Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    It would depend on how quicly the pipeline could be shut down in the event of a structural compromise (leak), and how the response plans and resources could be brought to bear to isolate any oil from the water source.

    Small alterations from initial plans are not dealbreakers- these types of issue shave to be dealt with for all major infrastructure nodes, like roads, railways, airports, powerlines, hell, even sewage tratement/ water treatment [plants, power plants, etc.

    I also find it amusing that people jump back and gasp when a member of the GOP has an environmental concern, as if the GOP headquarters is now going to have to take him out back and put him down.
    You are right, it would depend on how quickly it could be shut down and the past does not bode well for this. Remember the BP spill, wasn't that supposed to be able to be contained within a week according to their contingency plans? I don't remember the exact time frame but I know it was a fraction of how long it actually took.

    When you are dealing with an aquifer that supplies water to a major section of the country and you don't treat it with the utmost care there is an extreme problem. I would dare say it is treasonous to risk the lives of all those people for the vague promise of jobs and oil that won't even be supplied to us. The map linked here shows the size of that aquifer, look how many people would be affected if that were to be tainted. We aren't talking a couple people, even in a disperse population we are talking about (in my estimate) tens of millions of people.

    Yes quite frankly, I am shocked when I find out a member of the GOP cares about the environment. They have demonstrated through their elected officials that caring about the environment in any capacity is akin to socialism of the highest order. They have public statements where they treat any concern to the state of our planet as the same as appeasing communists or environmental wackjobs. I am glad to see that there are some out there who realize that we only get one planet and its best to stop ****ing with this one.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    You are right, it would depend on how quickly it could be shut down and the past does not bode well for this. Remember the BP spill, wasn't that supposed to be able to be contained within a week according to their contingency plans? I don't remember the exact time frame but I know it was a fraction of how long it actually took.

    When you are dealing with an aquifer that supplies water to a major section of the country and you don't treat it with the utmost care there is an extreme problem. I would dare say it is treasonous to risk the lives of all those people for the vague promise of jobs and oil that won't even be supplied to us. The map linked here shows the size of that aquifer, look how many people would be affected if that were to be tainted. We aren't talking a couple people, even in a disperse population we are talking about (in my estimate) tens of millions of people.

    Yes quite frankly, I am shocked when I find out a member of the GOP cares about the environment. They have demonstrated through their elected officials that caring about the environment in any capacity is akin to socialism of the highest order. They have public statements where they treat any concern to the state of our planet as the same as appeasing communists or environmental wackjobs. I am glad to see that there are some out there who realize that we only get one planet and its best to stop ****ing with this one.
    Yes, point taken, but planning a pipeline route can take these things into consideration. I also am not sure what the response time is for a pipeline monitoring station to shut down in the event of a leak. It's been 15 years since I studied this, and pipeline technology has changed quite a bit since then. Additioanlly, even after we consider rerouting a pipeline away from major water reesources such as this aquifer, responding to a leak inland on a pipeline is much different than thousands of feet below the ocean's surface.

    I don't see where a pipeline using a rsponsible route should then be scrapped. If there's an issue with the route, then redraft the route. But the pipeline is a good thing for anyone who is struggling right now to make ends meet. More jobs for its construction, and then operations and maintenance, and lower oil prices impacts the price of almost anything we consume. Lower prices means a little relief for those who really need it right now.

    I'm all for alternative energy invenstment, but until it can come online and replace the need for oil at the same cost, we need both until such time as we can phase out oil consumption without impacting the economy.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Yes it can take those things into account, but from my reading into the Nebraska issue it did not appear to take those things into account. Which is why he is so concerned over the aquifer in that area, which will hurt almost everyone he represents if it goes wrong.

    The pipeline appears to be the epitome of the situation in regard to environmentalism. Do we sacrifice a possible disaster for jobs? The pipeline is expected to create a couple thousand jobs by the Keystone people and other construction research firms. Not the hyperinflated 20,000 or hundreds of thousands by some in the media (ie Fox).

    The part about lower energy costs confuses me though since none of the Keystone fuel is going to be coming to the US, it will all be for other countries. I believe China is the largest of the benefactors, so there will be no lowering of fuel costs from Keystone.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,586
    vCash
    1500
    The greater issue is the LIES spewed regarding the whys and hows of the whole deal.

    The fuel will be CANADIAN, I believe it will be unrefined, so producing a finished product will be achieved by US means so tha means jobs, but it wont be our fuel and we wont gain from its sale.

    The only benefit is the Mnufacturing of the pipeline, which is a limited job creator, but the REAL incentive that is driving the Rs interest,....as IT ALWAYS IS, is the investment potential....Do you have a couple of hundred thousand lying around to turn into a couple of Million? most of the people who are screaming for this deal do......

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Yes it can take those things into account, but from my reading into the Nebraska issue it did not appear to take those things into account. Which is why he is so concerned over the aquifer in that area, which will hurt almost everyone he represents if it goes wrong.

    The pipeline appears to be the epitome of the situation in regard to environmentalism. Do we sacrifice a possible disaster for jobs? The pipeline is expected to create a couple thousand jobs by the Keystone people and other construction research firms. Not the hyperinflated 20,000 or hundreds of thousands by some in the media (ie Fox).

