Build That Pipeline!

[meazza]

no that was calling a spade a spade, nice try though and thanks for playing

 

Nice to know your feelings about canada but given your ongoing real estate crisis, pretty soon most of your real estate will be canuck owned you little twat.

[B-Man]

no that was calling a spade a spade, nice try though and thanks for playing

 

No.

 

You are merely trying to deflect attention from your earlier post, which was so filled with liberal gibberish that you have not referenced it since.

 

You remember.................

 

Why on earth would any American not directly profiting want to move thick ,corrosive, heavy metal laden sludge across the ogallala aquifer so two Koch owned refineries can more profitably produce petroleum products for Caribbean and other Latin American markets- Why don't we let the Canadians refine the toxic sludge and pipe/ship the refined products to the North and North East, making the Canadians more money per barrel and perhaps having the effect of lowering gas and home heating oil prices in the North, North East of America.

 

 

So go blissfully on your sad little way, those of us who actually read your replies can spot when you are trying to change the subject

 

or, I guess I could say "nice try and thanks for playing"

 

.

[....lybob]

Nice to know your feelings about canada but given your ongoing real estate crisis, pretty soon most of your real estate will be canuck owned you little twat.

Canada or as like to call it America's storage shed will soon be upgraded to America's global warming summer home

[....lybob]

No.

 

You are merely trying to deflect attention from your earlier post, which was so filled with liberal gibberish that you have not referenced it since.

 

You remember.................

 

 

 

 

So go blissfully on your sad little way, those of us who actually read your replies can spot when you are trying to change the subject

 

or, I guess I could say "nice try and thanks for playing"

 

.

What the !@#$ are you going on about - thick ,corrosive, heavy metal laden sludge, check- going across the Ogallala aquifer check -profits the Koch brothers, check, - The petroleum will be sold in the Caribbean and other Latin American markets, check,- it would be better for the Canadian people and most Americans for Canada to build a refinery and send refined petroleum products through existing pipelines also check- I love my post but I'm not going to defend it from Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

[meazza]

What the !@#$ are you going on about - thick ,corrosive, heavy metal laden sludge, check- going across the Ogallala aquifer check -profits the Koch brothers, check, - The petroleum will be sold in the Caribbean and other Latin American markets, check,- it would be better for the Canadian people and most Americans for Canada to build a refinery and send refined petroleum products through existing pipelines also check- I love my post but I'm not going to defend it from Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

Brought to you by the bloggers at dailykos.

[....lybob]

Brought to you by the bloggers at dailykos.

This covers the Heavy metals and Ogallala aquifer- I hope the National geographic is acceptablehttp://news.national...ne-groundwater/As for Corrosive - I usually wouldn't have to document to the people I know that Sulfur and Chloride salts are corrosive or that quartz sand and aluminosilicates are abrasive but OK

The Keystone XL pipeline will be transporting tar sands crude oil into the United States as diluted bitumen or"DilBit"—a highly corrosive, acidic, and potentially unstable blend of thick raw bitumen and volatilenatural gas liquid condensate"There are many indications that DilBit is significantly more corrosive to pipeline systems than conventional crude. Bitumen blends are more acidic, thick, and sulfuric than conventional crude oil. DilBit contains fifteen to twenty times higher acid concentrations than conventional crudes and five to ten times as much sulfur as conventional crudes.It is up to seventy times more viscous than conventional crudes.The additional sulfur can lead to the weakening or embrittlement of pipelines.DilBit also has high concentrations of chloride salts which can lead to chloride stress corrosion in high temperature pipelines.Refiners have found tar sands derived crude to contain significantly higher quantities of abrasive quartz sand particles than conventional crude.This combination of chemical corrosion and physicalabrasion can dramatically increase the rate of pipeline deterioration.Despite these significant differences, PHMSA does not distinguish between conventional crude and DilBit when setting minimum standards for oil pipelines The risks of corrosion and the abrasive nature of DilBit are made worse by the relatively high heat and pressure at which these pipelines are operated in order to move the thickDilBit through the pipe. Industry defines a high pressure pipeline as one that operates over 600 pounds per square inch (psi). Due to the high viscosity or thickness of DilBit,pipelines—such as the Keystone tar sands pipeline—operate at pressures up to 1440 psi and at temperatures up to 158 degrees Fahrenheit. In contrast, conventional crude pipelines generally run at ambient temperatures and lower pressures. Higher temperatures thin the DilBit and increase its speed through the pipeline. They also increase the speed at which acids and other chemicals corrode the pipeline. An accepted industry rule of thumb is that the rate of corrosion doubles with every 20 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature. At high temperatures, the mixture of light, gaseous condensate, and thick, heavy bitumen, can become unstable.Variations in pipeline pressure can cause the natural gas liquid condensate to change from liquid to gas form. This creates gas bubbles within the pipeline. When these bubbles form and collapse they release bursts of high pressure that can deform pipeline metal.The instability of DilBit can render pipelines particularly susceptible to ruptures caused by pressure spikes.

