Keystone pipeline delayed
Apr 19, 2014 12:26:38 #
Patty wrote:
:thumbup: Look at all the fuel we are saving by people not driving to work.
We could chase our tails all day long over energy.... look at Russia.... they rely on oil revenue to fund their Government.... We support our oil industry with tax payer money, The primary use of our Military is for oil resources , as is the primary reason for our wars.
Apr 19, 2014 13:11:25 #
Floyd Brown
Loc: Milwaukee WI
[quote=Patty]:thumbup: Look at all the fuel we are saving by people not driving to work.[/quote
How can any one say that those in power never think of the little guy.
How can any one say that those in power never think of the little guy.
Apr 19, 2014 15:49:57 #
fom wrote:
The decision to delay the Keystone pipeline is delayed at least till after this November. Is it political or is it being careful? There are Farmers and Ranchers in Nebraska that are opposed to haveing a pipeline carrying the most corrosive type of oil on their lands and near their water supply. Who will come to the aid of those Men of the Soil If a Canadian company has the go ahead against the objections and concerns of American Farmers and Ranchers?
It is 110% political!!!
Apr 19, 2014 15:51:54 #
grace scott wrote:
Would you want something like this across you land? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't want it across my neighbor's land because it could contaminate my land.
Horse pucky. It isn't going to pollute one darn thing. The only pollution comes from the tree huggers and their acolytes in D.C.
Apr 19, 2014 15:54:05 #
Old_Gringo wrote:
Horse pucky. It isn't going to pollute one darn thing. The only pollution comes from the tree huggers and their acolytes in D.C.
I worked for a public utility for 25 years. Our boys always left the area better than when they got there. Always.
Apr 19, 2014 15:58:59 #
fom wrote:
Thanks for your answer. Do you think the Farmers and ranchers who do not want the pipeline should be forced to accept it
Just how is it going to negatively affect farmers and ranchers? The only negative effect will be on Buffets income from not transporting his oil by freight cars on the railroad.
Apr 19, 2014 16:01:17 #
Exactly.
:thumbup:
Old_Gringo wrote:
Just how is it going to negatively affect farmers and ranchers? The only negative effect will be on Buffets income from not transporting his oil by freight cars on the railroad.
:thumbup:
Apr 19, 2014 16:04:57 #
Old_Gringo wrote:
Just how is it going to negatively affect farmers and ranchers? The only negative effect will be on Buffets income from not transporting his oil by freight cars on the railroad.
Same argument against the Alaska pipeline. Pretty much accident free. The Keystone has the advantage of far easier access, also, in case of problems. In fact, no one has mentioned what is potentially the biggest problem of all, terror attacks. I am not worried about environmental damage from faulty construction.
Apr 19, 2014 16:07:54 #
It would be a buried pipeline Im sure.
Loki wrote:
Same argument against the Alaska pipeline. Pretty much accident free. The Keystone has the advantage of far easier access, also, in case of problems. In fact, no one has mentioned what is potentially the biggest problem of all, terror attacks. I am not worried about environmental damage from faulty construction.
Apr 19, 2014 16:14:05 #
Old_Gringo wrote:
Horse pucky. It isn't going to pollute one darn thing. The only pollution comes from the tree huggers and their acolytes in D.C.
No guarantee can be given that the pipe line won't rupture. Depending on where the rupture occurs and how quickly it is fixed will influence the damage. If it occurs in, under, or near a stream, water will be polluted.
Do you want your cows or your children drinking polluted water?
Apr 19, 2014 16:18:44 #
Patty wrote:
I worked for a public utility for 25 years. Our boys always left the area better than when they got there. Always.
There is a difference between a public utility and a for profit pipe line owner. Our public utilities are great.
Apr 19, 2014 16:20:30 #
Loki wrote:
Same argument against the Alaska pipeline. Pretty much accident free. The Keystone has the advantage of far easier access, also, in case of problems. In fact, no one has mentioned what is potentially the biggest problem of all, terror attacks. I am not worried about environmental damage from faulty construction.
The Alaskan pipeline flows crude oil , the XL will flow tar sands... they are very different products.... crude oil depending on the temperature is liquid... tar sands are exactly what it sounds like ... a mess that requires a lot of line pressure and heat to move, not to mention they are very abrasive and it's not been tried in long lengths yet.. so the reality is we don't know how safe it will be.
Apr 19, 2014 16:26:39 #
Kevyn wrote:
Keystone, a great way for the Canadians to sell oil to the Chinease.
According to a report on CNN, the oil will go to Latin American countries. Approximately 2-3 million gallons will stay stateside. No mention of China was made. If memory serves, the sale to Latin America was due to the fact the pipeline, if built, would end at refineries in Texas.
Apr 19, 2014 16:29:38 #
No there really isn't they bth fall under the dept. of transportation and are regulated as such. That's why we had to pee in a cup every month or so. Public utilities fall under the state PUC but are actually for profit stock owned companies.
grace scott wrote:
There is a difference between a public utility and a for profit pipe line owner. Our public utilities are great.
Apr 19, 2014 16:31:56 #
fom wrote:
The Canadians can pipe Their oil across Canadian land we should not take the risk for the profit of a foriegn country.
To what port would they deliver "Their" oil?
Are you contending that no American companies will obtain profit from the pipeline, if it were built?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.