    The part about lower energy costs confuses me though since none of the Keystone fuel is going to be coming to the US, it will all be for other countries. I believe China is the largest of the benefactors, so there will be no lowering of fuel costs from Keystone.
    I think your question is pertinent, but I would offer a different take on it. Is not a pipeline safer from an environmental prospective than placing that transportation burdon of that oil on an aging maritime fleet? I'd much rather see that oil come in via pipeline.

    My point on the fuel costs was more from a perspective of increasing the aggregate supply, and therefore, lowering costs. That was more of an assumption on my part. My thought was, increase supply into the market, get the refineries up to capacity, and see a change in price.

    I remember when gas was under $1 a gallon. Hell, I also remember having to specify between leaded and unleaded gas. I am looking for a way to ease the burden on folks who are struggling, and few things have the wide reaching implications of oil right now. I am completely in favor of inreasing imports from Canada if it helps employ folks as well.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Coventry RI
    Posts
    1,376
    vCash
    1500

    more work for me

    I work in a little machine shop in RI. We currently are making pieces for a company that converts this oil mud into oil. It was never worth te time and money to do this but with gas going up this is now a reasonable way to get oil.

    I know it's still oil but we are trying new things to get energy.

    Yeah it sucks that gas prices are going up but atleast it's helping us find more ways to extract energy

    My town also shot down a wind farm someone wanted to build way out in the woods. Could of been something big if you ask me. We all want new jobs and grow the economy yet kill a plan that would employ others.

    I think green energy will help us with this unemployment rate we have. But people also need to have a will power and want to work which is 1/2 the problem IMO
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseyed View Post
    I kind of agree with this, but then we'd end up will BB in a helicopter trying to fly over random football fields all over the country.
    Big Brother is watching

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Patsfan56 View Post
    I think your question is pertinent, but I would offer a different take on it. Is not a pipeline safer from an environmental prospective than placing that transportation burdon of that oil on an aging maritime fleet? I'd much rather see that oil come in via pipeline.

    My point on the fuel costs was more from a perspective of increasing the aggregate supply, and therefore, lowering costs. That was more of an assumption on my part. My thought was, increase supply into the market, get the refineries up to capacity, and see a change in price.

    I remember when gas was under $1 a gallon. Hell, I also remember having to specify between leaded and unleaded gas. I am looking for a way to ease the burden on folks who are struggling, and few things have the wide reaching implications of oil right now. I am completely in favor of inreasing imports from Canada if it helps employ folks as well.
    I don't know whether the fleet or pipeline are safer but I would like them to look at those options. The reason I don't like the underground route is because aquifers are our greatest source of clean drinking water. If we lose them, then desalinating ocean water starts to become a requirement and that is extraordinarily expensive. The last thing I want is for people to need to focus on the price of water by the gallon.

    Increasing the supply will reduce the price all things being equal. But the amount is important and that plays into the assumption that there aren't outside forces (ie speculators) playing a role in how much oil gets released into the market and manipulating the price. If they see (assumption) 5,000,000 barrels coming into the market from Keystone. They can easily reduce 5,000,000 barrels from Saudi Arabia and make the whole thing a wash. The oil market is the opposite of a free market.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Land Beyond the Wall, VT
    Posts
    7,141
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lil Rhody View Post
    I work in a little machine shop in RI. We currently are making pieces for a company that converts this oil mud into oil. It was never worth te time and money to do this but with gas going up this is now a reasonable way to get oil.

    I know it's still oil but we are trying new things to get energy.

    Yeah it sucks that gas prices are going up but atleast it's helping us find more ways to extract energy

    My town also shot down a wind farm someone wanted to build way out in the woods. Could of been something big if you ask me. We all want new jobs and grow the economy yet kill a plan that would employ others.

    I think green energy will help us with this unemployment rate we have. But people also need to have a will power and want to work which is 1/2 the problem IMO
    From an engineering standpoint that sounds really interesting to me. The company I work for is assisting in environmental mitigation and management with a wind turbine project in the Gulf of Maine. They have built one such turbine and put it out in the North Sea. I'd love to see more of this and other research into tapping into existing resources. I'd also still love to see that giant solar farm in the southwest.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Coventry RI
    Posts
    1,376
    vCash
    1500

    US to become biggest oil producer by 2020

    Also he who laughs last laughs loudest. We as a country are taking everybody elses oil and saving ours cause when it's all out every where else we have an abundance. I feel like that is our governments stand point for both parties.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bullseyed View Post
    I kind of agree with this, but then we'd end up will BB in a helicopter trying to fly over random football fields all over the country.
    Big Brother is watching

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Lil Rhody View Post
    Also he who laughs last laughs loudest. We as a country are taking everybody elses oil and saving ours cause when it's all out every where else we have an abundance. I feel like that is our governments stand point for both parties.
    I have believed that is our plan for some time now. We buy other countries' (specifically the Middle East) oil now while it is cheap (compared to the future price it is) and then sell them our oil in the future at a substantial premium.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,874
    vCash
    1500
    byebye environment, it was good while it lasted

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •