Liberal press and alarmists still lying about Keystone

[Dazzle1]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...id7|htmlws-main-bb|dl28|sec1_lnk3&pLid=450211

Even though there have been exhausted studies, the eco koos won't accept.

The Hufgfington post claim a report by anti fossil fuel group is a legitimate report.

Especially with rising il prices its time to get the tar sands moving along with Drill Baby Drill and Frack Baby Frack

 

[bill-pix-trade]

No keystone then China gets the oil.


:ducks:

 

[Sean Renaud]

Keystone is an awful dangerous risk to take simply because you're feeling too stubborn to go a longer route. Also rising oil prices? Since when?

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Keystone pipeline is designed to transport tar sands oil from Canada through the US for export to foreign markets.

 

[miles]

Obama will never sign off on Keystone. It creates jobs.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Dazzle1]

Keystone is an awful dangerous risk to take simply because you're feeling too stubborn to go a longer route. Also rising oil prices? Since when?

Listen to real news stations for a change.

It's been going up ever since Russia invade Ukraine.

the pipeline route is safe

 

[miles]

And worst of all, it helps America.

I've said it many times...what's good for America is bad for Democrats.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Obama will never sign off on Keystone. It creates jobs.

And worst of all, it helps America.

The State Department says Keystone will bring no more than 6,000 jobs over the three year construction phase and most will be non-local and temporary.

These are not all new jobs. They include existing Keystone and contractor employees.

Few if any local jobs. Only 10 - 15% of the total workforce would be hired locally. In Phase 1 of the Keystone pipeline, completed last year, only 11% of the construction and inspection workforce in South Dakota was hired locally.

But I suppose you would rather listen to the Perryman group and The TransCanada/American Petroleum Institute.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Listen to real news stations for a change.

It's been going up ever since Russia invade Ukraine.

the pipeline route is safe

So it's been going up for . . .five days and there is no reason not to expect them to fall back to normal once this thing blows over in a week or so? You don't make big long term decisions on short term situations.

As for the pipeline route being safe what reason do we have to believe this? And given how much water and food we get from the Agalla Aquifer is this the kind of thing you really want to take risks with? It's not like this is some "unimportant" body of water, if something goes wrong, like god forbid a terrorist recognizes the enormous target we're painting, the appropriate response is GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!

 

[Dazzle1]

The State Department says Keystone will bring no more than 6,000 jobs over the three year construction phase and most will be non-local and temporary.

These are not all new jobs. They include existing Keystone and contractor employees.

Few if any local jobs. Only 10 - 15% of the total workforce would be hired locally. In Phase 1 of the Keystone pipeline, completed last year, only 11% of the construction and inspection workforce in South Dakota was hired locally.

But I suppose you would rather listen to the Perryman group and The TransCanada/American Petroleum Institute.

I would over anyone in the Obama administration.

There will be permanent jobs associated with the pipeline not to mention the outside jobs as a result.

there is a reason why Mcdonald employees make 60K to start in North Dakota near the oil sands.

 

[Ishmael]

Keystone is an awful dangerous risk to take simply because you're feeling too stubborn to go a longer route. Also rising oil prices? Since when?

And that longer route is what?

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

How about pipe it over to Vancouver?

 

[Ishmael]

How about pipe it over to Vancouver?

And then what?

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Refine it and burn it in combustion engines.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And that longer route is what?

Ishmael

How precisely is that supposed to be my problem? Just because I know I don't want you transporting toxic sludge down the Mississippi does not make it my responsibility to figure out a better way. I'd go with trust the experts but unfortunately sadly they all work in or are paid by the oil industry.

That said find away that doesn't go over Agalla, it's gonna be a longer route but fuck you. Figure it out.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I am just saying you can pipe it for 800 miles and keep it in Canada, or pipe it 2200 miles and cross the US. Seems like a no brainer to pipe it to the closer refinery.

 

[Ishmael]

How precisely is that supposed to be my problem? Just because I know I don't want you transporting toxic sludge down the Mississippi does not make it my responsibility to figure out a better way. I'd go with trust the experts but unfortunately sadly they all work in or are paid by the oil industry.

That said find away that doesn't go over Agalla, it's gonna be a longer route but fuck you. Figure it out.

Hmmm, so the State Dept. study and approval isn't to your liking huh?

