It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
15e.) Recruitment/Solicitation:
i) You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever. You will not Post, use the chat feature, use videos, or use the private message system to disseminate advertisements, chain letters, petitions, pyramid schemes, or any kind of solicitation for political action, social action, letter campaigns, or related online and/or offline coordinated actions of any kind.
Originally posted by mikellmikell
Tar sands has nothing to do with the leak in Michigan and I support the use of tar sands.
On Monday, July 26th 2010 an estimated one million gallons of raw tar sands crude oil burst from a pipeline into a creek that feeds the Kalamazoo River. The oil spreading quickly in the flooded river, coating wildlife, saturating marshlands, backyards, businesses and farm land. The flow of the oil was contained before reaching Lake Michigan.
The raw tar sands oil disaster was caused by a break in a pipeline owned by Canadian tar sands giant, Enbridge.
Canada’s oil sands producers have suffered another black eye in the United States with Enbridge (ENB-T49.65-0.88-1.74%) pipeline break that has spilled some three million litres of crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River.
The high-profile accident and resulting political outcry comes at a sensitive time for the Canadian industry, which is looking expand pipeline access and exports to the U.S. Canadian officials have sought to quietly capitalize on BP’s catastrophic blowout in the Gulf of Mexico by positioning the oil sands as a greener, safer alternative to offshore crude.
But there is growing opposition to oil sands pipelines – whether Enbridge’s planned Northern Gateway project to the West Coast or Enbridge (TRP-T35.93-0.33-0.91%) Keystone XL line to the U.S. Gulf Coast. And the Michigan spill, while small compared to the estimated 800 million litres that have spewed from BP’s well, provides fresh ammunition to the industry’s critics.
Originally posted by kro32
How often does the Alaskan pipeline fail?
That may be a good comparison to use when considering this.
The Trans-Alaska pipeline system, which transports oil from the Prudhoe Bay field, was closed on Saturday following the discovery of a leak. The incident is expected to drive up oil prices, and could mean motorists face even higher costs at the pumps.
Prudhoe Bay is America's largest oil reserve. BP is the largest shareholder in the company which runs the Trans-Alaska pipeline, called Alyeska Pipeline Service.
The leak occurred at a pumping station at Alaska's North Slope, and forced 95% of oil production at the site to be cut off.
A BP spokesman based in America described the leak as "a significant event" and it is not clear how long it will take to restart production.
As of Sunday afternoon, crews had recovered 1,097 barrels — or more than 46,074 gallons — of crude and snowmelt.
The amount spilled is far greater than BP and government officials are saying, according to oil industry critic Chuck Hamel.
Several thousand barrels of North Slope crude oil spilled into a containment area along the Alaska pipeline Tuesday when an open valve at a pump station allowed oil to overflow a tank, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company said.
Originally posted by Perplexedandconfused
Originally posted by kro32
How often does the Alaskan pipeline fail?
That may be a good comparison to use when considering this.
www.guardian.co.uk...
Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page):
Please make sure every post matters.
State Your Case: If you're posting links to other sites or videos, please include your commentary on how the quote is relevant to the discussion..edit on Sat Aug 20 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
On March 23, 2010, British Columbia First Nations of the Central and North Pacific Coast issued a declaration banning tar sands crude oil tanker traffic from traveling through their territories. West Coast Environmental Law’s Legal Comment on Coastal First Nations Declaration explains that “Coastal First Nations have the right to issue a ban on crude oil tankers in their waters, based in their own ancestral laws, in Canadian constitutional law, and in international law” and that they can “take steps to enforce their declaration under their own laws, through the Canadian courts, and/or through legal action at the international level.” On December 2, 2010, a group of 61 First Nations whose lands and waters would be threatened or traversed by the Northern Gateway Pipeline released the Save the Fraser declaration, which includes the following text: “Therefore, in upholding our ancestral laws, Title, Rights and responsibilities, we declare: We will not allow the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, or similar Tar Sands projects, to cross our lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon.” Also in December 2010, a group of First Nations publicly rejected a 10% equity stake in the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. This would be a LOT of money for the First Nations and is a strong indication that they are not going to be bought. In May this year, a group of First Nations people protested outside the Enbridge shareholder meeting in Calgary. Last month, 35 Dene chiefs came out publicly opposing the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.
The Obama administration gave a crucial green light on Friday to a proposed 1,711-mile pipeline that would carry heavy oil from Canada across the Great Plains to terminals in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, saying the project would provide a secure source of energy without significant damage to the environment.
Originally posted by isitjustme
They may cut their own throat. I had read that if oil falls under one hundred bucks a barrel then it isn't cost effective to produce from oil sands. If they provide enough to the market it may drive the price low enough that it isn't profitable.
“In its calculations for Sunrise, BP has assumed an oil price range of between $60-$90/bbl. BP then estimates that the Sunrise project can break even if oil stays within a range of $45-$70/bbl. The company also assumes that carbon emissions from Sunrise will eventually be priced at a rate of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent released.
www.msci.com...