1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

DOE says no to Keystone pipeline, again.

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by likes-to-shoot, Jan 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. likes-to-shoot

    likes-to-shoot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,093
    Location:
    Iowa
    Rick, In your third paragraph if that is the way you feel state it, if it is published fact please relay the source to the rest of us. Thank you.

    Bill
     
  2. blade819

    blade819 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,467
    Rick Barker..... since your post on this subject seems to be the only non Right Wing Nut emotional and oriented post and somewhat data specific, I ask you this question. Please look up the Wiki definition of "bitumen" or "tar sand oil" and ask yourself if you would want a pipeline carrying this crap through your state, maybe your backyard? This is what the Keystone Pipeline will transport. It is so toxic and thick that it will have to be disolved with other solutions to be transported through the line. Second. I tried to do some research on this today but couldn't find the answer. I heard on NPR that most of the states that are designated to have the pippeline built are in fact fighting to deny access. Maybe you can provide more info.

    blade819
     
  3. TC

    TC TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    931
    Keep in mind that the oil that will flow through this planned pipeline will end up being exported. If we would like to reduce our "dependence" on imported oil and create jobs, let's build a refinery in North Dakota and ship refined gasoline throughout the midwest. This will provide a lot more jobs for a very long time as compared to the number employed constructing a pipeline.
     
  4. lost & Dead

    lost & Dead Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    88
    The same people that provided wiki leaks. Anybody can post on wiki it is not reliable.
     
  5. John Browning

    John Browning TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    181
    I hope everyone understands that the main reason for blocking the pipeline, is because it cuts right across the Ogallala Aquifer. A quick search will tell you that is a major supply of water to Nebraska and Kansas. Canada already has a pipeline that avoids this water source and don't you find it strange that there isn't a terminal to supply midwest refiners. Want to bet that the oil will be refined and sent overseas, another case of big money and big oil not caring about the water or food supply. John
     
  6. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Announcement was made by State Department, not the Department of Energy. Obama blamed it on the Republicans.

    Lots of pipelines cross the Ogallala Aquifer. Others say it was stopped because it crossed the Sandhills of Nebraska. There are 28,000 miles of pipelines crossing the Sandhills of Nebraska.
     
  7. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    Article by Fox News at link.

    www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/industry-source-state-department-will-reject-keystone-pipeline-reroute/
     
  8. b12

    b12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,049
    there is enough piple and gas lines in the U.S. alone that end to end would go around the world three times. And Guess what. Not an accident ever happen that would be a desaster. Being that all said it still stands to reason that it would make more sense to build a couple of refinerys across the midwest instead of sending it all down to Texas in the heartland of the Oilmen Bushes.
    We all want the jobs and it would be a good cause if in the end the right justice would prevail. Maybe not hundred of thousands of jobs would be created but thousands would be permnenant from the refinerys and much greater economicly for the citizens of the U.S. Bill
     
  9. dkarre

    dkarre TS Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    35
    I am a proud Nebraskan and i along with sooo many others vehemently oppose the keystone xl pipeline for several reasons....tar sands oil has one of the worst records for environmental damage due to its sheer toxicity. Being a predominate ag driven economy, a spill that contaminates the ogallala aquifer would be a DEVASTING event. In the sand hills the aquifer is as high as 10-12 inches below the ground. My second reason for opposition is these job numbers that are produced are skewed. With talking to local officials about 70-80 percent of these jobs created are on a temporary basis just for installation of the pipeline itself. My third and final resason for opposition is once this oil makes it to the gulf, its going to be barged up and shipped overseas, therefore I don't see how our gas prices are going to drop.
     
  10. over/under

    over/under Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    403
    mrskeet, sure he does. You dont' think wants to look like the dumbass do you? You sure it wasn't Bush's fault??
     
  11. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,969
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Its amazing that Tar Sands is a NEW source of energy, according to media accounts.

    I've never heard of it until this year.

    And low and behold there are all these studies out there in media land condemning it as the worst stuff on the planet!!

    Spotted owl anyone??????????

    How many here are old enough to have been in high school when the Alaska pipeline was getting underway????? Remember ALL the BS then??????????? I do, and laugh every time I hear a nay sayer and eco-freak say we can't do it or it can't be done because of the environment.

    I guess it is true what some say, "We never made it to the Moon, it was done on a Hollywood set"
     
  12. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,969
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Too many "endangered Species" on sites that have been looked at!!

    Every time a new refinery is "thought" about, a ES is located exactly where the refinery location was being planned.

    A "quick" fix to our "supply" problem is go to just 3 grades of gasoline instead of the EPA's required 56 blends!!!!!!!! Oh ya get rid of putting food(corn) product into the gas!!!

    Can you just imagine what the price would be with the crap taken out!!!
     
  13. Shooting Coach

    Shooting Coach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8,357
    Location:
    Nashville Tn
    The way I see it is, if gas goes over $5 a gallon, all the water in the ground won't make a bit of difference. We will go into a depression.

    Think food is expensive now? How many miles to work and back? How far away is the gun club? What is the price on targets and ammo going to be when it costs 80 cents a mile for a big rig's fuel?

    Going to the mall 30 minutes away?

    Who is going to drive to YOUR place of business?

    Can the Socialists in power really want this? I fear the answer, but think I know what it is.
     
  14. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,734
    I think that TC's idea would be better, not good, but better. Have Canada pay for a new refinery in the midwest. Problems with this whole idea are listed below.

    First, it is very low grade oil. Second, the oil will be sold on the world markets just like any other oil. Third, the cost of the pipeline itself will have to be paid for in the first 20 years, adding to the cost per barrel if it is sold to the U.S. direct, or China for that matter, which it won't be because it would probably cost the U.S./China more than the market price for high quality crude oil, on the world markets. China can have it.

    If the pipeline is not running through your back yard, and isn't going to affect your health, property values, etc., then it is alright, as long as you think it will save you a couple of bucks at the gas station.

    Since when did the right wing become so concerned about creating Union jobs? Hmmm.
     
  15. blade819

    blade819 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    4,467
    Emough said! I'm on my way to the Dixie Grand!

    blade819
     
  16. kgun_shooter

    kgun_shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    528
    Do you guys actually think gas prices are ever going down? The big oil companies are posting record profits each year and they ain't giving up that money. As a matter of fact there was an article out just a couple of months ago where the refineries where selling OUR GAS to foreign countries because it wasn't being used here. Sounds to me that if the method of supply and demand was actually driving the prices then maybe we wouldn't be paying as much to begin with.

    Another thing, everytime something is said about protecting the environment then you're either called a tree hugger or an extremist. But let me tell you something all the jobs and money in the world won't mean squat if we don't have clean water to drink!
     
  17. John Galt

    John Galt TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    2,788
    There are no shortage of stupid reasons to oppose this pipeline, but the real reason is that the enviro wackos own Obubba. Oh well, I'm sure the Chinese will get plenty us use out of this sorry, low grade oil.
     
  18. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,734
    The most stupid reason is to make it political.
     
  19. Primedust

    Primedust TS Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    472
    I like your ideas about a refinery in North Dakota but look at the facts. Canada is willing to ship 560,000 barrels of oil per day. North Dakota now produces 510,000 barrels per day. That means with no further increase in production, which alot more production is under way from N.D., a refinery would have to process 48,150,000 gallons a day. If it were all gasoline and no waste that would mean a shipment of 2,400 train cars per day of gasoline. (train car hauls 20,000 gallons each)

    Expected production in the next 5 years in North Dakota will triple what it produces now. So two or three refineries and a whole lot of tank farms.

    North Dakota does not have the rails, nor the roads (especially after last years floods) to ship this quantity everyday, so a few billion would have to be spent on infrastructer.

    There are 300 plus wells drilled right now,done, but no one to "frack" them yet. North Dakota well drillers are looking for 300 persons to be trained or are experienced in "fracking" right now.

    So why put every possible trade back to work in America, when you need votes?
    The Green party and the conservatives told Obama that he will lose there votes if he signs the bill. It is an election year! It is Washington at it's finest.

    Big Labor, Big Oil, Big Dollars and deals under the table may get this project going some day. In the mean time a few hundred thousand jobs, taxes, and peaple wait. How many more must lose there homes, farms, businesses for votes and special interest.

    I am amazed that Obama is not getting severly grilled over an open fire this morning for this decision. What about his speech to put jobs out in front. To find a new way. A new route can be found around the aquafer. 4 or $5.00 gas will keep alot of our fellow shooters home this summer. Perhaps some in the food shelf line.

    Primedust
     
  20. mrskeet410

    mrskeet410 TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,064
    It will get going again shortly after the election, whoever wins.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.