Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   After years of claiming the exact opposite, advocates of the Keystone XL pipeline vehemently deny that the pipeline will increase the global supply of oil or drive the price down, after a new study questions the project's impact on climate change   (csmonitor.com) divider line 105
    More: Ironic, Keystone Pipeline, President Obama, anchormen, William Galston, carbon dioxide emissions, Athabasca oil sands  
•       •       •

3492 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Aug 2014 at 2:34 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



105 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-12 01:08:29 PM  
Just accept the fact that it will eventually get built.  At some point the Republicans will be in charge again, and they will greenlight it, then it will never go away.  Like terrorists, they only have to win once to be successful.
 
2014-08-12 01:26:54 PM  

EvilEgg: Just accept the fact that it will eventually get built.  At some point the Republicans will be in charge again, and they will greenlight it, then it will never go away.  Like terrorists, they only have to win once to be successful.


Meanwhile the Canadians have moved on to other methods to transport that oil so we'll just have thousands of miles of empty pipe.
 
2014-08-12 02:38:00 PM  
This sounds like a sell job for Keith Stone

www.adweek.com

Always smooth.
 
2014-08-12 02:38:06 PM  
c2.thejournal.ie
 
2014-08-12 02:39:33 PM  
If the oil goes to china it will be refined with not so good environmental controls.

If it was refined in the us it would be better for the environment cause we have better regulations.

Someone needs to add an amendment that forces the products to be refined in an environmentally better process in the us vs unregulated china.

Its for the planet.
 
2014-08-12 02:41:36 PM  
This just in the price of oil may fluctuate but you can count on a consistent increase in the price from now until you die.
 
2014-08-12 02:43:21 PM  

EvilEgg: Just accept the fact that it will eventually get built.  At some point the Republicans will be in charge again, and they will greenlight it, then it will never go away.  Like terrorists, they only have to win once to be successful.


I'd say get used to the idea that it's NEVER getting built.  The players involved have given up waiting and are spending tons on other projects to move oil.
 
2014-08-12 02:44:35 PM  

monoski: This just in the price of oil may fluctuate but you can count on a consistent increase in the price from now until you die.


It's almost as if the easy-to-extract oil was extracted first, leaving the harder stuff until later years!

It's communism, I tell you.
 
2014-08-12 02:45:06 PM  
Here's a fact.: People that stand to profit from the pipeline don't give a rat's ass about property rights, your home, the environment, or nature in general. They are interested in lining their own pockets and would force feed their own mothers molten lead to make a profit.
 
2014-08-12 02:46:06 PM  

EvilEgg: Just accept the fact that it will eventually get built.  At some point the Republicans will be in charge again, and they will greenlight it, then it will never go away.  Like terrorists, they only have to win once to be successful.




What? Another pipeline?

i293.photobucket.com
www.prcsd.org
i.bnet.com
www.classzone.com
 
2014-08-12 02:49:16 PM  
"Don't care, don't care, don't care" is not the exact opposite of "Yes"
 
2014-08-12 02:49:26 PM  
You mean they are going to burn that oil after they get it out of the ground?  WTF?  Why would you do that?
 
2014-08-12 02:50:53 PM  
  www.washingtonpost.com

Why does this pipeline have to go a different route than the other Keystone pipeline?  Seems like they would already have the right of way for the other route and it gets close enough to the Sand Hill deposits.
 
2014-08-12 02:51:09 PM  

Giltric: If the oil goes to china it will be refined with not so good environmental controls.

If it was refined in the us it would be better for the environment cause we have better regulations.

Someone needs to add an amendment that forces the products to be refined in an environmentally better process in the us vs unregulated china.

Its for the planet.


How about no. We have lots of oil pipelines already. It's well past time for us to start phasing out our petrochemical burning.
 
2014-08-12 02:51:25 PM  
Follow the money, folks. Clearly the pipeline is being stalled by people in the pocket of Big Clean Air and Water.
 
2014-08-12 02:53:01 PM  

James!: EvilEgg: Just accept the fact that it will eventually get built.  At some point the Republicans will be in charge again, and they will greenlight it, then it will never go away.  Like terrorists, they only have to win once to be successful.

Meanwhile the Canadians have moved on to other methods to transport that oil so we'll just have thousands of miles of empty pipe.


As I understand currently the oil is being transported in trains (which, btw, burn fossil fuels). Those trains tie up the railroad system, and I understand that's frowned upon. Pipelines are a lot cheaper and more efficient for transporting crude.
 
2014-08-12 02:55:37 PM  

EvilEgg: Just accept the fact that it will eventually get built.  At some point the Republicans will be in charge again, and they will greenlight it, then it will never go away.  Like terrorists, they only have to win once to be successful.


What difference will that make?  It was the GOP that sank it.  It was actually on schedule and pretty much destined for a rubber-stamp approval due to it involving a deal with another sovereign nation, then the Republicans farked it up pretty much unilaterally by rallying popular support against it by making it into a political thing.
 
2014-08-12 02:55:56 PM  
If you consider the possibility that the people speaking loudest have been full of shiat all along, it does make a bit more sense.
 
2014-08-12 02:57:05 PM  
Pipelines are better than rail.

The alternative to keystone isn't leaving oil in the ground, it is transporting it by less efficient and more dangerous methods.

Leaving oil in the ground would require technological advances dramatically reducing the demand and price of oil to the point where it is not cost effective to do things like frack , deep sea drill or mine the tar sands.
 
2014-08-12 02:57:06 PM  

Arkanaut: As I understand currently the oil is being transported in trains (which, btw, burn fossil fuels). Those trains tie up the railroad system, and I understand that's frowned upon. Pipelines are a lot cheaper and more efficient for transporting crude.


Frowned upon by who?  Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades.  Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.

However, you are right about pipelines being efficient.  That, and safe.  Pipelines are the most efficient, safest, and most environmentally friendly manner of transporting crude oil, yet the environmentalists are stalling a project that could be the safest . . . and their stalling will never stop the crude from flowing.  It will be transported by train or barge, which has massively higher risks for oil spills, and these transport methods will be more environmentally damaging than running the diesel tug boats and diesel locomotives necessary to move that crude.  But there is no arguing with extremism.
 
2014-08-12 02:59:16 PM  
Oil isn't the future.  Get to work on my Mr. Fusion.
 
2014-08-12 02:59:44 PM  
I didn't think the objections to Keystone XL had anything to do with preventing the oil from getting to market.  I thought it had a lot more to do with potential damage to environmentally sensitive areas along the construction path along with the potential for an oil spill which might affect local freshwater sources and aquifers.
 
2014-08-12 02:59:49 PM  
I know it was a talking point, but nobody really believed Keystone would reduce US gas prices, did they?
 
2014-08-12 03:05:51 PM  

Giltric: If it was refined in the us it would be better for the environment cause we have better regulations.


The first thing that happens with Canadian tar sands is the solids are extracted and turned into a massive toxic dust pile.  These are then left to blow in the wind and pollute parts of the midwestern US.

Are these the regulations you're referring to?
 
2014-08-12 03:08:11 PM  

mrmopar5287: Pipelines are the most efficient, safest, and most environmentally friendly manner of transporting crude oil, yet the environmentalists are stalling a project that could be the safest


The Keystone XL pipeline's sole purpose is to get the oil to Texas so it can be exported tax free.  Right now it's all consumed in the USA.  And that situation doesn't have to change except for reasons of higher profitability.
 
2014-08-12 03:09:16 PM  
It's not crude oil. It doesn't go along the same pipelines as oil. Posting the network of pipelines is only being done to confuse the issue.

It's dilbit (diluted bitumen): waxy tar that's been cut with solvents so it can be poured instead of shoveled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilbit

And there aren't any regulations that protect the environment from dilbit the way there are about crude oil.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-diluted-bit um en-oil.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115624/exxon-oil-spill-arkansas-2 01 3-how-pipeline-burst-mayflower
 
2014-08-12 03:10:14 PM  
Nature Climate Changesays the projections are worse than estimated. The  American Petroleum Institutesays the findings are irrelevant. Two institutions with obvious biases are duking it out and Americans will lose every time.
 
2014-08-12 03:10:29 PM  

Notabunny: I know it was a talking point, but nobody really believed Keystone would reduce US gas prices, did they?


Remember what PT Barnum said...
 
2014-08-12 03:11:48 PM  
Stile4aly:

I didn't think the objections to Keystone XL had anything to do with preventing the oil from getting to market. I thought it had a lot more to do with potential damage to environmentally sensitive areas along the construction path along with the potential for an oil spill which might affect local freshwater sources and aquifers.


Well, there was a minor kerfuffle about not just fast-tracking it instead of just saying "oh, go ahead without the approval process every other pipeline ever was subject to."

Too much to ask as far as some people were concerned.
 
2014-08-12 03:16:31 PM  

mrmopar5287: Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades.  Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.


Well, the other passengers on the rails would frown upon the rising prices and increased delays. And then there's the Lac Megantic disaster...
 
2014-08-12 03:17:04 PM  

CheekyMonkey: Notabunny: I know it was a talking point, but nobody really believed Keystone would reduce US gas prices, did they?

