Reply With Quote
If you don't want to have even one original idea shat out of your tiny brain, don't.
To save some posters the hassle, I've posted their autobot responses.
If you don't want to watch it, don't.
If you don't want to have even one original idea shat out of your tiny brain, don't.
Nice to see you confess it.
XL benefits no one but Canada and, eg Kock Bros Corpus Christi heavy oil refinery, while US bears all the risk and inevitable spills. XL oil is going overseas. And won't help USA one dime.
How's that clean up of tar oil in the Yellowstone River going?
I hope they do it just to piss Boo and Chump off.
Who says I was against it?
why is anyone FOR XL?
Not necessarily crazy about it either, in that it will do all for gas prices. AFAIK, the main environmental concerns have been addressed.
IIRC, they are NOT going to add the best, comparatively inexpensive leak monitoring system
Pipeline leak detection systems miss 19 out of 20 spills
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/as...on_system.html
Keystone XL Would Not Use Most Advanced Spill Protection Technology
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20...stin-tar-sands
lol msm
"On the same weekend that 40,000 people gathered on the Mall in Washington to protest construction of the Keystone Pipeline -- to its critics, a monument to carbon-based folly -- President Obama was golfing in Florida with a pair of Texans who are key oil, gas and pipeline players."*
The White House Press Corps was outraged over their lack of access to President Obama when he golfed with Tiger Woods. But here's the real "Golf-Gate"- Obama golfed with oil and gas executives. Do you think the topic of campaign donations came up? Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
*Read more from Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02...
TYT: Obama Golfs with Oil CEOs
What campaign?Do you think the topic of campaign donations came up?
Pravda and nothing but the Pravda, so help you Ministry of Disinformation
One-Sided Keystone XL Poll Tells the Story Big Oil Wants You To Hear
After a weekend during which tens of thousands of Americans took to the streets to oppose the Keystone XL pipeline and demand solutions to the climate crisis, the American Petroleum Ins ute (API) is touting a one-sided poll they claim shows Americans supporting the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.
However, a closer look at their poll questions unveils a biased survey which failed to equip respondents with the basic facts of the project before asking them to form an opinion. Instead, API crafted a poll to ensure they got the types of answers they were looking for by totally ignoring the environmental and economic realities of the toxic pipeline from Canada.
You can see the questionnaire for yourself here (PDF). And you’ll notice that poll respondents are presented with all types of arguments for the pipeline, but not a single argument against Keystone XL. In fact, the survey doesn’t even mention the words “tar sands” at all. Without the proper context, people who had never heard of Keystone XL before could easily associate the pipeline with conventional oil — not the toxic, more carbon-intensive tar sands oil that Keystone XL would transport. Furthermore, there is no mention of the grave risks Keystone XL poses. API’s survey ignores any discussion of possible oil spills, drinking water contamination, or climate-disrupting pollution — just to name a few.
The poll also primes respondents to believe that Keystone XL tar sands oil is destined for the U.S. marketplace — rather than noting that it is effectively an export pipeline that pumps tar sands oil through the U.S. to get to the global marketplace. By failing to mention that much of the tar sands oil coming through Keystone XL will be shipped overseas, the survey allows respondents to assume that this oil is destined for the United States and will improve our energy security.
Here’s the kicker: Polling conducted by Hart Research last year showed that once American voters hear both the pro and con arguments about the Keystone XL pipeline, they support President Obama’s decision to deny the permit for the pipeline by a 47 percent to 36 percent margin.
This poll, which surveyed 1,000 voters in the swing states of Colorado, Michigan, Iowa and Ohio, showed that voters were especially worried about the risks to water quality and supplies from tar sands pipeline spills. Moreover, the arguments of API and other Keystone XL supporters were found to be much less powerful once voters learned that much of the tar sands oil will be exported and consumed overseas.
API’s polling instrument is incomplete and one-sided, so it’s difficult to take any meaning from it — though that doubtlessly won’t stop API from declaring it as “proof” Americans want this project. But what this poll is “proof” of is that it’s easy to win a one-sided debate. But Americans deserve to know these critical — and basic — facts about Keystone XL before being asked to form an opinion about it.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-you-to-hear/
lol...a tty poll is countered by a ty poll. Thinkprogess thinks this means something.
Interesting that TP would disclose the Harris/API poll questions, but not the Hart Research poll questions. Wonder why?
although you've decided without seeing the " ty" Hart poll, do your own research of the poll questions: http://www.hartresearch.com/index.html
TB, you and a couple others here are pro-oil apparently no matter what the negatives, what's your answer? your positives?
