Do we really need to risk our land for Canada to ship their crude oil down to the gulf to export to China? (environmentalists, states)
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.
Americans are not the consumers of this oil. China is. American globalist corporations selling the Canadian-source oil to China are creating a false demand in the US that is misconstrued as American buyers and consumers. The oil industry is risking our country's resources, environment, and safety, with no sense of responsibility, to make an obscene middleman profit on Canadian crude. Who will foot the bill for a spill disaster? The US taxpayer and landowner. If China wants Canadian oil and Canada wants to supply it, let Canada and China take the risk.
From what I have read, spills are more common with this sludge. It's hard on pipelines.
They will use Warren Buffet's trains, or use tanker trucks to move that oil, it's going to be moved one way or the other. The pipeline would have greatly reduced the carbon footprint to move that oil. Trains and trucks have accidents you know, so if you're are looking for a perfect solution, there is none. But I think trains and trucks invite a greater chance of spills than the pipe line would have.
We don't have to let them transport any of their crude oil enroute to China through the US at all! Let Canada and China deal with it and leave us out!
I prefer large tankers on our highways instead of a pipeline underground in a vacant field where no one lives.
And why do we have to transport crude oil that is going to China, through our land at all? A few oil moguls will become multi-billionaires and we tax-payers will pay for damage to our land. Does that make sense to you?
We don't need that crude oil from Canada. We are doing just fine now without the Keystone pipeline.
It's not up to you.
The oil will be moved, people like you think you can save the planet by putting your hands over your eyes and make things go away. The world does not work like that. The world will still use X amount of fossil fuels, no matter what. If you force US sources of oil to remain in the ground, people will use the same amount, albeit paying higher prices. We can buy and ship oil from some enemy nation, or from a dirty nation whose extraction process pollutes the planet.
Which is better, the US and our allies buying oil from safer and more environmentally friendly US oil companies, or buying oil from our enemies, and nations who allow extraction methods that pollute our planet? The greenies seem to prefer the later, out of sight, out of mind; hence the hands over your eyes comment above.
The oil will be moved, people like you think you can save the planet by putting your hands over your eyes and make things go away. The world does not work like that. The world will still use X amount of fossil fuels, no matter what. If you force US sources of oil to remain in the ground, people will use the same amount, albeit paying higher prices. We can buy and ship oil from some enemy nation, or from a dirty nation whose extraction process pollutes the planet.
Which is better, the US and our allies buying oil from safer and more environmentally friendly US oil companies, or buying oil from our enemies, and nations who allow extraction methods that pollute our planet? The greenies seem to prefer the later, out of sight, out of mind; hence the hands over your eyes comment above.
And why do we have to transport crude oil that is going to China, through our land at all? A few oil moguls will become multi-billionaires and we tax-payers will pay for damage to our land. Does that make sense to you?
All you are doing is taking the worst case scenarios, and holding up these assumptions and presenting them as fact. The pipeline is not even built yet, and you assume it has damaged our land. The oil is going to be moved, get that thru your head. The pipeline is the safest, least destructive method to move it. Oil flowing thru a pipeline is a hell of a lot smaller carbon footprint than transporting it by train, tanker truck and cargo ship. and the pipeline offers less risk then the multitudes of trains, truck and ships that have to be used in place of the pipeline.
First of all, the tar sands is in Alberta, Canada, not in the US.
Secondly in the post you responded to, I was pointing out that US oil companies are more environmentally safe than oil coming from non-environmentally friendly third world countries, or from some of the oil nations which are enemies of the US and / or our allies.
And lastly, where the oil is coming from is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the benefits or harms from the XL pipeline being used to transport the oil.
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.