Remember what PT Barnum said...


"This way to the Egress"?

grocerystorefeet.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-08-12 03:20:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: mrmopar5287: Pipelines are the most efficient, safest, and most environmentally friendly manner of transporting crude oil, yet the environmentalists are stalling a project that could be the safest

The Keystone XL pipeline's sole purpose is to get the oil to Texas so it can be exported tax free.  Right now it's all consumed in the USA.  And that situation doesn't have to change except for reasons of higher profitability.


Exactly. Keystone means fark-all to the consumer, or anyone who isn't an oil baron. If it gets approved, the ONLY positive impact will be on the oil companies' profits.

Sure, some farmland or a few major aquifers might get contaminated. Why should the barons care? That sounds like poor people problems.
 
2014-08-12 03:24:18 PM  

Arkanaut: mrmopar5287: Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades.  Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.

Well, the other passengers on the rails would frown upon the rising prices and increased delays. And then there's the Lac Megantic disaster...


But who pays for a pipeline burst?  When a company transports hazmat, it's the legal custodian and all cleanup MUST be paid by the custodian (in the US at least) - there's no legal recourse to get out of it.

Is the pipeline owner the custodian?  My assumption was yes, and pipelines would be safer (and thus cheaper) than road/rail transit.
 
2014-08-12 03:25:26 PM  
See, the thing about *this* particular pipeline is it will generate a million american jobs, generate a million bajillon dollars, and drop american gasoline prices to a dollar a gallon.

Or.... Maybe someone got a huge infusion of cash and is lying. One of the two.
 
2014-08-12 03:26:48 PM  
Drill, baby, dr....er.....Pipe, baby, pipe.
 
2014-08-12 03:30:18 PM  
You mean the Canadian tar sands oil pipeline that the Canadians want to build to get the oil to the gulf to load on ships for China and India? That one?
 
2014-08-12 03:32:14 PM  
Is this where I come to biatch about Washington not being Washington DC? Moan about lazy "Staff Writers." Perhaps carry on about the downfall of journalism?

Oh yeah, the pipeline sucks too.
 
2014-08-12 03:34:49 PM  

Havokmon: Arkanaut: mrmopar5287: Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades.  Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.

Well, the other passengers on the rails would frown upon the rising prices and increased delays. And then there's the Lac Megantic disaster...

But who pays for a pipeline burst?  When a company transports hazmat, it's the legal custodian and all cleanup MUST be paid by the custodian (in the US at least) - there's no legal recourse to get out of it.

Is the pipeline owner the custodian?  My assumption was yes, and pipelines would be safer (and thus cheaper) than road/rail transit.


Tell that to ExxonMobil. They still haven't finished cleaning up the Pegasus spill in Mayflower, AR. And that pipeline carries 1/8th what Keystone XL will.
 
2014-08-12 03:42:13 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Giltric: If it was refined in the us it would be better for the environment cause we have better regulations.

The first thing that happens with Canadian tar sands is the solids are extracted and turned into a massive toxic dust pile.  These are then left to blow in the wind and pollute parts of the midwestern US.

Are these the regulations you're referring to?


They dispose of that toxic stuff in china by putting it in the toothpaste, facewash and teething rings that they export to the us.
 
2014-08-12 03:42:54 PM  
Denialist be denying.
 
2014-08-12 03:43:11 PM  

Giltric: Marcus Aurelius: Giltric: If it was refined in the us it would be better for the environment cause we have better regulations.

The first thing that happens with Canadian tar sands is the solids are extracted and turned into a massive toxic dust pile.  These are then left to blow in the wind and pollute parts of the midwestern US.

Are these the regulations you're referring to?

They dispose of that toxic stuff in china by putting it in the toothpaste, facewash and teething rings that they export to the us.


They do eventually sell it.
 
2014-08-12 03:43:19 PM  

mongbiohazard: Giltric: If the oil goes to china it will be refined with not so good environmental controls.

If it was refined in the us it would be better for the environment cause we have better regulations.

Someone needs to add an amendment that forces the products to be refined in an environmentally better process in the us vs unregulated china.

Its for the planet.

How about no. We have lots of oil pipelines already. It's well past time for us to start phasing out our petrochemical burning.


Whats the alternative available to replace those hydrocarbons?
 
2014-08-12 03:47:11 PM  

mrmopar5287: Frowned upon by who? Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades. Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.


And we out in the PNW are farking up that investment left and right because we don't want coal exported out of our ports.  The area learned that lesson back in the 80s.

