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.
The greenies have a right to be concerned about the environment. Good thing. Shutting down projects like last year's Ruby line months putting thousands out of work because of the migratory pattern of birds.... Idiotic!
Didn't know that Nebraska is a "green" state full of treehuggers
Then why not just ship if out of the state of Washington. Isn't that closer than Texas?
Well, technically that will be the ultimate solution, although... why even bother with Washington? The idea is to ship! Isn't it? Although, a port with a more direct access to the Atlantic may be more attractive, except for Chinese demand, which will be delivered regardless.
That Canada and oil companies are attempting an energy welfare program for the USA is merely a sham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
It was you who used the word "we" in your post, thus indicating taxpayers. I have no hatred of Mr. Buffett, only of his political ideology and duplicity. Save your personal attacks.
So? How does that help your argument? Your hatred for Buffett is well-documented, and saying so is not "personal attack". Why else would you point fingers specifically at him? Much less using a flimsy argument about government building railway network for BNSF. Hence my question back to you... do you expect government to be building the pipeline and oil refineries instead? Remember, government building anything is YOUR argument, not mine. Save your whining about "personal attacks".
Leaks will happen a lot. Of course, I'm not talking about huge leaks like Prudhoe Bay. I'm talking about very small leaks that will happen over the life of the pipeline from small cracks and failing valves and pumps. There will be a lot of these.
Edit: If we're going to transport Canadian oil to the Gulf, I prefer to use rail.
Are you kidding me? Why do you keep digging this hole deeper? Do you have any idea of what pressure those pipelines run at? There are NO CRACKS OR LEAKS. There are blowouts and they are very rare. 1500-2000 psi does not "leak" out of a crack, that crack becomes a blowout and a lake of oil.
I think the leaks you are referring to are mostly from maintenance of valves ect but with today's epa rules and regulations very little of that actually is leaked into the ground. In the old days yes, leaks occurred no doubt.
Also wanted to add in the event of a blowout today's technology is much better. The pumps automatically shut down and emergency valves close when the computers sense a dramatic drop in pressure on the line which makes the spill much less. In the old days they would pump and pump that oil out of a break. It's all computers now with human operators/dispatchers monitoring the computers.
Why not build the refineries in Canada? Why transport this toxic mess down here at all. FYI, this tar sand stuff is not your typical crude oil. It is as much as 40 times as viscous as normal crude so they need to add some really nasty thinners to thin it enough to pump thru a pipe. The spill in Michigan is going to take years to clean up and cosy estimates are $600 million, just for one spill.
Sand suspended in the tar is another problem. As you pump this thru a pipe the sand slowly grinds down the inside of the pipe. Spills will happen.
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.
Apparently not. People are still whining and crying about it. If it is about access to oil for the United States, why wouldn't building an oil refinery over building a pipeline work? Answer that.
Your disagreement with Nebraskans assumes they are wrong. If you believed that they actually have a point, you would agree with their opposition on THOSE terms. Instead, you seem to believe you know better.
Quote:
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.
What were you doing prior to over three years?
Quote:
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....
Conserving doesn't require extremism. If we continue to worship drilling and consuming, and use an excuse based on extremist thinking that you're not into conservation unless you stop using, we're not just doomed when it comes to energy supply, we're actually accelerating the inevitable and not giving ourselves the time and incentives to work on the alternatives.
Quote:
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?
I would bet my house on $10/gallon gasoline in the future. Would you bet against it?
I have a serious question for everybody that is going insane about the Keystone pipeline not being built.
What's the reason for building it?
If it is to get the oil to the refineries, wouldn't it be easier to just build a refinery in North Dakota?
Canada actually wants to ship the refined oil overseas. Thus the reason for the pipeline extending to the Gulf and endangering all aquifers along the route.
I have a serious question for everybody that is going insane about the Keystone pipeline not being built.
What's the reason for building it?
To protect Canada's environment; help O Canada! exploit international markets; and to help O Canada! reap greater profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo
If it is to get the oil to the refineries, wouldn't it be easier to just build a refinery in North Dakota?
No.
The oil is very heavy high Sulfur oil. It is of no value to Americans.
The oil is destined for export. Building a refinery in North Dakota would only exasperate the problems for O Canada! The oil must go to a refinery at a port so that it can be exported.
The pipeline terminus is Port Arthur, Texas. Port Arthur is a US Commerce Department designated Foreign [Free] Trade Zone. That means there are no export duties or tariffs charged, and that means the American people don't profit from the export of goods there.
The products refined from very heavy high Sulfur oil are diesel, aviation fuel, asphalt, tar, petroleum jellies, lubricants, a variety of distillates, paraffin, naphtha, and base chemicals for use in other products. For example, you do get the base chemicals necessary for Dacron and other synthetic fibers, plus some organic alcohols like Neodol-12, Neodol-15 etc.
The diesel cannot be sold in the US because it is high Sulfur, and the cost for the Sulfur redux to reduce it to 15 ppm to meet EPA standards is cost-prohibitive. No one is going to buy diesel at $8/gallon. Likewise the 2 to 3 gallons of gasoline that you would get are high Sulfur, and the cost to reduce the Sulfur to 30 ppm to meet EPA Tier 2 Regulations is cost-prohibitive.
Are you willing to pay $6/gallon for gasoline?
No, not yet.
Anyway, the operand here is "export." This very heavy high Sulfur useless oil was always intended for export.
Building the pipeline is cheaper for O Canada! than building refineries and dealing with the environmental problems. Also, O Canada! just doesn't have the port facilities to export large quantities of oil or refined oil products, and it would cost too much to expand existing port facilities.
Not insane...
Canada actually wants to ship the refined oil overseas. Thus the reason for the pipeline extending to the Gulf and endangering all aquifers along the route.
I think that is simply a threat. However, it not beyond the bounds of reason to believe it would be easier just to do business with china anyway. Our economy isn't good and won't be for quite some time, maybe never who knows.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,141,865 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What were you doing prior to over three years?
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?
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.
