Starkiller Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/ The company had just tried to delay it, hoping for a Republican president I'm sure. They knew Obama would likely block it at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 We are already importing tar sands oil. Not having this pipeline doesn't change that. In fact, having the pipeline only made it easier to EXPORT that oil to other countries. All it did was send it to costal refiners, who could then load it into tanker ships. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Mythos27 Posted November 6, 2015 Popular Post Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 3 minutes ago, Soxcat said: Yes, the fuel (not oil since it is already refined) could be exported or place into the world supply but geee maybe that also means you can tax the sale of the fuel and the money could go to the great USA instead of one of your Muslim friends. And did you know people have jobs at those refineries. And you know full well the climate change impact would be so miniscule it isn't even worth arguing about. Meaningless and Canada will find a home for the stuff anyway. In fact I can tell even you, a one eyed Obama loving fool know this stinks like dog crap. If I remember correctly the environmental concerns are more about the fresh water aquifer the pipeline would necessarily pass through. This aquifer irrigates much of the central U.S. and a spill there would be highly problematic. Obviously pro-Keystone people would downplay the importance of the aquifer or the possibility of a spill but I think this is a valid concern. reo, oldschool, freakingeek, and 2 others 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 The Keystone pipeline already exists. The part Obama rejected is phase 4, AKA, the shortcut. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
headhunter Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 That shit goes down there anyways without a pipeline they transport it with trucks and rail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos27 Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Just now, TitanDuckFan said: The Keystone pipeline already exists. The part Obama rejected is phase 4, AKA, the shortcut. Does it currently run through the aquifer or would it be the shortcut that runs through it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 It currently runs over the east side of the northern Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. The shortcut would run over most of the northern portion of it in S. Dakota and Nebraska. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) But the main thing the shortcut would do is pick up the Bakken oil on the way through. That would cut out Warren Buffett's railroad contracts to haul the Bakken oil on his BNSF line, and reduce the oil being shipped to the terminals in Illinois for refining. Edited November 6, 2015 by TitanDuckFan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bink Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 At least Biden's Keystone Light Pipeline is still in the works. Mythos27, HigherLogic, Legaltitan, and 1 other 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos27 Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 5 minutes ago, Bink said: At least Biden's Keystone Light Pipeline is still in the works. The man has fine tastes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omar Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Maybe a silly question, I really do not know. Why not just build a new refinery up in the northern part of the states instead of building a pipeline across the whole country? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakingeek Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 It's an environmental liability should a breech occur which is likely at some point. Energy companies do a lousy job of policing themselves when left to their own devices. A spill would be an environmental disaster. Btowner, kgsTitan, and Omar 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
freakingeek Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 Moving it by trucks/trains limits the scope of widespread impact if a spill takes place. 1.1 million barrels a day would be going through the pipeline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omar Posted November 6, 2015 Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 I do not want this going through my state, Iowa, and I do not want to see farmers or anyone else lose their property to imminent domain. That is a bunch of BS. Btowner 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted November 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2015 4 hours ago, Soxcat said: Yes, the fuel (not oil since it is already refined) could be exported or place into the world supply but geee maybe that also means you can tax the sale of the fuel and the money could go to the great USA instead of one of your Muslim friends. And did you know people have jobs at those refineries. And you know full well the climate change impact would be so miniscule it isn't even worth arguing about. Meaningless and Canada will find a home for the stuff anyway. In fact I can tell even you, a one eyed Obama loving fool know this stinks like dog crap. Why the hell would any extra money go to the USA? The country wouldn't own the oil or the refined products. And what is being sold in the US already gets taxed. And the refineries are already employed. It's not like they would add millions of new jobs just because they are refining more oil. The extra employment will almost entirely come from construction of the pipeline and then go away once it has been completed. further, the global drop in oil prices makes it less financially viable to produce tar sands. There has been a huge drop in development in both Alberta and the Bakken because of price drops. That could easily mean there is no need for the pipeline even if they built it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.