Keystone Pipeline XL passes first hurdle

[waldo]

Is there a PIPELINE XL thread yet?

yes, here:

[Topaz]

One article I read about the route of the pipeline is that it goes from Alberta straight across to Manitoba and then straight down to Houston TX. IF, this is the route they are taking, then there's going to be many problems weather wise. Flooding, tornadoes among other weather problems.

[TimG]

IF, this is the route they are taking, then there's going to be many problems weather wise. Flooding, tornadoes among other weather problems.

No worse that any road or highway. Environmentalists are making mountains out of molehiles when they why about the Keystone XL because an Interstate highway or railway with tanker trucks has a much greater environmental impact/risk profile than this pipeline will have. Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

No worse that any road or highway. Environmentalists are making mountains out of molehiles when they why about the Keystone XL because an Interstate highway or railway with tanker trucks has a much greater environmental impact/risk profile than this pipeline will have.

Just a reminder

ww.omnisens.com/ditest/ Alta. oil pipeline leaked 28000 barrels - Edmonton - CBC News 3 May 2011 … A pipeline break northeast of Peace River, Alta., has leaked 28000 barrels of crude oil during what is now considered … www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton... - Options

N.W.T. oil pipeline leak estimate grows - North - CBC News 6 Jun 2011 … Enbridge says up to 1500 barrels of oil may have leaked from … www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/st... - Options CTV.ca | News Photo Gallery -- Alber

[TimG]

has leaked 28000 barrels of crude oil during what is now considered

Why is leaking 28000 barrels of crude worse that highway full trucks spewing diesel fumes 24x7? At least the oil spill is confined to a small area. Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

Why is leaking 28000 barrels of crude worse that highway full trucks spewing diesel fumes 24x7? At least the oil spill is confined to a small area.

You're asking the wrong person. I think we should leave the stuff in the ground.

[waldo]

What I don't get, isn't Alberta's dirty oil already in the US? What is the dif?

Your are wasting your time looking for logic in an enviro protest.

William, this proposal is an extension to the existing XL Pipeline that now carries tarsand product targeted for the U.S. domestic market... the extension is to bring the tarsands to the Gulf for shipping to China/global markets. The existing pipeline has the capability for additional capacity that would match what the extension will bring on... U.S. proponents touting this pipeline extension as a vehicle for decreasing U.S. independence on "foreign oil", apparently, believe the extension is targeted domestically - go figure!

[waldo]

I think we should leave the stuff in the ground.

aside from the significantly greater GHG emissions level tarsands processing has over 'conventional oil'... it doesn't sit well with pipeline proponents when one points out that tarsands bitumen is a clear signature on peak oil.

[Charles Anthony]

yes, here:

If there is I apologize as I didn't see it, however,

Thanks. The threads are merged.

[Smallc]

One article I read about the route of the pipeline is that it goes from Alberta straight across to Manitoba and then straight down to Houston TX.

The current Keystone Pipeline goes through Manitoba. This one will cut across Saskatchewan.

[TimG]

You're asking the wrong person. I think we should leave the stuff in the ground.

You are obviously a person who either has a government job or a fulltime welfare bum/student. Anyone who actually had to work for a living would never consider turning down an opportunity to make money because of some overblown obsession with CO2. Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

aside from the significantly greater GHG emissions level tarsands processing has over 'conventional oil'

A myth. Do the calculations from well to axel and the difference is small to non-existent.

[TimG]

William, this proposal is an extension to the existing XL Pipeline that now carries tarsand product targeted for the U.S. domestic market... the extension is to bring the tarsands to the Gulf for shipping to China/global markets.

Nonsense. Oil is a fungible commodity and the US imports more than it exports. Any oil brought in via the pipeline will reduce the US trade deficit in oil. The exact mechanisms used are irrelevant.

[waldo]

aside from the significantly greater GHG emissions level tarsands processing has over 'conventional oil'... it doesn't sit well with pipeline proponents when one points out that tarsands bitumen is a clear signature on peak oil.

A myth. Do the calculations from well to axel and the difference is small to non-existent.

so... you're a myth buster then! Interesting that with a focused reference on production processing, you would extend reference to a vehicle usage level... we can certainly add that in to, if you'd like

batter up!

the U.S. EPA response to the U.S. State Departments Environmental (draft) Impact Statement on the Keystone XL pipeline:

Extraction and refining of Canadian oil sands crude are GHG-intensive relative to other types of crude oil. Our calculations indicate that on an annual basis, and assuming the maximum volume of 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of pipeline capacity,

annual well-to-tank emissions from the project would be 27 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) greater than emissions from US “average” crude. Accordingly, we estimate that GHG emissions from Canadian oil sands crude would be approximately 82% greater than the average crude refining the US, on a well-to-time basis

.

