NO PIPELINE! Thanks Mr. President

[LovingKayla]

Originally Posted by waverunner234

Google yourself, you Lazyness

Soooo you can't back it up? OK good enough for me.






A side note: I'm absolutely sure there are leaks happening and cover ups going on to cover up the leaks... Since everything is always about money, why don't they just take the money from one or two of BO's vacations every few months and install correct equipment? The knowledge is out there... now.

We could literally take care of both sides on this debate by taking some of that oh so precious money from Washington and putting it to real use.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I actually think the President is wrong on this one I think the gains are greater than the risks.

I agree.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Stupid shit, your reading comprehension is worse than WTF's.

.

I would like to meet you some day and figure out just who had the best comprehension skills.

Short of that...I am flattered you were thinking of me!

[Texas Contrarian]

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that the Ogallala Aquifer is a geological formation with very little lateral movement of water. It's not a giant underground lake through which an oil spill would spread contamination over thousands of square miles.

This article does a good job of explaining the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/op...a-aquifer.html

The author also points out that the real threat is not a potential pipeline spill; it's contamination from chemically-dependent farming which has been occurring for decades.

When they think of the aquifer, many people conjure up an image of a pristine spring from which you can draw pure, healthy drinking water. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have to carefully filter the aquifer's water before drinking it, at least if you want to avoid slowly killing yourself.

Yes, there are still risks and tradeoffs. But pipeline technology has been greatly improved over the last couple of decades, and it seems that a growing number of people consider the risks acceptable, especially in light of our current economic flabbiness and level of oil dependency.

I think it would be a terrible shame if hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil we could import from our friend Canada every day were instead piped to the west coast and shipped to China on tankers. Environmentalists should vigorously oppose that. Transporting oil by sea is far riskier than by pipeline, and consumes a hell of a lot of fuel as well.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Stevie, you are truly an idiot. The backup plan is for Canada to pipe the oil to British Columbia, where it will be loaded on Chinese tankers. Do you try to be this stupid, or does it come naturally to you?

And Wave, please let me know where the last three major pipeline leaks occurred, and the what the consequences were. Thank you.

You do realize that we are selling refined gasoline overseas don't you.

Not sure if you will understand the basic concept of us importing oil and selling the refined product overseas.

Here is a hint. What good does it do to import oil from Canada if it does not lower the price at the pump for here in the states?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

Soooo you can't back it up? OK good enough for me.






.

That is not what he said. He said do your own research.

Also to think that Obama not taking a vacation and using that savings on some pipeline is a beyond belief. The government is not building the pipeline!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

You do realize that we are selling refined gasoline overseas don't you.

Not sure if you will understand the basic concept of us importing oil and selling the refined product overseas.

Here is a hint. What good does it do to import oil from Canada if it does not lower the price at the pump for here in the states?

seems like selling gasoline to people helps in the scheme of things. keeps the suck of dollars out of the country down to a dull industrial strength vacuum roar.

what the pipeline would insure is a reasonable and safe supply of crude we control in times of direness...sort of like remember? the strategic oil reserve?

so whats to understand abt the concept of importing , adding value and reselling and all the while being able to use it domestically in stressful times? seems you hear some lame argument from extreme enviromentalists and incorporate that in such tiny boxes of thinking.

not to mention non-governmental jobs...pipeline, refinery, shipping, money changers, the lot

[Sensia]

List of Pipeline accidents and contaminations:

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is not what he said. He said do your own research.

WTF, Wave brought it up, gave no references, then tells us to look it up ourselves. He's the lazy one, or he is just speaking out of his ass.

I looked it up. Nothing. He's full of shit, again.

Guilty posted a Wiki on pipeline leaks, but few, if any, caused any lasting damage.

If we're concerned about the aquifer, we need to stop chemical based farming. It does a lot more damage than a pipeline.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

Yeah, we have thousands of off-shore oil rigs operating out there too....which cause NO prob....oh, wait.

He asked for some rerouting and additional safety measures in order to avoid a potential environmental catastrophe. It's reasonable and was the correct thing to do.

Yeah. Thousands of offshore rigs. How many have blown up? One, recently. That's a pretty damn good record. And the BP disaster could have been greatly mitigated had the Administration not been so late and inept in their response. And then they let BP essentially off the hook, and still accept campaign contributions.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

One thing a lot of people don't realize is that the Ogallala Aquifer is a geological formation with very little lateral movement of water. It's not a giant underground lake through which an oil spill would spread contamination over thousands of square miles.

This article does a good job of explaining the issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/op...a-aquifer.html

The author also points out that the real threat is not a potential pipeline spill; it's contamination from chemically-dependent farming which has been occurring for decades.

When they think of the aquifer, many people conjure up an image of a pristine spring from which you can draw pure, healthy drinking water. Nothing could be further from the truth. You have to carefully filter the aquifer's water before drinking it, at least if you want to avoid slowly killing yourself.

Yes, there are still risks and tradeoffs. But pipeline technology has been greatly improved over the last couple of decades, and it seems that a growing number of people consider the risks acceptable, especially in light of our current economic flabbiness and level of oil dependency.

I think it would be a terrible shame if hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil we could import from our friend Canada every day were instead piped to the west coast and shipped to China on tankers. Environmentalists should vigorously oppose that. Transporting oil by sea is far riskier than by pipeline, and consumes a hell of a lot of fuel as well.

+1

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ekim008

Well they have had leaks in the Alaskan pipeline.Do any run through the area they are wanting to run this one?Just asking

Looked at a map last night. It appears that the aquifer covers much of central Nebraska. Any pipeline dissecting the state north to south within a corridor between the eastern state line and a line fifty(?) miles to the west would probably miss the aquifer – west of that, you’ll probably be in the aquifer zone.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah. Thousands of offshore rigs. How many have blown up? One, recently. That's a pretty damn good record. And the BP disaster could have been greatly mitigated had the Administration not been so late and inept in their response. And then they let BP essentially off the hook, and still accept campaign contributions.

The BP disaster could have been greatly mitigated had the government been conducting proper inspections and enforcing the rule - that's what those bureaucrats are paid to do.

[jhende3]

Who cares about a pipeline anyway. You could build one from Saudi to Houston and gas would still be 4.00 a gallon. I say to hell with these oil companies pipe line companies these jokers rake in billions in profits every month. If you think that that pipeline would help anything but there profits your smoking. When will people understand this one simple thing. And when you can wrap your brain around this you will begin to understand why I believe what I believe


OIL IS TRADED GLOBALLY! THE PRICE OF OIL FROM CANADA IS THE SAME FROM THE GULF OF MEXICO AS IT IS FROM SAUDI IT DOESNT CHANGE!

[IIFFOFRDB]

It's frustrating trying to get y'all to understand keeping jobs and money in north america is a good thing.

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

WTF, Wave brought it up, gave no references, then tells us to look it up ourselves. He's the lazy one, or he is just speaking out of his ass.

I looked it up. Nothing. He's full of shit, again.

Told you, you need a better search engine. I didn't even know those places exist, so how could I just come up with that?