. Edited March 12, 2013 by ....lybob

[Magox]

So the author of that article you posted is written from a man named Mason Inman....Personally, when I read something I liked to know who wrote it so I can understand from what perspective they are coming from and see if they have an agenda behind what it is they are trying to communicate.

 

Google search on Mason Inman finds that he is a regular contributor for the Huffington . His specialty? Climate Change.

 

He's also communications director for Near Zero, an organization committed to moving the world to near zero green house emissions.

 

The articles he's written for the online National Geographic have primarily dealt with Climate change.

 

So I'd say he has an agenda and you have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

The state department recently released their report on the Keystone Pipeline, mind you, the department is headed with people who Obama has tapped to be in charge, and their findings have concluded that there are no environmental red flags, and that if we didn't build it, the Canadians would follow through with their plans without us and that there would be even more greenhouse emissions.

 

 

[GG]

Why on earth would any American not directly profiting want to move thick ,corrosive, heavy metal laden sludge across the ogallala aquifer so two Koch owned refineries can more profitably produce petroleum products for Caribbean and other Latin American markets- Why don't we let the Canadians refine the toxic sludge and pipe/ship the refined products to the North and North East, making the Canadians more money per barrel and perhaps having the effect of lowering gas and home heating oil prices in the North, North East of America.

 

Exactly, especially when Berkshire Hathaway owns a railroad, which its owner says is a lot more efficient in moving oil.

 

.. oh wait ....

 

And now off to a tangent:

 

Why is the price of gas rising? Those dangit Wall Street speculators? Not really.

 

"... Refiners must therefore purchase RIN credits from companies that have used more ethanol than required. But the credits are running out, and so the price of RINs has soared to nearly $1 a gallon, up from about seven cents at the start of the year. According to Darrel Good, a University of Illinois agriculture economist, the RIN price "could continue to rise as we approach the higher ethanol mandate for 2014" as credits run out. These costs are mostly passed on to motorists. "

 

Hurray for corn. Biofuels, man. It's the future for ending our dependence on foreign oil.

[IDBillzFan]

the department is headed with people who Obama has tapped to be in charge, and their findings have concluded that there are no environmental red flags, and that if we didn't build it, the Canadians would follow through with their plans without us and that there would be even more greenhouse emissions.

 

Wait, wait, wait. Obama named people to head a department, the department made recommendations, and you think he's going to follow their recommendations?

 

Man, that's rich. :lol:

[meazza]

Exactly, especially when Berkshire Hathaway owns a railroad, which its owner says is a lot more efficient in moving oil.

 

.. oh wait ....

 

And now off to a tangent:

 

[Bronc24]

This covers the Heavy metals and Ogallala aquifer- I hope the National geographic is acceptablehttp://news.national...ne-groundwater/As for Corrosive - I usually wouldn't have to document to the people I know that Sulfur and Chloride salts are corrosive or that quartz sand and aluminosilicates are abrasive but OK.

 

OK, to paraphrase your position, you are saying that because there might be a break in the pipeline, it should be scrapped? By your flawed logic, people should not drive because they might be in an accident, should not fly because it might crash and should not own a water heater because it might turn into a missile if it overheats. Sure. Got it.