[dre]

You are obviously a person who either has a government job or a fulltime welfare bum/student. Anyone who actually had to work for a living would never consider turning down an opportunity to make money because of some overblown obsession with CO2.

Wow. What a load of horse shit.

[TimG]

the U.S. EPA response to the U.S. State Departments Environmental (draft) Impact Statement on the Keystone XL pipeline:

The approproate comparison is to the places that would sell the oil that US needs if they dont take Alberta oil: http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/329

You also need to include the CO2 emitted by burning the oil. What is the point of saving 50% emissions in production if you emit 10x that amount burning the oil?

I don't take EPA claims seriously anymore. They are just another shill for the environmental lobby.

Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

[Bob]

Fortunately that problem ends 12 noon on January 20, 2013.

Beee-yooo-tiful. This comment made me laugh. Perfect.

[TimG]

Wow. What a load of horse shit.

Why? I think that vast majority people who advocate shutting down the oil sands fit that profile because people who actually have to work hard for a living do not take their current prosperity for granted.

The fact is radical environmentalism as has been and always will be a cause for spoiled rich kids.

Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

[jacee]

Why? I think that vast majority people who advocate shutting down the oil sands fit that profile because people who actually have to work hard for a living do not take their current prosperity for granted.

The fact is radical environmentalism as has been and always will be a cause for spoiled rich kids.

I'm afraid that what and who I am will remain an enigma for you Tim. Just to recap your guesses ..."radical environmentalis(t)" "spoiled rich kid", "has a government job", "fulltime welfare bum/student" ...

Now it's possible that you consider these to be insults, personal attacks, but I don't see it that way. I see a man so stressed by his life and job that he hides from it by posting proliferately on a discussion board to defend how hard he works when he isn't working but posting here to attack others who post here at their well earned leisure. Here's a suggestion: Get a hobby. Life is short.

Edited September 8, 2011 by jacee

[TimG]

others who post here at their well earned leisure.

I will take that as an admission that you think your life is taken care of so you can talk easily about taking a livelihood aways from thousands of people. As I said: people who actually have to work for a living do not talk about shutting down an industry.

[CPCFTW]

I will take that as an admission that you think your life is taken care of so you can talk easily about taking a livelihood aways from thousands of people. As I said: people who actually have to work for a living do not talk about shutting down an industry.

Sure they do. I would happily talk about shutting down or dramatically slashing the public service "industry". Thousands of jobs would be lost, but IMO it would be beneficial to the economy as a whole to not have so many overpaid bureaucrats trying to 'save the trees' in between bake sales. There will be plenty of productive jobs for them to do digging trenches for the pipeline!

[TimG]

Sure they do. I would happily talk about shutting down or dramatically slashing the public service "industry".

Fair enough. When I say industry - I mean enterprises that generate wealth and make a profit.

[CPCFTW]

Fair enough. When I say industry - I mean enterprises that generate wealth and make a profit.

The funny thing about Canada's left (and Jacee in particular) is that they hate the most profitable and wealth generating industries in Canada. Jacee's got another thread going where he/she is railing on the banking sector as well. How can you live in Canada and hate both the oil and banking industries?? If it was up to him/her we'd have 40% unemployment in Canada!

For reference, here is a breakdown of Canada's GDP by industry:

http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/gdps04a-eng.htm

[jacee]

I will take that as an admission that you think your life is taken care of so you can talk easily about taking a livelihood aways from thousands of people. As I said: people who actually have to work for a living do not talk about shutting down an industry.

People who actually had to work hard for a living can sometimes take the time to read and learn and think about priorities in life and come to the conclusion that some industries cause more problems than they solve.

Many people think many industries and services should be shut down, public education, public health care, public welfare, for example are always subject to such attacks by people who think they should be shut down, maybe even from people in your industry, maybe even from you.

"A door closes, a window opens".

[TimG]

think about priorities in life and come to the conclusion that some industries cause more problems than they solve.

Industries which, not co-incidentally, you feel no connection to because your income is not dependent on it which makes it a self-serving position for you to take.

Many people think many industries and services should be shut down, public education, public health care

"public healthcare and public education" are not an industries. "healthcare" and "education" are the industries. Nobody wants to shut down the education or healthcare industry. All they want are these services to be delivered by private industry. People working in the industry would still have jobs.

You will not find any person on the right that wants to shut down a profit making industry. People who want to shutdown industries come exclusively from the left.

Edited September 9, 2011 by TimG