Keystone pipeline delayed (Page 4): Oil from north America should be refined and used in North America. Energy independence won't happen if we export our fuel away.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

Oil from north America should be refined and used in North America. Energy independence won't happen if we export our fuel away.

AuntiE wrote:

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.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

emarine wrote:

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.

The pressure and heat movement part is something that many, in the general public, may not be aware of. I was not.

Patty

First thing that needs to happen is these Big energy corps need to pay for the fuel they are taking out of our ground and not just the cost of extracting it. Second there needs to be an infrastructure of Nat Gas lines put along our interstates for fueling stations and all diesel trucks switched to nat gas in 10 years. We already own the right of way, it would create jobs, burn twice as clean and make us energy independent.
Screw these crony green energy deals that go belly up after they get our money.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

They don't want it and that is good enough.

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.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

grace scott wrote:

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?

What damage has the Alaskan Pipeline caused? The XL is much easier to build than was the Alaskan.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

grace scott wrote:

There is a difference between a public utility and a for profit pipe line owner. Our public utilities are great.

What is the difference between a public utility and "a for profit pipe line"? The 'for profit' has to pay for their own, while we the taxpayer pays for the public.

emarine

Patty wrote:

First thing that needs to happen is these Big ener... (show quote)

We could of and should of done this 40 years ago... our ability to waste energy is incredible... we are pissing away our natural resource's for the profits of the 1%

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

emarine wrote:

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.

That is a good point.

Well I may win.

I have stock in a company that has a system that helps the tar sands flow better.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Floyd Brown wrote:

That is a good point.

Well I may win.

I have stock in a company that has a system that helps the tar sands flow better.

Check out the Exxon pipeline that ruptured in Mayflower AR last year. It was carrying a similar product. Exxon claims that the rupture was due to a flaw in the pipe, resulting in a rupture 20 years later. Exxon had to buy a dozen homes as they were no longer habitable due to the toxic spill. This pipeline also runs through a community watershed area and Exxon is refusing to move it, DESPITE the fact that it is made from the same pipe.

Exxon claims that it is conducting pressure tests on the pipeline that will take two years to complete. Meanwhile, they have reopened the pipeline. The Canadian tar sands will be carrying an even MORE toxic product.

UncleJesse Loc: Hazzard Co, GA

TransCanada Corporation and the Alberta local government would've been better off proposing a water pipeline to California than this Keystone Pipeline project. They could be selling water by now.

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?

Brian Devon

Patty wrote:

I worked for a public utility for 25 years. Our boys always left the area better than when they got there. Always.

Well, I can tell you from personal experience that energy companies hardly leave all places better than they found them. Union Oil in the 1960s had a platform blow out in the ocean near Santa Barbara. They permanently ruined the fine beaches of what was once a world famous beach town. A half century after that well blew out there are gross tar deposits on the beaches. In the morning there is a petroleum stench that lingers in the air. If you come to visit, bring a container of turpentine (toxic) to remove the tar from the bottom of your feet.

These same nightmares were repeated on the U.S. gulf coast and Prince William Sound in Alaska. Enough with the petro-criminals who would sacrifice our children's environment for their pieces of silver.

No way to the ultra polluting Canadian prehistoric sludge. Enough!!!!!!

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

Brian Devon wrote:

Well, I can tell you from personal experience that... (show quote)

I have been to Santa Barbara numerous times, but have never encountered that of which you speak.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

UncleJesse wrote:

TransCanada Corporation and the Alberta local government would've been better off proposing a water pipeline to California than this Keystone Pipeline project. They could be selling water by now.

True, but they can use their water. They have no use for the tar sands, that's why they're pawning it off on us.

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

lpnmajor wrote:

True, but they can use their water. They have no use for the tar sands, that's why they're pawning it off on us.

They aren't "pawning anything off on us". If the buyer wasn't aware of what he/they are purchasing, they wouldn't purchase it.

Brian Devon

Old_Gringo wrote:

I have been to Santa Barbara numerous times, but have never encountered that of which you speak.

******
Then you are blind, with no sense of smell. Actually the only smell you perceive is the one you get when you have your head completely up your lock and load cracker ass.