[B-Man]

What the !@#$ are you going on about - thick ,corrosive, heavy metal laden sludge, check- going across the Ogallala aquifer check -profits the Koch brothers, check, - The petroleum will be sold in the Caribbean and other Latin American markets, check,- it would be better for the Canadian people and most Americans for Canada to build a refinery and send refined petroleum products through existing pipelines also check- I love my post but I'm not going to defend it from Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

 

What a buffoon you are sometimes lybob

 

posted in reply #9 .... The Environmental Dangers of Not Building Keystone XL.

 

I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding a straightforward post, I simplify it for you next time...check.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[....lybob]

What a buffoon you are sometimes lybob

 

posted in reply #9 .... The Environmental Dangers of Not Building Keystone XL.

 

I'm sorry that you have trouble understanding a straightforward post, I simplify it for you next time...check.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

The second (objection) is that a pipeline spill could harm sensitive lands and waters in the American Midwest. my main concern

 

Surprisingly, however, the environmental impacts could be worse if the pipeline isn't built. That's because the oil will almost certainly be produced in any case speculation without the economic data. All that would change would be the method of getting it to market, and the new route a route that effects Canadians not the Midwest of America (I will let Canadians be concerned or unconcerned with a pipeline crossing Canada) would involve tankers crossing rough and environmentally sensitive U.S. waters. What we can't control who crosses our waters with what cargo - that's news to me.

 

The Canadian government seems determined to develop the country's oil resources. There's so much crude locked up in the oil sands region of northern Alberta—more than 169 billion barrels—that the province alone has the third biggest proven reserves in the world, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Production of raw crude bitumen from the oil sands is rising. It jumped 8.2 percent in a single year to hit 1.7 million barrels a day in 2011. The volume is expected to more than double, to 3.7 million barrels per day, by 2021.

 

Canadian officials and energy companies are looking for new ways to export the oil. The quickest solution would be to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, which requires approval from the U.S. Department of State because it crosses an international border. The decision has been delayed, but the pipeline cleared a major hurdle in January when Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman approved a revised route that would skirt the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region. Heineman, a Republican, had opposed the previous route.

 

That puts pressure on the Obama Administration to make a final decision. Michael Byers, Canada research chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, says that if the Keystone XL project were to be rejected, the oil companies would probably focus on pipelines to Canada's west coast. Plans are already in place: Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipeline would transport the oil from Alberta to Kitimat, British Columbia, about 400 miles north of Vancouver; Kinder Morgan has proposed expanding its existing TransMountain Pipeline, which ends near Vancouver.

 

Like the Keystone XL, the TransMountain and Northern Gateway projects face opposition on environmental grounds, and so it's not clear if or when they will be built. so it's not clear if or when they will be built except to make an argument for Keystone XLIf they are completed, however, the oil would be destined for export to Asia. And that's the problem.

 

Tankers carrying the oil would join the heavy marine traffic that already churns through America's Gulf of Alaska and close to the Aleutian Islands, areas with rough seas and abundant marine life. The Gulf of Alaska is where a Shell oil rig recently ran aground. After crossing that region, the tankers would then have to navigate some of the most dangerous waters in the North Pacific, including Unimak Pass, a harrowing 10-mile-wide passage in the Aleutian Islands that is an important habitat for sea lions, gray whales, tens of millions of seabirds, and other species.

 

Tankers at sea are more accident-prone than pipelines on dry land. unsupported And if a spill occurs at sea, it can be difficult to contain and is nearly impossible to clean up.

 

"People remember the Exxon Valdez and worry that sort of thing can happen again if these pipelines are built," Byers says. "Imagine oil-laden tankers passing through one of the richest fisheries in the United States. That will raise many concerns." I will Imagine those tankers not being allowed to pass though our fisheries

 

Unimak Pass is about 800 miles southwest of Anchorage. David Mosley, public affairs specialist for the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska, says that the thousands of ships that already navigate its waters each year face "winter hurricanes" with 40-foot seas and 100-knot winds that appear with little advanced notice. Large ships must ride out the storms in sheltered coves in the Aleutians. In a typical year, at least one ship gets into trouble. "A vessel will have some sort of mechanical or physical issue that then puts them at the mercy of the weather and the waves."

So now oil tankers are an accident waiting to happen, later I'm sure one of you right-wing boobs will argue that oil tankers are as safe as mother's milk

 

Edited March 12, 2013 by ....lybob

[B-Man]

 

The Otter Way of Stopping : A futile and stupid--not to mention crazy and lawless--plan to "save the planet."

 

The Obama administration continues to drag its feet on approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada through the American Great Plains to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. Environmentalists oppose the pipeline because they hate oil, which they claim causes "climate change."

 

The New York Times editorial page demands that President Obama reject the pipeline "for one overriding reason: A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity's most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that--even by the State Department's most cautious calculations--can only add to the problem."

 

It's not as if the Canadians lack other options. If the administration nixes the project, they'll extract the oil and ship it on tankers to Asia. The Times says that would still be preferable because it would "slow down plans" to expand production and "force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself," which in turn would "require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent." It sounds to us as if the Canadians have already made their call on that one.

 

In the last paragraph of the editorial--yes, we read it all the way through; this job has its hardships--the Times makes one hell of a concession: "In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse." So why all the fuss, eh? It seems the Times has borrowed its governing philosophy from Otter, a character in the classic political comedy "Animal House": "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!"

 

 

Futile and stupid aren't enough for Times columnist Thomas Friedman. He agrees with his editors that Obama ought to put the kibosh on Keystone, but he doubts the president will. "So I hope that Bill McKibben"--an environmental extremist--"and his 350.org coalition go crazy."

By "crazy," he means lawless: "I'm talking chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to climate change. . . . So cue up the protests, and pay no attention to people counseling rational and mature behavior."

 

Remember when the Times and some of its columnists were crusading to silence "uncivil" language by their political adversaries and media rivals? By contrast, directly urging unlawful activity is acceptable on the pages of the Times if it furthers a leftist agenda.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324735304578354451617955218.html

[Gary M]

Why on earth would any American not directly profiting want to move thick ,corrosive, heavy metal laden sludge across the ogallala aquifer so two Koch owned refineries can more profitably produce petroleum products for Caribbean and other Latin American markets- Why don't we let the Canadians refine the toxic sludge and pipe/ship the refined products to the North and North East, making the Canadians more money per barrel and perhaps having the effect of lowering gas and home heating oil prices in the North, North East of America.

 

They will move it in a less safe manner (trains) any way.

 

But that's okay because an Obama supporter owns the trains.

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/24/at-least-somebody-benefited-from-obamas-no-on-keystone-xl/

[3rdnlng]

Good article on the U.S. becoming energy independent and attracting more business:

 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/power-shift-energy-boom-dawning-america-1C8830306?ocid=msnhp&pos=3

 

 

Implications for U.S.

The already-low natural gas prices and anticipated decline in oil prices have many analysts projecting a ripple effect that will energize the long-moribund U.S. manufacturing sector. The Citigroup report, for examples, lists more than 30 companies expanding capacity in the U.S. because of cheaper energy.

Dow Chemical is on the list, and the company’s CEO, Andrew Liveris, is outspoken about his belief that cheaper energy can bring manufacturing back to U.S. shores. Yergin, the energy analyst, said the industry supports 1.7 million jobs, a number that he says could grow to 3 million by 2020.

[IDBillzFan]

So I just want to say that I've changed my mind on the Keystone Pipeline.

 

There is proof here that even Tom can not dispute. We must stop the pipeline now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NmxDouhAgNo

[TakeYouToTasker]

...

 

Well, on the up (down?) side, this certainly answers the question, "Is there anyone dumber (more dumb) than a college student?"

Edited May 31, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Magox]

So I just want to say that I've changed my mind on the Keystone Pipeline.

 

There is proof here that even Tom can not dispute. We must stop the pipeline now.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NmxDouhAgNo

What kinda mickey mouse bull **** was that?

[DC Tom]

What kinda mickey mouse bull **** was that?

 

I absolutely LOVE the random algebra equations written on the white board to make them look all "sciencey" and ****. "Hey, we'd better throw E=mc² up there too, so people know we're being scientific!!!"

 

Tar sands don't float. No ****. So what? The pipeline wouldn't be shipping rocks.

Oh, but "common sense" tells us Keystone is bad. He must be basing his opinion on a statistical analysis by JtSP and BF-squared.