XL Oil Pipeline

[wkmac]

Now take your own question and ask yourself, what direction would I go? There's your direction. That is self governance, that is liberty. The Oracle of Delphi is right, Know thyself!

 

[Sportello]

Now take your own question and ask yourself, what direction would I go? There's your direction. That is self governance, that is liberty. The Oracle of Delphi is right, Know thyself!

Where would you go without government assitance, which you have willing accepted your entire adult life? The money you've been given in exchange for labor in your career working years wouldn't be possible without 'big government'.

Let me know when go off the grid. I guess we'll all know, since the posts will stop.

 

[Sportello]

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...-six-times-more-oil-gas-money-than-opponents/

 

[wkmac]

Where would you go without government assitance, which you have willing accepted your entire adult life? The money you've been given in exchange for labor in your career working years wouldn't be possible without 'big government'.

Let me know when go off the grid. I guess we'll all know, since the posts will stop.

And maybe in that lay the point.

 

[MAKAVELI]

 

[oldngray]

So much for using trains for oil being safer than a pipeline.

 

[moreluck]

 

[raceanoncr]

http://www.omaha.com/money/more-ris...cle_29c1c8c9-77b0-526f-8c80-b2c464ca7343.html

 

[Babagounj]

Which friend of bhos builds & owns railroad tanker cars ?
So who is to profit more by using railroads , the consumer or a billionaire ?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Which friend of bhos builds & owns railroad tanker cars ?
So who is to profit more by using railroads , the consumer or a billionaire ?

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...rail-derailment-doesnt-prove-need-keystone-xl
Keystone supporters argue that oil pipelines are safer than railroads. They claim that if President Barack Obama doesn’t approve the pipeline, the industry will be forced to ship more crude oil by railroad, leaving the public and environment vulnerable to accidents like in West Virginia.

It's true that oil rail accidents have shot up in recent years, according to McClatchy:


McClatchy
But that doesn’t make Keystone less dangerous than train shipments. Trains are more likely than pipelines to have accidents, but their accidents are less environmentally devastating: The International Energy Agency’s eight-year analysis of oil spills found the risk of a spill is six times higher for rail than pipeline shipments, but a pipeline accident spills three times as much oil as a rail shipment.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely the pipeline will relieve congestion in North Dakota, which is the primary reason for the spike in oil transport. About 10 percent of the nation's crude oil travels by rail, except in North Dakota, where two-thirds of Bakken crude oil moves by train. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat and a Keystone supporter, had the best argument explaining why this particular pro-Keystone argument fails: “I am not someone who has ever said that the Keystone Pipeline will take crude off the rails. It won’t. Our markets are east and west and it would be extraordinarily difficult to build pipelines east and west.” Keystone would run south through the U.S., to refineries at the Gulf Coast.

 

[realbrown1]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...rail-derailment-doesnt-prove-need-keystone-xl
Keystone supporters argue that oil pipelines are safer than railroads. They claim that if President Barack Obama doesn’t approve the pipeline, the industry will be forced to ship more crude oil by railroad, leaving the public and environment vulnerable to accidents like in West Virginia.

It's true that oil rail accidents have shot up in recent years, according to McClatchy:


McClatchy
But that doesn’t make Keystone less dangerous than train shipments. Trains are more likely than pipelines to have accidents, but their accidents are less environmentally devastating: The International Energy Agency’s eight-year analysis of oil spills found the risk of a spill is six times higher for rail than pipeline shipments, but a pipeline accident spills three times as much oil as a rail shipment.

Furthermore, it’s unlikely the pipeline will relieve congestion in North Dakota, which is the primary reason for the spike in oil transport. About 10 percent of the nation's crude oil travels by rail, except in North Dakota, where two-thirds of Bakken crude oil moves by train. Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat and a Keystone supporter, had the best argument explaining why this particular pro-Keystone argument fails: “I am not someone who has ever said that the Keystone Pipeline will take crude off the rails. It won’t. Our markets are east and west and it would be extraordinarily difficult to build pipelines east and west.” Keystone would run south through the U.S., to refineries at the Gulf Coast.

So the keystone pipeline will not carry crude that would have ended up going by rail?
That makes absolutely no sense.
Then how does the oil get from the north to the gulf now?

 

[MAKAVELI]

So the keystone pipeline will not carry crude that would have ended up going by rail?
That makes absolutely no sense.
Then how does the oil get from the north to the gulf now?

Where is WV ? Did you not take geography in school?

 

[realbrown1]

Where is WV ? Did you not take geography in school?

By rail?

 

[MAKAVELI]

By rail?

The xl pipeline will not carry oil to the biggest markets which are on both coasts. Is that too hard for you to understand?

 

[realbrown1]

The xl pipeline will not carry oil to the biggest markets which are on both coasts. Is that too hard for you to understand?

I never said that XL pipeline would haul all of the oil. Where do you come up with this crap?

 

[silenze]

Build a pipeline that does. Is that harder to understand?

 

[MAKAVELI]

Build a pipeline that does. Is that harder to understand?

Probably the most ignorant statement I've ever heard on this subject. Try looking at a US map to understand how difficult, expensive, and environmentally destructive that would be for a resource that is declining in demand.

 

[Coalminer2005]

If the pipeline puts money in working families pockets then I say build and maintain it.

 

[MAKAVELI]

If the pipeline puts money in working families pockets then I say build and maintain it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-keystone-xl-pipeline-create-42000-new-jobs/
The Pinocchio Test

Yes, that 42,000 figure is in the report, but the number requires more context, especially if supporters want to pitch Keystone XL as an infrastructure project that will bring new jobs to the economy. Using the State Department math, it’s safe to say nearly 4,000 construction jobs will be created, at least temporarily. One could even say that 16,000 jobs would be or have been supported from direct spending on the project, such as those pipe makers in Arkansas.

But “42,000 new jobs” is going too far. Most of those jobs are far from the construction site, and it’s hard to argue they are new. Moreover, under State’s accounting, they only last for a year. For some workers, it would be a good but brief payday. In the context of the U.S. economy, the impact is barely a ripple.

 

[realbrown1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-keystone-xl-pipeline-create-42000-new-jobs/
The Pinocchio Test

Yes, that 42,000 figure is in the report, but the number requires more context, especially if supporters want to pitch Keystone XL as an infrastructure project that will bring new jobs to the economy. Using the State Department math, it’s safe to say nearly 4,000 construction jobs will be created, at least temporarily. One could even say that 16,000 jobs would be or have been supported from direct spending on the project, such as those pipe makers in Arkansas.

But “42,000 new jobs” is going too far. Most of those jobs are far from the construction site, and it’s hard to argue they are new. Moreover, under State’s accounting, they only last for a year. For some workers, it would be a good but brief payday. In the context of the U.S. economy, the impact is barely a ripple.

So you are against the pipeline.
And you don't think it will create 42,000 jobs.

In reality we have thousands of oil pipelines. Were you against building those too?
Even if it requires less than 42,000 people to build this pipeline, it still should be built. We need it. And I am sure than anyone getting hired to work on that XL pipeline would be grateful for a change to earn some money. Those guys get paid really well.