There is NO other safer route, period.

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

Hmmm, so the State Dept. study and approval isn't to your liking huh?

There is NO other safer route, period.

Ishmael

Nope. And as was mentioned above their is Vancouver. If there is no safer route take it there or leave in the fucking ground or ship it to China or Russia or wherever.

 

[Ishmael]

Nope. And as was mentioned above their is Vancouver. If there is no safer route take it there or leave in the fucking ground or ship it to China or Russia or wherever.

Vancouver is NOT viable unless you're selling to the Chinese and that is Canada's Plan 'B'.

Ishmael

 

[JohnnySavage]

A large section of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline went into official operation Wednesday, in a move that supporters say will help ease the flow of oil to refineries in the Gulf Coast region. The Obama administration has yet to rule on the project's northern portion.

The 487-mile pipeline, which cost $2.3 billion, began delivering crude oil to Texas refineries this morning, its owner, TransCanada, said on its website.

From member station KGOU in Oklahoma City, Joe Wertz filed this report for NPR's Newscast unit:

"Construction on the $2.3 billion pipeline started 18 months ago. And today, TransCanada started pumping crude oil from Oklahoma to customers in Texas. TransCanada's Alex Pourbaix, spoke to reporters shortly after the southern section went into service.
"'The pipeline does provide a safe and direct connection between an important oil hub — probably the most important oil hub on this continent — in Cushing, Okla., with the world's most efficient refiners in the U-S Gulf Coast,' Pourbaix said.
"Relieving the Cushing oil glut will likely help midcontinent producers receive better prices for their oil. But some analysts say the crude might create a new bottleneck in Texas because the Gulf Coast doesn't have enough refineries."
Other concerns about the pipeline have often centered on two topics: its potential environmental impact, and the rights of landowners whose property lies in the pipeline's path.

As Mose Buchele of NPR's State Impact Texas project reports, farmers are among those who are angry that the pipeline's owner, TransCanada, "has claimed private property to route the pipeline through Texas."

Julia Trigg Crawford, who has a farm on several hundred acres of land in North Texas, tells Buchele that she saw an "unusual flurry of activity" over the weekend, as TransCanada prepared the pipeline for its official debut (it's been carrying crude oil for weeks, but not at full capacity).

"Track hoes, skids, water trucks, electrical trucks and construction crews showed up," Crawford says. "They unearthed the pipeline, attached wires and sensors, wrapped it in something and then covered it up."

The company eventually told Crawford that it had been installing heat sensors, she tells Buchele.

Crawford says she and other critics of the pipeline will be watching carefully for any problems – and they hope more politicians agree with their view of Keystone as an export system that endangers waterways and doesn't create jobs.

But on the other side of the issue, as Buchele reports, "a glitch-free roll out of pipeline service could provide TransCanada with a public perception boost, as it continues to argue for approval of the northern leg of the project."

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Why isn't Vancouver a viable option? It is already on a pipeline operated by Chevron.

 

[Ishmael]

Why isn't Vancouver a viable option? It is already on a pipeline operated by Chevron.

The only larger refineries capable of handling that product are on the Texas gulf coast. The super tankers required will not make it through the Panama Canal meaning that they would have to round Cape Horn, the most dangerous seas on the planet. It is unlikely that any captain or owner in their right mind would even bother to make the attempt. Sooooooooo, the oil goes to China. It's just that simple.

In relation to product delivered by volume versus product spilled pipelines are the safest mode of movement available. By sea is in second place and rail a distant third.

Ishmael

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The only larger refineries capable of handling that product are on the Texas gulf coast.

Ishmael

I believe that is is an inaccurate statement. Burnaby has been refining the same product for a long time. It is a question of market power and the bids for the refining rights, not a technology or capacity issue.

 

[Ishmael]

I believe that is is an inaccurate statement. Burnaby has been refining the same product for a long time. It is a question of market power and the bids for the refining rights, not a technology or capacity issue.

In Vancouver, right? And how does this help to sell product to the US market? The Burnaby refinery has a throughput of 55,000 bbl/d. The Exonmobil refinery in Beaumont has a throughput of 365.000 bbl/d, the Baytown operation has a throughput of 560,600 bbl/d.

I think I specified LARGE refineries.

Ishmael