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.
It's these foreign-owned companies, not the environmental groups targeted by Harper, that pose the real threat to Canada. The Northern Gateway pipeline would slice through 700 miles of environmentally sensitive land in western Canada, exposing ecological treasures like the Great Bear Rainforest to major oil spills. In Alberta alone, there were 687 pipeline failures in 2010. Three spills in a single month last spring dumped 400,000 gallons of oil – including 132,000 gallons into a river that provides drinking water to Alberta residents.
Many of the spills were caused by incompetence and slipshod engineering – a fact underscored by a report released last month by the U.S. government detailing a massive spill that took place in Michigan in 2010. The disaster, which was caused by a six-foot gash in a pipeline carrying tar-sands oil from Canada to U.S. refineries, dumped nearly a million gallons of oil into a tributary of the Kalamazoo, poisoning the river and exposing residents to benzene and other toxic chemicals. The spill cost nearly $1 billion to clean up, making it the most expensive inland oil disaster in U.S. history. The company responsible for the spill? Enbridge, the Canadian firm behind the Northern Gateway.
But of course, we're supposed to want something even they don't want, right?
The pipeline is bad news. I think people don't understand that is not oil running through the pipeline. That is a sand-slurry mix (mostly petroleum solvents) running through it.
Solve is like-for-like. You follow? Water is a solvent, but not for hydrocarbons. Water and oils don't mix, right, even when it's vegetable oils and such. For hydrocarbons, you need to use petroleum distillates as solvents.
Look at asphalt driveways and parking lots. Water has no effect on them, but oil leaking from the engine and petroleum-based hydraulic fluids, like transmission fluid dissolve the asphalt and create holes where those fluids sit.
So your pipeline has either rubber gaskets, made using vulcanization and oil, or plastic gaskets made of various oil-based polymers -- yeah the gaskets are going to dissolve and leak. And the sand is very abrasive. It's called tar-sands for a reason -- it's sand with oil. Go to the beach, walk up to the surf and stick your hand in the sand and grab a handful -- you got sand and [sea] water. That's what tar sands oil is.
Uh, sand doesn't flow very well, so they create a slurry using petroleum distillates -- like toluene -- real good for people and the environment.
That oil is useless anyway. All you do is export it. It's high sulfur and costs a lot for sulfur redux to get to EPA Tier 2 Standards, which is 30 ppm sulfur. Just wait until EPA Tier 3 goes into effect --- right after the Elections (it already passed) and gasoline is limited to 10 ppm sulfur. It costs a lot of money to get the sulfur out. A lot of money. That's why the US exports diesel and gasoline -- because it is all high sulfur and none of it meets EPA regulations so it's exported to countries that don't have an EPA...yet.
I don't think it's a surprise that Rolling Stone would be able to find poeple against the pipeline. That doesn't equate to the idea that Canada overall doesn't.
President Barack Obama's decision to temporarily block a pipeline from Alberta to Texas went over badly in Canada, but Canadian officials are hopeful it eventually will be approved. Meanwhile, Canada will push harder for a pipeline to the Pacific Coast, where oil could be shipped to China.
If This Pipeline passes make sure to buy stock in Coke and all other bottled water distributors..... They will make you rich!!!! With a destroyed aquifer Distilleries and water purification will be a boom industry.......... Don't think that the movers and shakers in board-rooms aren't anticipating this ecological disasters!!!!!!!
Gonna buy me some Coke stock this week!
Obama dont have the stones to do anything but capitulate even if its for the safety of the country.
Let it become a campaign issue and he will fold like a house of cards!!!!
The pipeline is bad news. I think people don't understand that is not oil running through the pipeline. That is a sand-slurry mix (mostly petroleum solvents) running through it.
Solve is like-for-like. You follow? Water is a solvent, but not for hydrocarbons. Water and oils don't mix, right, even when it's vegetable oils and such. For hydrocarbons, you need to use petroleum distillates as solvents.
Look at asphalt driveways and parking lots. Water has no effect on them, but oil leaking from the engine and petroleum-based hydraulic fluids, like transmission fluid dissolve the asphalt and create holes where those fluids sit.
So your pipeline has either rubber gaskets, made using vulcanization and oil, or plastic gaskets made of various oil-based polymers -- yeah the gaskets are going to dissolve and leak. And the sand is very abrasive. It's called tar-sands for a reason -- it's sand with oil. Go to the beach, walk up to the surf and stick your hand in the sand and grab a handful -- you got sand and [sea] water. That's what tar sands oil is.
Uh, sand doesn't flow very well, so they create a slurry using petroleum distillates -- like toluene -- real good for people and the environment.
That oil is useless anyway. All you do is export it. It's high sulfur and costs a lot for sulfur redux to get to EPA Tier 2 Standards, which is 30 ppm sulfur. Just wait until EPA Tier 3 goes into effect --- right after the Elections (it already passed) and gasoline is limited to 10 ppm sulfur. It costs a lot of money to get the sulfur out. A lot of money. That's why the US exports diesel and gasoline -- because it is all high sulfur and none of it meets EPA regulations so it's exported to countries that don't have an EPA...yet.
Ok, your link was printed on August 2, 2012. Today, September 3, 2012 I heard the governor of Montana who will deliver the keynote speech in Charlotte in a couple of days talking about that Keystone pipeline. He said that everybody was in line with it, even British Columbia, except Nebraska and it was them that was holding it back. The top speaker at the DNC till Obama gets up, unless you see Clinton as the top man, says that it is Nebraska that is holding the thing back. I wonder who is telling the truth.
I don't think it's a surprise that Rolling Stone would be able to find poeple against the pipeline. That doesn't equate to the idea that Canada overall doesn't.
I find even less surprising that the Christian Science Monitor can only find politicians claiming that Canadians are disappointed by the delay.
Not only is it dirty oil, the number of jobs created has been greatly exaggerated. The true estimated number of jobs would be between 6500 and 10,000, not the tens of thousands or even millions that have been reported.
The other problem with the line was the route through the sandhills of Nebraska, which cover the most sensitive part of the Ogallala aquifer that serves 8 states and provides water for households and for irrigation to millions.
Although other pipelines have crossed the aquifer, there are none that cross these sandhills. Nebraska officials pushed for a new route and that, along with the concerns of other states, is why the initial plans were rejected.
All they have to do is come up with a different route that does not go through the sandhills and it should be approved, for what little benefit it will produce.
But they would like to threaten us by saying they will sell to China. Big claim, as they can't even seem to get it out of Canada..........
I don't think it's a surprise that Rolling Stone would be able to find poeple against the pipeline. That doesn't equate to the idea that Canada overall doesn't.
President Barack Obama's decision to temporarily block a pipeline from Alberta to Texas went over badly in Canada, but Canadian officials are hopeful it eventually will be approved. Meanwhile, Canada will push harder for a pipeline to the Pacific Coast, where oil could be shipped to China.
Your link has two serious problems. It was written on Jan. 19, 2012 and came in a publication with Christian in its name. Now lefties are against anything like that for both reasons. Of course, I doubt that many of them heard the Governor of Montana talking this morning because it was on Fox and they avoid that there place. He said that BC was in favor of it and a month ago Rolling Stone said the opposite. You can see the good gov doing the keynote speech this week at the DNC. I bet he doesn't mention this subject.
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.
