Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

    Originally posted by Priceless View Post
    Risk = Public
    Profit = Private
    Correct.

    And...........

    "If you rub Mitch McConnell's shell, you will receive five years of business growth." -- Jon Stewart
    **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
      I'm very surprised you're for this. This is the sort of corporatist boondoggle slash environmental disaster waiting to happen that you usually oppose.

      Or is it that while you oppose it you also think Obama's fancy footwork on it is BS? Because... well, actually, that I can see.
      A pipeline is a whole lot safer than transporting it by rail car, which is what is going on now. Ask the folks in Lac Megantic, Quebec how safe oil by rail transport is. Being worried about this pipeline having a major spill is, or should be, way down our list of environmental concerns. This country is criss-crossed with oil pipelines, many of which would be much older than Keystone and would have a higher probability of something happening. Opposition isn't to the pipeline itself at the heart, it's to tar sands oil going anywhere, which is a losing battle from the start. It's not a question of if the oil is going to the gulf area. It already is. Bottom line is this is a legitimate infrastructure project that is being opposed not on technical grounds, but on political/philosophical grounds.
      Originally posted by Priceless
      Good to see you're so reasonable.
      Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
      Very well, said.
      Originally posted by Rover
      A fair assessment Bob.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

        Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
        A pipeline is a whole lot safer than transporting it by rail car, which is what is going on now. Ask the folks in Lac Megantic, Quebec how safe oil by rail transport is. Being worried about this pipeline having a major spill is, or should be, way down our list of environmental concerns. This country is criss-crossed with oil pipelines, many of which would be much older than Keystone and would have a higher probability of something happening. Opposition isn't to the pipeline itself at the heart, it's to tar sands oil going anywhere, which is a losing battle from the start. It's not a question of if the oil is going to the gulf area. It already is. Bottom line is this is a legitimate infrastructure project that is being opposed not on technical grounds, but on political/philosophical grounds.
        What happened to common ground? There's a million infrastructure projects that everyone could agree on but the Bone Man and Turtle Mitch want nothing to do with it.
        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

          Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
          What happened to common ground? There's a million infrastructure projects that everyone could agree on but the Bone Man and Turtle Mitch want nothing to do with it.
          Originally posted by Priceless
          Good to see you're so reasonable.
          Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
          Very well, said.
          Originally posted by Rover
          A fair assessment Bob.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

            Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
            What? You don't realize yet that the only infrastructure the GOP leadership cares about is this pipeline? Really, it's not that hard to figure out.
            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

              Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
              "If you rub Mitch McConnell's shell, you will receive five years of business growth." -- Jon Stewart
              That was wonderful. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-yup.
              Cornell University
              National Champion 1967, 1970
              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
                Jeebus, all it sounds like is us taking on all of the risk of oil production and none of the benefits.
                The oil is still going to the Gulf, it's just going by railcar now.

                While rail is fairly safe, pipelines have a better overall safety record. More importantly, coal cannot be shipped by pipeline, and a lot of our electric plants are running low on coal reserves here in the Midwest because oil has been occupying its space. Local news did a story on this a couple months ago, showing how at the begninning of the winter, local coal-fired plants have reserves that are five-stories high, but this year they're starting the winter with three-story high reserves; plant managers are worried about running out if it's a particularly harsh winter.

                Simply put, we need the rail capacity for things other than Canadian oil.
                "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                  Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                  The oil is still going to the Gulf, it's just going by railcar now.
                  Or the Keystone Pipeline that already exists.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

                  I have not been convinced that we need two pipelines.
                  In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

                  Originally posted by burd
                  I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                    What? You don't realize yet that the only infrastructure the GOP leadership cares about is this pipeline? Really, it's not that hard to figure out.
                    My confusion was your lack of clarity in what you posted. GOP leadership hasn't had to weigh in on other infrastructure projects in the same way because Obama hasn't played political football with at least a lot of other infrastructure projects for six years.

