Forum Thread

Tar Sands Oil pipeline spill

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 37 1 2 3 Next
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    In Arkansas there was a spill of crude oil. It's the nasty type from Canada. This pipeline only moves 10 % of what the Keystone pipeline would carry. I believe this is a sign that we should not go forward with the unpopular, dirty, expensive form of crude from Canada. Do you notice that there's no talk of building a refinery in Canada to deal with this stuff ? They apparently have to add chemicals to this crude just to make it able to be pumped.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/1/exxonmobil_tar_sands_oil_pipeline_ruptures

    watch the video in the above link.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Tony.
    Since our energy needs are only going to increase and any alternative fuel sources are far from being realized because of funding, and or lack of suffient R&D in that area,should we become more dependment on Middle Eastern oil, because wind towers are under attack because of the disruption of birds migration habits and some residents claim that those towers also spoil their view outside their windows, Solar Power is under attack because of the failures of the Government sponsered companies,Solyndra as one example, alternative fuels are still too expensive to produce,so whats left,do we impose imminet domain over the lands involved in KXL pipeline developement and pay the landowners current values, this issue is not going to go away,if nothing else ,the government should at least step in prevent the profitteering by some Corps. and also by some individuals, maybe the R&D can get underway, but until then,what do we do about our energy needs.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Tony.
    Since our energy needs are only going to increase and any alternative fuel sources are far from being realized because of funding, and or lack of suffient R&D in that area,should we become more dependment on Middle Eastern oil, because wind towers are under attack because of the disruption of birds migration habits and some residents claim that those towers also spoil their view outside their windows, Solar Power is under attack because of the failures of the Government sponsered companies,Solyndra as one example, alternative fuels are still too expensive to produce,so whats left,do we impose imminet domain over the lands involved in KXL pipeline developement and pay the landowners current values, this issue is not going to go away,if nothing else ,the government should at least step in prevent the profitteering by some Corps. and also by some individuals, maybe the R&D can get underway, but until then,what do we do about our energy needs.
    I guess you are forgetting that right now this same oil is transported all the way south via the railroads; it does not need to be altered to flow through pipelines etc. The only danger is if a train crashes it will be fun. The railroads are making good money on it. Of course they lobby against the pipeline.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Recently about 6 or 7 months ago a train did derail over in New Jersey and several of the tanker cars went into the river,releasing some toxic material into the enviorment, needless to say there were many evacuations, claims of burning eyes, breathing difficulties,possibilty of the water table being contaminated all this and more, the enviormentist were having a field day, a lot of scare stories,etc but amazingly after the lawyers got involved and settlements reached,it was no longer toxic and more importantly ,at least to the Railroad corp. it was no longer news. My point is that whatever the government does,it does so with the knowledge that as long as there arn't any visable bodies to been seen, the issue will soon die down and then back to business as usual.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There were also spills in Michigan and I believe Minnesota. The reports are that this stuff isn't just oil, it's nasty with the added chemicals. Like I mentioned above, there MUST be a reason that the Canadians don't want to refine this stuff. Click on the above link and watch the video. They offer more details. I've decided that I'm 100% against this product and thus the Keystone pipeline. I am not against all US oil production, just this nasty Canadian variety.
    In closing, I don't think that we are bound to the middle east for the majority of our oil. Venezuela and Mexico supply some and there are other sources as well.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    We get less then 15% of our energy needs from the Middle East, most of our energy needs are supplied by Mexico,our own oil reserves and of course Venezuela, however we are sitting on a vast sea of oil in our own country and some say the size of the fields would dwarf those of the entire Middle East oil fields, but what to do with them is another issue just waiting to hit the headlines.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The main point is what johnny said: ..."energy needs are only going to increase and any alternative fuel sources are far from being realized"... and that is true. Alternative energy sources can not replace petroleum and thats just a fact. Hopefully they will some day.

    The nasty oil from Canada has to be weighed against the less nasty type oil from the Middle East and other sources. There's advantages and disadvantages to either kind. There's no such thing as clean oil but nothing (yet) to replace it.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There seems to be some oil in North Dakota and Montana. Not sure if it's favorable or not. Below is a link to wikipedia. It sure seems to have employed many in the area.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_formation
  • Center Left Democrat
    Democrat
    Flagstaff, AZ
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The New York Times has a good article this morning (written by a Canadian) about this topic. Although you can read the full article at the link below, the key paragraph is this one:

    IF President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all, he’ll do Canada a favor.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.html?smid=fb-share

    Not surprisingly, some of the politicians in Canada sound an awful lot like the Tea Party Republicans that we have in our country:

    Both the cabinet and the Conservative parliamentary caucus are heavily populated by politicians who deny mainstream climate science. The Conservatives have slashed financing for climate science, closed facilities that do research on climate change, told federal government climate scientists not to speak publicly about their work without approval and tried, unsuccessfully, to portray the tar sands industry as environmentally benign.

    The Canadian one dollar coin is nicknamed "the Loonie".

    Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Michelle Bachmann are all members of our Congress, so apparently we have some loonies "south of the border" as well.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    that guy in Arizona Wrote: The New York Times has a good article this morning (written by a Canadian) about this topic. Although you can read the full article at the link below, the key paragraph is this one:

    IF President Obama blocks the Keystone XL pipeline once and for all, he’ll do Canada a favor.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/opinion/the-tar-sands-disaster.html?smid=fb-share

    Not surprisingly, some of the politicians in Canada sound an awful lot like the Tea Party Republicans that we have in our country:

    Both the cabinet and the Conservative parliamentary caucus are heavily populated by politicians who deny mainstream climate science. The Conservatives have slashed financing for climate science, closed facilities that do research on climate change, told federal government climate scientists not to speak publicly about their work without approval and tried, unsuccessfully, to portray the tar sands industry as environmentally benign.

    The Canadian one dollar coin is nicknamed "the Loonie".

    Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Michelle Bachmann are all members of our Congress, so apparently we have some loonies "south of the border" as well.
    As I said in my previous mail; this sand tar oil is already here via the railroads; they are expanding this service as we speak; it is transported in raw form; so as a matter of fact cheaper than the pipeline (except may be volume right now) So arguments about the "stuff" itself do not help, we are using it here already for a while..
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jamesn Wrote: The main point is what johnny said: ..."energy needs are only going to increase and any alternative fuel sources are far from being realized"... and that is true. Alternative energy sources can not replace petroleum and thats just a fact. Hopefully they will some day.

    The nasty oil from Canada has to be weighed against the less nasty type oil from the Middle East and other sources. There's advantages and disadvantages to either kind. There's no such thing as clean oil but nothing (yet) to replace it.
    I just want to focus on the statements that I put in bold. Alternative energy is NOT far from being realized on a grand scale! This technology is being actively subverted by the major energy companies that are terrified of new energy sources. We have batteries RIGHT NOW that can go 350-500 miles on a single charge. If we just ended the oil subsidies, aka FREE MONEY to the oil companies, and instead invested in this new battery technology, this could be mass produced at a far lower rate within a couple of years.

    Outsides of cars--Solar energy is accelerating at a rate that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, wind turbines now make up roughly 2.5 percent of worldwide energy production, and geothermal technology is also expanding exponentially. I'm not saying that oil is on it's way out the door tomorrow, but we have to start making smarter investments in energy and stop just giving billions away to the oil companies.

    With regards to the pipeline--I'm ambivalent. It's not really going to increase the amount of oil that we get in the short term at all. It will take years to build and pipelines are prone to leak. On the other hand, I'm not fully opposed to it. I'm against the subsidies and tax breaks that we give oil companies, but I don't really have a strong opinion either way of installing a pipeline or not.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jared when johnny said ..."alternative fuel sources are far from being realized"... he was correct but he shoud have added that alternative sources ARE available but at far greater cost. Many people would switch to alternative energy sources if the prices were the same but most of the time petro energy is far cheaper and in many cases (automobiles) more practical. Pure electric cars are great but how far can they go??? 150 miles? That's not going to get it done for most of us. Hybrids are great, but once again, they cost far more.

    Oil is here to stay for quite a while longer and that's just a fact.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I might have not explained my argument as eloquently as I could have. What I was trying to say is that if we invest even a tenth of the billions of dollars that we give the big oil companies on a yearly basis into renewable and alternative energy sources, then we will be able to get off fossil fuels forever.

    My example of the lithium car battery that can go between 300-500 miles a charge is just one of the many inventions that we would be able to produce on a mass scale for a reasonable cost if we shifted the oil subsidies to renewable energy companies. I don't know about you, but being able to go between 300-500 miles without having to plug in or fill up is more than fine with me. Most people go to and from work in their cars. If they charged it up each night, they would never have to worry about filling a tank of gas ever again. If we built electric stations along our highways where people could charge up, just like they fill their cars with gas, then people would be allowed to travel all around the country. Israel is doing just that right now by building an interconnected web of electric stations all throughout the country. We could easily do the same. The rest of the industrialized world is doing these types of things, but our oil and gas industry runs our country.

    Our elected officials, the people that we send to represent "We the People" give 52 Billion dollars annually to oil companies in subsidies. That is just free money. At the same time, their profits are soaring. The history behind subsidies is for another thread, but let's just say that the time is long past due to get rid of oil company subsidies. They are some of the biggest companies in the world and I think that they will do just fine if our government doesn't keep giving them free billions.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yeah,
    And those huge subsidies are in effect now when the oil companies are posting record profits. Huge profits.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Jared I agree with you a hundred percent about the oil companies. They should not get a penny of taxpayer subsidies but we all know that it will continue because the oil companies own so many of our elected officials, sad but true.

    I have not seen the electric car that can go between 300-500 miles on a charge on any vehicle on the market today, about 150 miles is the best I have seen and that is on a very small car. Also common charging times were between 6-12 hours, not very practical on a road trip. And the vehicles and home charging stations were very expensive.

    Please tell me where to find info on the sensible cars (not shoebox sized) on the market that can go 300-500 miles on a charge because I am definitely interested.