Coal export stinks, and states and munis are left holding the bag when the bottom drops out of the coal market; which it will as India, China, and the bulk of the other nations we'd export to are trying their damnedest to also move away from coal.

The coal exporters don't give a damn about air pollution, exploding rail cars, carbon dioxide, or selling off America's energy reserves to the highest foreign bidder, just give them the cash.
 
2014-08-12 03:53:28 PM  
I don't know about anyone else but I could use some cheap energy.  There seems to be a direct corrilation between energy cost and quality of life.
 
2014-08-12 03:57:11 PM  

Rindred: Havokmon: Arkanaut: mrmopar5287: Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades.  Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.

Well, the other passengers on the rails would frown upon the rising prices and increased delays. And then there's the Lac Megantic disaster...

But who pays for a pipeline burst?  When a company transports hazmat, it's the legal custodian and all cleanup MUST be paid by the custodian (in the US at least) - there's no legal recourse to get out of it.

Is the pipeline owner the custodian?  My assumption was yes, and pipelines would be safer (and thus cheaper) than road/rail transit.

Tell that to ExxonMobil. They still haven't finished cleaning up the Pegasus spill in Mayflower, AR. And that pipeline carries 1/8th what Keystone XL will.


I wouldn't expect a cleanup to be fast.  Of course, I'm comparing an oil spill with EPA cleanup requirements if you break a CFL in your house.  So, I can only imagine the detail involved in an oil spill cleanup.  That's why I would assume a portion of cost savings in using a pipeline is less spills, not necessarily less volume of spillage.  It seems to me the EPA considers 1oz of contamination to be as damning as 10,000gallons.
 
2014-08-12 03:57:47 PM  

meat0918: mrmopar5287: Frowned upon by who? Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades. Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.

And we out in the PNW are farking up that investment left and right because we don't want coal exported out of our ports.  The area learned that lesson back in the 80s.

Coal export stinks, and states and munis are left holding the bag when the bottom drops out of the coal market; which it will as India, China, and the bulk of the other nations we'd export to are trying their damnedest to also move away from coal.

The coal exporters don't give a damn about air pollution, exploding rail cars, carbon dioxide, or selling off America's energy reserves to the highest foreign bidder, just give them the cash.


Heh, our property has a bunch of coal shafts on it and we own the rights, but there's no way in hell we're doing anything with that crap.
 
2014-08-12 03:58:44 PM  

MonoChango: I don't know about anyone else but I could use some cheap energy.  There seems to be a direct corrilation between energy cost and quality of life.


Sucks for you, then, because tar sands are the most expensive way to get oil there is, and if oil actually ever becomes cheap, they'll shut down.
 
2014-08-12 04:06:16 PM  
Well, to be fair, it WILL increase the supply of money to select shareholders' bank accounts, by a gigantic amount.  Don't worry too much about where that money comes from.  The fact that you're poorer is just a coincidence.
 
2014-08-12 04:08:00 PM  

Havokmon: Rindred: Havokmon: Arkanaut: mrmopar5287: Railroads are making great money transporting this oil and are having their best growth years in decades.  Warren Buffet BOUGHT a railroad as an investment because he sees the growth in rail freight.

Well, the other passengers on the rails would frown upon the rising prices and increased delays. And then there's the Lac Megantic disaster...

But who pays for a pipeline burst?  When a company transports hazmat, it's the legal custodian and all cleanup MUST be paid by the custodian (in the US at least) - there's no legal recourse to get out of it.

Is the pipeline owner the custodian?  My assumption was yes, and pipelines would be safer (and thus cheaper) than road/rail transit.

Tell that to ExxonMobil. They still haven't finished cleaning up the Pegasus spill in Mayflower, AR. And that pipeline carries 1/8th what Keystone XL will.

I wouldn't expect a cleanup to be fast.  Of course, I'm comparing an oil spill with EPA cleanup requirements if you break a CFL in your house.  So, I can only imagine the detail involved in an oil spill cleanup.  That's why I would assume a portion of cost savings in using a pipeline is less spills, not necessarily less volume of spillage.  It seems to me the EPA considers 1oz of contamination to be as damning as 10,000gallons.


It's hard to say, since ExxonMobil hasn't been forthcoming with a comprehensive progress report or cause analysis. To the press or the state government.

Now, imagine a spill 8X as bad in the US breadbasket.
 
2014-08-12 04:13:05 PM  

Rindred: Now, imagine a spill 8X as bad in the US breadbasket.


You know, we do have real world data on the performance and safety of similar pipelines. This isn't exactly a new thing that's never been tried, we have a lot of these pipelines already. It's farking routine infrastructure.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report