                    If you're going to argue against Keystone, at least do something other than political sloganeering.
                    Originally posted by Priceless
                    Good to see you're so reasonable.
                    Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                    Very well, said.
                    Originally posted by Rover
                    A fair assessment Bob.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                      Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
                      Or the Keystone Pipeline that already exists.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

                      I have not been convinced that we need two pipelines.
                      Excuse me, I should have been more precise. The oil being shipped by rail is the oil that exceeds the current pipeline's capacity. That excess oil distribution has created real and urgent issues for Midwestern states due to the need of having electricity in our homes to operate our homes' heating systems.
                      "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                      "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                      "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                        Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
                        Or the Keystone Pipeline that already exists.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

                        I have not been convinced that we need two pipelines.
                        It's a shorter route with a larger diameter pipe. More efficient. And of course the flipside is that if the first one is ok, why do so many people have a hissy fit about the second one? And of course if the first one was sufficient, there wouldn't be a lot of this stuff still shipped by rail. As St. Clown notes, tying up the rail system to ship this is causing problems for other things that are shipped by rail, including, but not limited to coal for power plants.
                        Originally posted by Priceless
                        Good to see you're so reasonable.
                        Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                        Very well, said.
                        Originally posted by Rover
                        A fair assessment Bob.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                          Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                          My confusion was your lack of clarity in what you posted. GOP leadership hasn't had to weigh in on other infrastructure projects in the same way because Obama hasn't played political football with at least a lot of other infrastructure projects for six years.

                          If you're going to argue against Keystone, at least do something other than political sloganeering.
                          Why are the standards I need to abide by higher than the Leaders of both Houses of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government?
                          **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                          Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                          Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                            Why are the standards I need to abide by higher than the Leaders of both Houses of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government?
                            You're not making a lot of sense today.
                            Originally posted by Priceless
                            Good to see you're so reasonable.
                            Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                            Very well, said.
                            Originally posted by Rover
                            A fair assessment Bob.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                              Originally posted by Bob Gray View Post
                              It's a shorter route with a larger diameter pipe. More efficient. And of course the flipside is that if the first one is ok, why do so many people have a hissy fit about the second one? And of course if the first one was sufficient, there wouldn't be a lot of this stuff still shipped by rail. As St. Clown notes, tying up the rail system to ship this is causing problems for other things that are shipped by rail, including, but not limited to coal for power plants.
                              I understand it is more efficient. But I would argue that the first one is not ok. It had over 10 spills in the first year of operation. I quickly tried to find more current numbers but failed, maybe someone else can find the total spills thus far.

                              I am not easily swayed that the second pipeline would significantly reduce the shipping by rails. They are doing it now because there is money in it. I would assume they would continue to do so even after XL a little more than doubles the pipeline capacity (because it would likely still be profitable). I can say that instinctively, I do not want to expand tar sand extraction recklessly but I know that is a losing battle. Too much money at stake.
                              In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'.

                              Originally posted by burd
                              I look at some people and I just know they do it doggy style. No way they're getting close to my kids.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The 114th Congress: How Low Can They Go?

                                Originally posted by WisconsinWildcard View Post
                                I understand it is more efficient. But I would argue that the first one is not ok. It had over 10 spills in the first year of operation. I quickly tried to find more current numbers but failed, maybe someone else can find the total spills thus far.

                                I am not easily swayed that the second pipeline would significantly reduce the shipping by rails. They are doing it now because there is money in it. I would assume they would continue to do so even after XL a little more than doubles the pipeline capacity (because it would likely still be profitable). I can say that instinctively, I do not want to expand tar sand extraction recklessly but I know that is a losing battle. Too much money at stake.
                                I'm sure shipping via pipeline is more cost effective that shipping by rail car. I don't even think it's close. They are going by rail car because right now they have no cheaper option. Pipelines do sometimes have the ability to expand via adding compression or looping (putting a second pipe in the same right of way). My first reaction is that the second pipe would likely meet demand for shipping capacity. If not, why wouldn't they have made the proposed second pipe with more capacity (bigger pipe, thicker walls to operate at higher pressure, etc.). But if not, I'd expect them to expand pipeline capacity further if necessary. Which would still be better than rail, if it were to ever materialize. Rail is a bad option all the way around for shipping oil. It's only used when other options aren't available.
                                Originally posted by Priceless
                                Good to see you're so reasonable.
                                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo
                                Very well, said.
                                Originally posted by Rover
                                A fair assessment Bob.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X