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.
As most most know Obama is in favor of pipeline and construction is going to be started on parts of it that do not need special approval.
As I mentioned months ago there has been quite a few spills in existing Sand Tar pipelines.
The video below is about the Sand Tar oil spill in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010 that they are still cleaning up today.
Anyone that favors this pipeline should watch this video and look me in the face and tell me they still want it.
Well we know of alot of spills of different things over the years to include on highways.I gues some would want no crude but are Ok with gasoline trucks spils o highways and other chemicals. Remmeber the same groups said the alaskan pipeline would spell disaster.The are alos Ok with much riskier movement of crude over oceans which we are much more relient on now. It reminds me of I want gas for my car but not from my area.
In 2003, there were over 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. carrying natural gas, and hazardous liquids
(chiefly petroleum and refined petroleum products, as well as chemicals and hydrogen).
Are "tar sands" pipelines different than other pipelines?
Are "tar sands" pipelines different than other pipelines?
Oil from tar sands is a heavy oil with more asphalt and what we might call bunker grade oil. Like the Alyeska Pipeline this kind of oil has to be heated so it can flow freely and this is especially critical in Winter . Winters in Praries Canada, Montana the Dakotas and Nebraska can be very frigid. So the oil in a conventional pipeline would freeze solid and it would be usless in winter and take a major operation to get it flowing again. This heating operation would be done at pumping stations every 25-40 miles. There is an existing Keystone pipeline that takes oil from Alberta, through Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Minnesota, Iowaand Misouri where it join up with US pipelines to Gulf or Midwest. It handles conventional crude oil from Alberta. The Industry wants this route through the high plaines because it is shorter (aka cheaper) and they know what a hassle it would be to try to build it following the Keystone right of way through Minnesota, Iowa, or Missouri. I can atest that they are just as NIMBY as any other red blooded American. There are millions of backyards in all of these states.
I will watch your video, but I don't presently support this thing anyway, because of the pictures I've seen of what it is doing to the land and wildlife habitat. I'd much rather see oil wells than this kind of devastation.
My understanding is that all this pipeline is taking the crude to refineries in the U.S., are you saying that is not true?
This is absolutely horrible. Where is Al Gore? Now he's got something real to complain about. I wouldn't be surprised to find he's making money off of this project too, so he'll keep his mouth shut.
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.
