sour intermediate or sweet intermediate refinery. It's a matter of physics.

The reason the US doesn't use heavy oil for gasoline, is because you only get 6 gallons out of a 42 gallon barrel (9 gallons if you pay the extra price and take the time squeeze out 3 more gallons). If you're operating a refinery to produce gasoline, then common sense says you run intermediate or light, because you get double to quadruple the amount of gasoline for the same price/cost to run the refinery.

The oil pipeline is not necessary for America. It's a lot of "eminent domain" for no good reason.

That's why not...

Mircea

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Yet Obama would rather have us dependent upon oil from the Middle East region than our bordering ally Canada?
That would be grotesque ignorance, except this has all been explained to you before, so it would have to be willful ignorance, which falls in the realm of propaganda and disinformation.

Tar sands oils are by definition very heavy to heavy oils (bordering on tar). If you want to make The Pill, as in the original birth control pill, then great. But if you want The Patch for birth control, or you want the new one you only take once a month, or once a week, or if you want Lipitor, Claritin, Valtrex or any of your pharmaceutical drugs that were introduced to the market since 1994 then...

...you will use imported foreign light sweet (low sulfur) crude oil, or you will do without them.

Don't blame me, blame god or the dinosaurs for not crapping and dying in the right places, or blame the pterodactyls for not crapping plant seeds in the right places.

If you want Tide liquid laundry detergent, or any liquid laundry detergent, then you will import light oil from Venezuela, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, and when they run out, you'll import it from Central Asia, and when they run out, you'll import it from eastern Russia.

Liquid laundry detergents require Neodol-65 or Neodol-67, an organic alcohol made exclusively from light oil (and you don't have any) and you also need triethanolomine (the active soil release agent) which is made exclusively from light oil.

It's a matter of organic chemistry.

When you are ready to step back into the late 1960s/early 1970s and give up your body washes and liquid laundry detergents and all the drugs that have come on the market since 1994 and all of your frozen foods and ready-to-eat foods and all the beautiful colors and hues in your clothing then go right ahead -- that is the only way to free yourself of foreign oil.

Or you can do the 300 Million-man swim and take over the Middle East.

Until then, you are dependent on foreign imported light sweet (low sulfur) crude oil until the universe grinds to a halt.

Chemically speaking organically...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:36 PM
 
2,003 posts, read 1,545,462 times
Reputation: 1102
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnieA View Post
I think he is acting like a petulant child.
It sounds to me like Congress is acting like a bunch of petulant children, and the administration is acting like the annoyed parents. Pretty much every ten-year-old knows that if they whine "But mom, I need an answer *now*", then the answer will be "No." Well, congress demanded an answer *now*, and so they got their "No."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:43 PM
 
9,727 posts, read 9,728,101 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by jodipper View Post
Sometimes land has to be taken. The interstate highway system is an example. "Greater good" beats "no one is going to tell me what to do."

The pipeline doesn't fit Obama's agenda. The line "perpetuates America's addiction to oil" seems to show that.
This should not be Obama's decision to make. He is a temporary occupant of the office of president. This should be determined by the STATES affected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
802 posts, read 563,948 times
Reputation: 172
This is a terrible mistake by Obama and bad news for the industry. As a member of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Oil and Gas Association of the state I am in, this is catastrophic to the potential jobs it could have created. This venture would have created incredible tax revenue for the regions the pipeline would have went through. This move shows how out of touch Obama is and the lack of common sense he has. It shows he lacks foresight into the potential prosperity this project could have created for America and the workers building it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:47 PM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,853,377 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul1957 View Post
A bi-partisan agreement in Congress concerning Keystone will overturn the rabid tree huggers.
I tend to agree that there are many areas that could safely be opened for drilling. Do we need this pipeline, no. Canada and probably the Kochs might, but that is no reason to go forward without properly evaluation the overall risk/reward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:47 PM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,340,799 times
Reputation: 1857
Let Canada run their oil exporting tube on their own soil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2012, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,400 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
All oil pipelines eventually leak and a leak into the big aquifer would be devastating. The pipeline company would bankrupt before cleaning up the mess anyway. The Canadials can refine their own oil and supply it to the Northern Midwest through existing pipelines and other transport. That would be a boon to this economically deprived part of the nation.
The aquifer is no longer the issue. The planned re-route will keep XL far from it. The pipeline company would not go bankrupt cleaning up a mess.. and the Canadians cannot refine the oil because at the current time they don't have the capability to do it. Sometimes folks... knowing the facts... might help your cause... spouting un-truths... doesn't....
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top