Koch Brothers Driving Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada to Cut Out Venezuelan Oil
And I wanted to know why we’re taking oil from Canada across the entire United States to Texas. And, again, it’s because the Kochs want it. Now, why do they want it? The answer is, right now they’re getting their oil—the only place they can get lots of heavy crude oil—if you want heavy crude, you’ve got to get it from a heavy dude named Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela. And one thing about Chávez, who I’ve known for many years, is that he doesn’t let go of his nation’s oil on the cheap. He is a cornerstone of OPEC. And Venezuela’s been selling heavy crude at a premium to the price paid in Texas, because it costs more to get heavy oil from Venezuela than it does to get light oil down the road from Texas. But they have no choice, the Koch brothers, but paying Hugo for his gunky oil, [because the Gulf coast refineries, especially those controlled by the Koch brothers in Flint Hills, can really only handle heavy crude oil].
Now, on the other hand, the Canadians not only are selling for less than Texas oil—they’re selling, as of today—if you check out this week’s reports, about $33 a barrel less is the price of West Canada Sands (WCS) oil, as they call it, versus WTI, the West Texas Intermediate. So you’re saving about $35 a barrel—$35 a barrel—if you can get the oil from Canada as opposed to Venezuela. So they’ve got to cut off Chávez and they’ve got to bring the oil in from Canada.
And that’s the reason why we are talking about endangering the most sensitive aquifers and important—that is, water sources in America—to have a pipe with the filthiest oil in the planet, the most polluting oil on the planet, to drag it all the way from Canada all the way down to Texas so that the Koch brothers at Flint Hills can make—their savings would be about $2 billion a year that the Koch brothers will make off our risking the aquifers across the United States.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/...SwCg1OQtYQp.99
Already been there. No mention whatsoever of this "poll".
Just because I can take down a TP hit-piece with out even thinking doesn't equate to support for XL. I just like smacking ideologues.TB
Will trains derail the Keystone XL pipeline?
The Keystone XL pipeline could fall by the wayside given the increased interest in the transportation of crude oil via rail, Graeber writes. With more crude travelling on trains, will rail overtake Keystone XL and other pipelines as the preferred method of oil transport?
The amount of crude oil delivered by rail in the United States set a record last year by an overwhelming margin. The U.S. Energy Department said it expects domestic crude oil production by 2014 to reach 7.8 million bpd, a 20 percent increase from today's figures. That's enough oil production to seemingly strain U.S. oil pipeline capacity. The Association of American Railroads states that nearly a quarter of a million carloads of crude oil traveled on the U.S. rail system in 2012. Last week, pipeline company Kinder Morgan said it was planning to build a rail system to carry crude oil from as far away as western Canada to the Houston market. Given ongoing concerns over pipeline integrity, projects like Keystone XL could fall by the wayside given the increased interest in rail.
The AAR reported that 233,811 carloads of crude oil traveled by rail last year. In 2012, crude oil took up about 0.8 percent of rail carloads in the United States, up from the 0.2 percent in 2011. With each carload capable of carrying roughly 700 barrels of crude oil, the entire U.S. rail system can support around 450,000 bpd. During the fourth quarter of 2012 alone, more than 81,000 carloads of oil – or 56.7 million barrels – traveled by rail.(Related article: Keystone XL: Celebrities Won't Help the Cause)
Pipeline company Kinder Morgan last week announced it was teaming up with Mecuria Energy Trading Co. to build a rail project designed to handle 210,000 bpd. The project would let Mercuria source crude oil from as far away as western Canada to the Houston market for distribution. Kinder owns roughly 46,000 miles of pipelines. The deal with Mercuria, however, is the first for the pipeline giant and would feed the largest refining complex in the world.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...All+Stories%29
Would rail also be more energy efficient? The thick, nasty, filthy unsweet tar doesn't have to be so liquified and heated? from Canada to refineries.
any fkn pipeline when its connecting through different states diverting whatever...nobody wants to foot the bill...
Is the Keystone XL pipeline worth it?
give Canada open access to world energy markets, ( and USA takes all the spill and pollution risk)
Although major business leaders support the pipeline, it's not so clear that they would invest in it. The Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry synthetic oil from Canada's tar sands to Texas refineries, is vulnerable to a downturn in oil prices. The crude it carries has smaller profit margins than conventional oil or even so-called tight oil from shale formations.
So while those tar sands (also known as oil sands) make money at current prices, it's outlook is more iffy if oil prices fell – or if a big carbon tax was enacted.
The reason is that tar sands projects have to consume a lot of energy to create energy. Using an energy accounting method called "energy return on energy invested" or EROEI, economist Robert Rapier at Consumer Energy Report has calculated that tar sands have an EROEI of 2.9/1. That means it takes a gallon of gasoline to create 2.9 gallons of gasoline. By contrast, a conventional light, sweet oil well can create about 6 gallons of gasoline for every 1 gallon of gasoline is uses.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...All+Stories%29
So the oil people and traders will manipulate oil market to keep tar sands profitable.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions