BREAKING: Obama to reject Keystone XL Pipeline

For the millionth time and let's see if some brains here can actually process this.

UNREFINED OIL is what will flow through the pipeline.

That oil ends up at refineries along the Gulf coast.

Once the oil is refined it is exported around the world via ships.

What part of that do you not understand. The oil is still being shipped via ships and trucks to depot's around the globe.

The only thing changing here is more oil is being shipped to processors quicker, just so they can make more money faster. Sorry but we don't need a 3,000 mile pipeline that will ruin local communities, farmers and precious ground water just so a handful of companies can make billions in refining oil to export out.

reply to post by peck420


Got a source for those numbers earlier regarding barrels dumped down drains?

Reflect for a moment on the nature of the products transported by these various methods. Truck (hiway) transports almost exclusively refined products... the volatiles used from petrolium production.

Let's assume for the moment that a tanker truck comes completely unglued on the section of hiway that goes over the water supply. What happens? A few thousand gallons (gallons, not barrels) of lets say fuel get dumped.

And that is plenty bad enough, no argument. But it consists of mostly volatiles. So the odds are good there will be a big fire that will burn off most of it. Most of the rest will evaporate or be absorbed into the soil.

None of which is a good thing, granted.

However, now lets examine the nature of the sludge being proposed to be pumped through the pipeline.

First, the pipe is buried, so any spills start out closer to the underground water.
Second, this is crude, and sand oil crude at that, which is probably some of the crudest crude around. When this stuff gets spilled, it doesn't burn very well, and does not evaporate and does not get absorbed. Instead, it sits there in a big toxic lump, or if in the water floats there, gradually breaking up into smaller toxic lumps.

No thanks. Having the refined material shipped around is bad enough. Transporting this kind of crap over a water supply is stupid insanity.

And the whole water issue can be avoided by changing the route of the pipeline... oh yeah, profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit

Good for Obama. This pipeline won't just be routed "over" the ogallala aquifer...it will be routed "through" the aquifer in many places. In the area which I live in Nebraska you can dig as little as 2 feet in places and hit water. I can't say the pipeline will leak. Just like supporters can't say it won't leak. But as a resident in an area directly affected by this pipeline I will say: I do not want this pipeline running over or through my water source because of the possibility of it leaking. I want the route changed to where it won't pose a potential threat for millions of people's water source. I don't want to deny people jobs...I just want it away from the aquifer. This aquifer is the lifeblood of my state.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

This will only be a delay until after the next election, because I can see this being re-introduced over and over again until it's implemented.

edit on 18-1-2012 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)

That was my first thought when I saw this thread.


Obama is going into election mode...look for other bills, announcements, etc that make him look favorable...for now

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
reply to post by peck420

 

Got a source for those numbers earlier regarding barrels dumped down drains?

Reflect for a moment on the nature of the products transported by these various methods. Truck (hiway) transports almost exclusively refined products... the volatiles used from petrolium production.

Let's assume for the moment that a tanker truck comes completely unglued on the section of hiway that goes over the water supply. What happens? A few thousand gallons (gallons, not barrels) of lets say fuel get dumped.

And that is plenty bad enough, no argument. But it consists of mostly volatiles. So the odds are good there will be a big fire that will burn off most of it. Most of the rest will evaporate or be absorbed into the soil.

None of which is a good thing, granted.

However, now lets examine the nature of the sludge being proposed to be pumped through the pipeline.

First, the pipe is buried, so any spills start out closer to the underground water.
Second, this is crude, and sand oil crude at that, which is probably some of the crudest crude around. When this stuff gets spilled, it doesn't burn very well, and does not evaporate and does not get absorbed. Instead, it sits there in a big toxic lump, or if in the water floats there, gradually breaking up into smaller toxic lumps.

No thanks. Having the refined material shipped around is bad enough. Transporting this kind of crap over a water supply is stupid insanity.

And the whole water issue can be avoided by changing the route of the pipeline... oh yeah, profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit profit

star for the effort of typing "PROFIT" that many times.
some ppl still don't get its not about creating jobs, its about creating revenue. where can we find more money to spend on the stupid crap that make us feel worth while.

mo money mo problems

Great for Obama's re election PR spin gurus to work with , if he veto's , remember the US public whilst against foreign military interventions , these interventions are not on US soil , they observe from a distance , TV , net etc,
the pipeline runs through the American soil , everything changes in your own back yard.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Oil Pollution

The single largest oil polluters are us.

Individual users.

As for what is being carried on the pipeline, that is largely irrelevant. The toxic portion of oil stays in the product through all major refinements.

I would rather have a spill of oil sand vs a spill of heavy crude, and I would rather have a spill of heavy crude vs refined gasoline.

The heavier the product the easier, faster, and most environmentally friendly the clean up is. If they could pipe it in an oil sand state that would be ideal, but they just can't pipe it that way (or truck it, or tanker it, etc.).

reply to post by AllexxisF1


And what part of the oil is already being shipped to Texas do you not understand?

The oil is already in motion. The pipeline will not change that. What the pipeline will change is the safety factor involved with shipping it to Texas.

I would prefer the safest method, wouldn't you?

So moving incredibly higher volumes of tar sand oil through 3,000 miles of pipeline that will penetrate vital aquifers is more safe then MUCH lower volumes being transported via ships, rail and trucks.

