eternal flame Wrote: There may be some merit in your idea. But the eventual result would be nearly the same. We would still have to conduct the world's worst form of tar sands oil, the dirtiest, most polluted & most dangerous oil on planet earth, thru OUR pipelines, on OUR land, and if or when that pipeline leaks, and they DO leak on average at least once per year ----- there simply is NO WAY it can ever be cleaned up. The tar sands oil does not float on top, like typical oil, so you can skim it off --- but it sinks to the bottom, where it can't be dissolved, skimmed, or removed at all. PLUS it is the most toxic oil ever produced, so it will kill all life forms that come near it, All the fish in the water, even plants, & humans can't even touch the water. Most places it has leaked, human beings all have to leave (evacuate) the area immediately, (& maybe forever) because the AIR becomes so polluted from that oil, that it can kill you to stick around and Breathe that toxic stuff. You have to realize that tar sands oil is POISON in every way, & it is not yet found ANY WAY TO CLEAN IT UP.People living around any area where those pipes leak, must immediately evacuate all their belongings, their homes, their furniture, no time to even go thru their stuff to pick & choose what they want, because the AIR is Toxic. (from the fumes).So no matter what pipes you use, or what refinery you build, it is far too dangerous to HUMAN LIFE, to have it anywhere in the USA, unless you are a greedy foreign govt who does NOT care about you, but only wants a quick fortune.& then runs away. Decent people would not want to do this to their worst enemy --- so Canada may have questionable alliances, if they want to pawn it off onto US. There are now sources of "clean energy" so there is no excuse to get involved in something so awful and unfixable, that could endanger our whole Environment, just for a few quick bucks.
Michael39301 Wrote: I say let interested oil companies actually build a new refinery, preferably in North Dakota, but maybe even in Canada, and it can be the sole converter of these tar-sands oil. Then they can put their finished product in already-existing U.S. pipelines, and this can all be used here in the U.S. Just think how eventually this has the potential to come close to eliminating U.S imports of oil from the Middle East, or at least even further reducing our dependency on OPEC's monopoly.
jaredsxtn Wrote:Michael39301 Wrote: I say let interested oil companies actually build a new refinery, preferably in North Dakota, but maybe even in Canada, and it can be the sole converter of these tar-sands oil. Then they can put their finished product in already-existing U.S. pipelines, and this can all be used here in the U.S. Just think how eventually this has the potential to come close to eliminating U.S imports of oil from the Middle East, or at least even further reducing our dependency on OPEC's monopoly. I second Tony. It's nice to have you back.It's a little more complicated than just building a new refinery. There is already a refinery in Wyoming that was completed in 2008, but that is only able to refine 3,800 barrels per day. That was the first refinery built in a decade and they take years to build and become operational.Canada can do whatever the hell they want to do. If they wanted to build a new refinery then I say have at it. The American taxpayer shouldn't be providing the funds to build one for them though.The reason they don't is because the whole Keystone pipeline is being built so Canada can ship it's oil down to be refined in Texas and exported outside of America. Canada is basically asking America to build a pipeline that has the potential to wreck catastrophic damages to our lands so they can cheaply refine it and ship the oil elsewhere. What's in it for us other than the minimal tax revenue we would get from charging them a fee for refining their dirty oil?This debate has been muddied from the get go, but it's actually quite simple. Canada wants a cheap way to ship their new found oil elsewhere. Shipping it south, through the Gulf of Mexico, is a hell of a lot cheaper than shipping it east or west. They reap all the rewards while America assumes all the risk. Why the Republican Party has made this top priority baffles me, but everything the Republican Party does baffles me.
Dutch Wrote:Jared, there must be someone or something which makes money for the GOP members; I doubt if it is only wanting it their way, if there is nothing "in" it for them.
that guy in Arizona Wrote: jared:Elizabeth Warren summarized the reason for the pipeline very succinctly yesterday in a speech before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.The short answer is: MONEY AND POWER:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k_4vWVzNWM