Obama Throws America Under The Bus: Kills Pipeline

[Baldy]

How many jobs does this create again, how does it equate to energy independence, and what is the environmental danger?

About 35 permanent jobs after the temporary construction jobs leave. That's what we get for letting the Canadians ship their nasty shit across one of our nation's largest aquifers, where inevitably some of that nasty shit will end up, because all pipelines break. We're the largest producer of oil on the planet and I just filled my truck for less than $40, wtf is so important about this boondoggle? This pipeline does nothing for us and the reason the Canadians want to ship their filthy mess through our backyard is because they know exactly what they're dealing with.

Such a drama queen.

[kalm]

About 35 permanent jobs after the temporary construction jobs leave. That's what we get for letting the Canadians ship their nasty shit across one of our nation's largest aquifers, where inevitably some of that nasty shit will end up, because all pipelines break. We're the largest producer of oil on the planet and I just filled my truck for less than $40, wtf is so important about this boondoggle? This pipeline does nothing for us and the reason the Canadians want to ship their filthy mess through our backyard is because they know exactly what they're dealing with.

Such a drama queen.

So do you support it? If so why?

[DSUrocks07]

. We're the largest producer of oil on the planet and I just filled my truck for less than $40, wtf is so important about this boondoggle? This pipeline does nothing for us and the reason the Canadians want to ship their filthy mess through our backyard is because they know exactly what they're dealing with.

[Baldy]

Such a drama queen.

So do you support it? If so why?

Of course, more energy delivered safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly.
Why would you be against it?

[kalm]

So do you support it? If so why?

Of course, more energy delivered safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly.
Why would you be against it?

Where is it being delivered to and what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly ?

[Baldy]

Of course, more energy delivered safer, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly.
Why would you be against it?

Where is it being delivered to and what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly ?

Why are you asking questions in which we all already know the answer?

This subject is about the delivery of oil.
If you want to debate the environmental impact of "tar sands oil" vs. other other types of crude (again), start another thread.

[SDHornet]

Hey guys, wasn't there a thread about how unsafe transporting crude via rail was a while back? Would transporting crude in a pipeline instead of rail be a lot safer for the public?

And LOL about the argument that this project wouldn't provide permanent jobs. Almost ALL construction related jobs are temporary. It's the nature of the business.

[kalm]

Where is it being delivered to and what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly ?

Why are you asking questions in which we all already know the answer?

This subject is about the delivery of oil.
If you want to debate the environmental impact of "tar sands oil" vs. other other types of crude (again), start another thread.

So you're backing away from your claims?

[D1B]

Baldy waist deep in shit on yet another thread.

God bless Baldy!

[Baldy]

Why are you asking questions in which we all already know the answer?

This subject is about the delivery of oil.
If you want to debate the environmental impact of "tar sands oil" vs. other other types of crude (again), start another thread.

So you're backing away from your claims?

Your response had nothing to do my claims.

What do you have against infrastructure?

[kalm]

So you're backing away from your claims?

Your response had nothing to do my claims.

What do you have against infrastructure?

You said "more energy delivered and....environmentally friendly".

Quit playing dumb.

[Baldy]

Your response had nothing to do my claims.

What do you have against infrastructure?

You said "more energy delivered and....environmentally friendly".

Quit playing dumb.

Yeah, I said, "more energy DELIVERED...environmentally friendly."
That deals with the shipping and transport of crude oil, period. The type of oil and how it was extracted is irrelevant to the gist of the statement. Along the same vein that SD Hornet was referring in his response, and he apparently had no problem understanding my statement.

You said, "what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly".
The above quote isn't germane to the subject at hand. Start a new thread...

Quit being dumb.

[D1B]

You said "more energy delivered and....environmentally friendly".

Quit playing dumb.

Yeah, I said, "more energy DELIVERED...environmentally friendly."
That deals with the shipping and transport of crude oil, period. The type of oil and how it was extracted is irrelevant to the gist of the statement. Along the same vein that SD Hornet was referring in his response, and he apparently had no problem understanding my statement.

You said, "what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly".
The above quote isn't germane to the subject at hand. Start a new thread...

Quit being dumb.

The "Start a New Thread" gambit!!!!!

[kalm]

You said "more energy delivered and....environmentally friendly".

Quit playing dumb.

Yeah, I said, "more energy DELIVERED...environmentally friendly."
That deals with the shipping and transport of crude oil, period. The type of oil and how it was extracted is irrelevant to the gist of the statement. Along the same vein that SD Hornet was referring in his response, and he apparently had no problem understanding my statement.

You said, "what makes tar sands oil more environmentally friendly".
The above quote isn't germane to the subject at hand. Start a new thread...

Quit being dumb.

Wow...

[travelinman67]

Kalm, understanding his argument has inevitably been laid to waste once again, feigns disbelief, mocks, and retreats to his default trolling.

[kalm]

Kalm, understanding his argument has inevitably been laid to waste once again, feigns disbelief, mocks, and retreats to his default trolling.

Hint: I asked two sincere questions regarding the merits of the pipeline which is the context of the thread. Those against it claim that the oil goes from Canada to China, etc. They also claim that tar sands oil has a larger carbon footprint.

Those in favor should be able to rebuke these claims easily.

Troll...

[Baldy]

Kalm, understanding his argument has inevitably been laid to waste once again, feigns disbelief, mocks, and retreats to his default trolling.

Hint: I asked two sincere questions regarding the merits of the pipeline which is the context of the thread. Those against it claim that the oil goes from Canada to China, etc. They also claim that tar sands oil has a larger carbon footprint.

Those in favor should be able to rebuke these claims easily.

Troll...

The context of the thread is the Obama administration rejecting the XL pipeline due to environmental concerns the pipeline could have to the Nebraska Sand Hills region. Da fuck does that have to do with China or the alleged enlarged "carbon footprint" of "tar sands oil"?

If you're against the pipeline, you obviously are under the incorrect assumption that shipping oil by rail or truck is safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than it is by pipeline. Why???

[Ibanez]

Oh for fucks sake...

[LeadBolt]

The pipeline is a more environmentally friendly, safer way to transport oil than by train.

We all would approve of economically viable alternative energy sources. Raising the price of oil to achieve this is a liberal/progressive cop-out, as is the subsidies of oil argument. Take away subsidies of oil and alternative energy and the equation does not change.

Lowering the disposable income of ordinary Americans and thus their quality of life by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels to achieve the economical viability of alternative energy this is not the answer. How many of you feel better off with gasoline down $1.50/gal?

Not mentioned here is the geopolitical argument that by opening the pipeline Venezuelan oil will be frozen out of the US market in favor of Canadian oil. Obama's agenda is to keep US buyers funding our traditional political opponents in Venezuela vs. funding our traditional allies in Canada.

It is my understanding that while there is a slight difference in the emissions of tar sand oil vs. light crude, most of the impurities come out in the refining process and go into asphalt products. This would tend to lower the price of infrastructure projects in the areas where the product is refined. Given the state of the US's declining road infrastructure, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. In the Atlanta area where I live 20+% of carbon emissions come from traffic delays. Increasing infrastructure replacement/upgrades would lower pollution.

Denying the pipeline does not reduce emissions globally, as the oil will still be consumed or not based upon market economics, not pipeline location. Does it matter to global climate change whether it is burned in the US with the world's best technology in reducing emissions or in China that is well behind the curve in emissions control technology?

[Ibanez]

The pipeline is a more environmentally friendly, safer way to transport oil than by train.

We all would approve of economically viable alternative energy sources. Raising the price of oil to achieve this is a liberal/progressive cop-out, as is the subsidies of oil argument. Take away subsidies of oil and alternative energy and the equation does not change.

Lowering the disposable income of ordinary Americans and thus their quality of life by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels to achieve the economical viability of alternative energy this is not the answer. How many of you feel better off with gasoline down $1.50/gal?

Not mentioned here is the geopolitical argument that by opening the pipeline Venezuelan oil will be frozen out of the US market in favor of Canadian oil. Obama's agenda is to keep US buyers funding our traditional political opponents in Venezuela vs. funding our traditional allies in Canada.

It is my understanding that while there is a slight difference in the emissions of tar sand oil vs. light crude, most of the impurities come out in the refining process and go into asphalt products. This would tend to lower the price of infrastructure projects in the areas where the product is refined. Given the state of the US's declining road infrastructure, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. In the Atlanta area where I live 20+% of carbon emissions come from traffic delays. Increasing infrastructure replacement/upgrades would lower pollution.

Denying the pipeline does not reduce emissions globally, as the oil will still be consumed or not based upon market economics, not pipeline location. Does it matter to global climate change whether it is burned in the US with the world's best technology in reducing emissions or in China that is well behind the curve in emissions control technology?

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spil ... ort-2013-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html ... LPudivF-So" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

The pipeline is a more environmentally friendly, safer way to transport oil than by train.

We all would approve of economically viable alternative energy sources. Raising the price of oil to achieve this is a liberal/progressive cop-out, as is the subsidies of oil argument. Take away subsidies of oil and alternative energy and the equation does not change.

Lowering the disposable income of ordinary Americans and thus their quality of life by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels to achieve the economical viability of alternative energy this is not the answer. How many of you feel better off with gasoline down $1.50/gal?

Not mentioned here is the geopolitical argument that by opening the pipeline Venezuelan oil will be frozen out of the US market in favor of Canadian oil. Obama's agenda is to keep US buyers funding our traditional political opponents in Venezuela vs. funding our traditional allies in Canada.

It is my understanding that while there is a slight difference in the emissions of tar sand oil vs. light crude, most of the impurities come out in the refining process and go into asphalt products. This would tend to lower the price of infrastructure projects in the areas where the product is refined. Given the state of the US's declining road infrastructure, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. In the Atlanta area where I live 20+% of carbon emissions come from traffic delays. Increasing infrastructure replacement/upgrades would lower pollution.

Denying the pipeline does not reduce emissions globally, as the oil will still be consumed or not based upon market economics, not pipeline location. Does it matter to global climate change whether it is burned in the US with the world's best technology in reducing emissions or in China that is well behind the curve in emissions control technology?

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spil ... ort-2013-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to see the numbers when adjusted for ton/gallon miles of travel. It is my understanding that oil tends to travel farther by pipeline than by train and most pipeline spills occur at the entry or exit points where containment is easier than by train, which tends to occur enroute and is less easily contained.

[Ibanez]

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spil ... ort-2013-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to see the numbers when adjusted for ton/gallon miles of travel. It is my understanding that oil tends to travel farther by pipeline than by train and most pipeline spills occur at the entry or exit points where containment is easier than by train, which tends to occur enroute and is less easily contained.

10 miles vs 1000 miles, what's the difference? What matters is the total number, per mode of transportation.

[Cap'n Cat]

Victory for the beauty of Nebraska!!!

GObama!!!!!

[LeadBolt]

I would like to see the numbers when adjusted for ton/gallon miles of travel. It is my understanding that oil tends to travel farther by pipeline than by train and most pipeline spills occur at the entry or exit points where containment is easier than by train, which tends to occur enroute and is less easily contained.

10 miles vs 1000 miles, what's the difference? What matters is the total number, per mode of transportation.

The longer the transport the more likely the spill.

Also, pipelines don't tend to blow up in populated areas as often as railcars...

[LeadBolt]

10 miles vs 1000 miles, what's the difference? What matters is the total number, per mode of transportation.

The longer the transport the more likely the spill.

Also, pipelines don't tend to blow up in populated areas as often as railcars...

Oil transported by rail uses more energy than oil transported by pipeline. This energy tends to come from fossil fuel increasing the carbon footprint of the transport mode.