Riiiigghhhhhttt.

The Keystone Pipeline has been through three years and it’s passed every approval process as required by the law. Even the president’s own State Department has indicated that this thing ought to move forward,” Boehner said. “The Canadians are in conversations with the Chinese, and if we don’t build this pipeline to bring that Canadian oil and pick up the North Dakota oil and deliver it to our refineries in the Gulf Coast, that oil is gonna get shipped out to the Pacific Ocean and will be sold to the Chinese.”

abcnews.go.com...

Canada doesn't really care whether it goes to the states, or to China. China would gladly take all of it, if they were allowed to. I think NAFTA is the only thing that gets in the way of that.

And Canada isn't just "in conversations" with the Chinese, I'm quite sure it's a done deal. They also have assets in Northern Alberta.

The thing I don't understand, is that this has been studied for 3 years.
THREE YEARS!!

Now they're saying they're being pressured into a quick decision
They could have easily figured out how to go around all the water sources, and any other touchy environmental issues, during the last 3 years.

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
So moving incredibly higher volumes of tar sand oil through 3,000 miles of pipeline that will penetrate vital aquifers is more safe then MUCH lower volumes being transported via ships, rail and trucks.

Riiiigghhhhhttt.

edit on 18-1-2012 by AllexxisF1 because: (no reason given)

Are you serious?

The volume is increasing daily.

Pipeline or no pipeline, it will be shipped. And volume over the existing pipeline network, which was exceeded in 2006), get's shipped via land and sea.

Just so you have a reference point, volume has already doubled since 2006. By 2020 it will be over 7 times greater.

All going over land and sea unless there is a pipeline.

reply to post by snowspirit


NAFTA is a non issue, the US was offered and has currently said no.

As for China, you are correct that it is already a done deal, the questions that remain is how much and how soon? To which the Chinese are currently saying all and ASAP.

I for one, would like to see Trans shut down the existing pipeline south, shelf the current upgrade (XL) and expand the pipe to Vancouver. Maybe go east if there is excess at that point.

Ship out of Vancouver to China/India, and out of Halifax to Europe/Brazil/Etc.

Pipe dream...I know.

There are no highways that run underground straight through vital aquifers that support our grain belt farms. If there is an accident out at the sea the heavy tar sand will just float to the bottom. If a truck does mid air 360 it will be a mess but somewhat easy to clean.

A leak into an underground aquifer will instantly make that pure potable water rendered useless almost immediately.

Do you really want to risk that just so the oil giants can make some extra bucs by getting more oil to process quickly? I sure as hell don't and neither do many in the mid west who have been fighting this battle.

For God sakes, it utterly boggles the mind how people will put profit before everything else no matter the consequences.

reply to post by AllexxisF1


You think oil has to be underground to pollute an aquifer? Seriously?

All the oil and oil by products that accumulate on the highway system, run off into that very same aquifer.

And farming fertilizers and chemicals run off into that very same aquifer.

That aquifer is far from pristine, and having a pipeline a dozen feet under the highway will not significantly change any of that.

reply to post by peck420

I for one, would like to see Trans shut down the existing pipeline south, shelf the current upgrade (XL) and expand the pipe to Vancouver. Maybe go east if there is excess at that point.

Ship out of Vancouver to China/India, and out of Halifax to Europe/Brazil/Etc.

Pipe dream...I know.

That would be an excellent idea.
Much better than Kitimat. Less sensitive ground area, I think also an easier route out to sea.
Building east would be a very good idea too.

reply to post by snowspirit


Keep an eye on Kinder Morgan, they should be getting word on their Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion soon.
They have NEB approval, just waiting on BC.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Obama has been for higher gas prices his whole life... well except for 10 minute hiatus he took to blame Bush for high gas prices back when Obama was a junior senator. In fact just recently when asked about high gas prices Obama said we should all go out and buy new cars to get better gas mileage. Gee thanks Obama.

Don't forget to check the air pressure in your tires.

----------
Obama = The Food Stamp President

Obama wants the price of gas to remain high and he wants Americans on food stamps.

Make the general public dependent on the government. This is not an accident.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

This will only be a delay until after the next election, because I can see this being re-introduced over and over again until it's implemented.

edit on 18-1-2012 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)

That was my first thought when I saw this thread.


Obama is going into election mode...look for other bills, announcements, etc that make him look favorable...for now

Obama the Food Stamp President will try gimmicks but they won't work. His record is a
disaster. When the SCOTUS rules that ObamaCare is unconstitutional then he will viewed
as a complete failure.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

This will only be a delay until after the next election, because I can see this being re-introduced over and over again until it's implemented.

edit on 18-1-2012 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)

That was my first thought when I saw this thread.


Obama is going into election mode...look for other bills, announcements, etc that make him look favorable...for now

Right now it looks doubtful it will be reintroduced. It took years of paperwork and red tape to get this going. I was listening to the news on the radio and Republicans and even some Democrats are absolutely steamed over this one. Canada won't go through all the red tape again and will give the opportunity to China now. We wil see what happens.

reply to post by Onboard2


Well at least the hollywood actors are jumping with glee.

Gas prices should jump above $5 a gallon this summer.

The libs want us all to run out and buy an electric car.