XL Keystone Pipeline

A place to discuss major environment issues, from the Gulf oil spill to extreme floods.

Moderators: Indaswamp, Dep6, #1wingnut, Smackaduck

XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby OmegaRed » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:00 am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 94345.html

"In an interview with HuffPost Live Thursday, former U.S. Army Brigadier General Steven M. Anderson spoke out against the building of the Keystone XL pipeline, warning that "all Americans should be outraged" about the national security implications of the project.

"I want to stop paying big oil and I want to start seeing a green economy in this nation," he told host Alicia Menendez. "And big oil is pushing Keystone, and Keystone is essentially going to maintain the status quo for another 25 years. And during that time I can only imagine the impact it's going to have on our environment and, indeed, our national security."

Gen. Anderson said that "all Americans should be outraged about the potential implications for our national security" because the pipeline "keeps us hopelessly addicted to oil."

"We've already seen by virtue of Hurricane Sandy and Katrina and others that the world is changing, and we've got to do something about the way we expend energy," he said.

Retired Brigadier General Anderson served under General David Petraeus as Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics for the Multi-National Force in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. He is currently Chief Marketing Officer for RELYANT, a Tennessee-based defense contractor that provides construction, logistics and munitions response to U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

"If you understood like I do how things work in Afghanistan, it's criminal. We've had over 1,000 Americans killed moving fuel -- moving liquid fuel -- in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years. I know because I was a senior logistics officer and worked for General Petraeus for 15 months over there," Anderson said."
Locked&Loaded wrote:
Ohio- what would it run me to have you drop by to rape my dog and set this boat on fire?
User avatar
OmegaRed
Fabio
 
Posts: 3796
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:38 am
Location: I eat Chimichangas


Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby OmegaRed » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:07 am

For or against? It is refreshing to actually have someone admit that oil was at least part of the reason we were over there. I'll keep the rest of my political views aside :thumbsup:
Locked&Loaded wrote:
Ohio- what would it run me to have you drop by to rape my dog and set this boat on fire?
User avatar
OmegaRed
Fabio
 
Posts: 3796
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:38 am
Location: I eat Chimichangas

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Butta boom » Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:07 pm

We are hopelessly addicted to oil because we are hopelessly addicted to food. The worldwide production of food, the rice, corn, soybean complex that amounts to75% of the food on this planet is derived from diesel fuel. Without it about half the folks on earth today would have to get up tomorrow and transplant rice, walk behind a mule or horse which no longer exist in sufficient numbers,and plant corn or soybeans. If you aren't up for that, give a big thank you to diesel. When that is done say a prayer that the American farmer decides to get up tomorrow and buy the diesel, seed, and fertilizer needed to grow these crops. They are willing to gamble on the weather and the markets to provide us our existence. We shouldn't fret about the color of energy any more than we should fret about color of people.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Cougar125 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 3:39 am

While diesel does fuel the machines that cultivate much of our crops, there are bio-diesels out there that could run our farm machines, effectively severing our dependency on crude oil. Why don't we do that? It's simple. We've already got the process down for making diesel from crude and our refinery's don't want to lose money. That really is what it comes down to at this point because we can grow enough corn to make bio-diesel, but too much money is to be had sticking with crude.
There are no ducks in the desert!
User avatar
Cougar125
hunter
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:18 pm
Location: Deployment again!

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby boney fingers » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:47 am

Bio fuel and ethanol = taking fuel to grow crops to make fuel. Its like paying someone to dig a hole than paying someone to fill it in and claiming you created jobs. The bio fuel lobby is as strong as the big oil lobby, the only difference is oil can stand on its own without the help of taxpayers and bio fuel cant. The so called alternatives have been around for a long time, the reason they are not mainstream is they are vastly inferior to petro. If your goal is to get us off middle east oil, then the xl pipeline is an important part of the solution. Oil from Canada or oil from Middle east; seems like a no brainer to me.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Butta boom » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:10 pm

Cougar125 wrote:While diesel does fuel the machines that cultivate much of our crops, there are bio-diesels out there that could run our farm machines, effectively severing our dependency on crude oil. Why don't we do that? It's simple. We've already got the process down for making diesel from crude and our refinery's don't want to lose money. That really is what it comes down to at this point because we can grow enough corn to make bio-diesel, but too much money is to be had sticking with crude.


Biodiesel is made from soybeans, not corn. The present formulations are not usable in cold weather. Nothing worse than coming to work in the morning and being unable start your tractor because of congealed fuel In the lines and injection system. And I'm in California. Some newer formulations are being made from canola may be more promising.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby sloth » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:56 pm

just to add my $0.02... if we even tried to produce enough "bio diesel" to fuel the US for a year it would take nearly every soy bean that the US produces in one year to fuel our semi trucks, full of domestic goods, for a month. the problem with bio fuel is the amount of ag support needed would mean that we would have to either deforest more or use land that unstable for growing crops. if you choose to use poor land that means chemical fertilizers and soil balancing chemicals which can do more harm than burning crude diesel.

Oh and to think that we, the tax payer, dont pay the oil companies..... you must be joking .... right? only 1%-5% of all energy subsidies go to "green" energy companies. the other 95%+ goes to big oil...
DU Member
YAT-YAS
USMC '04-'12
User avatar
sloth
hunter
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: somewhere in Gods country

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Bill Herian » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:19 pm

sloth wrote:just to add my $0.02... if we even tried to produce enough "bio diesel" to fuel the US for a year it would take nearly every soy bean that the US produces in one year to fuel our semi trucks, full of domestic goods, for a month. the problem with bio fuel is the amount of ag support needed would mean that we would have to either deforest more or use land that unstable for growing crops. if you choose to use poor land that means chemical fertilizers and soil balancing chemicals which can do more harm than burning crude diesel.


Thats my concern as well. And the truth is, even if we did, the industrial ag model in the U.S simply won't be able to compete with the graineries developing in other parts of the world.
User avatar
Bill Herian
hunter
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:09 am
Location: breakin' hearts and blastin' farts in WI

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby boney fingers » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:29 pm

sloth wrote:just to add my $0.02... if we even tried to produce enough "bio diesel" to fuel the US for a year it would take nearly every soy bean that the US produces in one year to fuel our semi trucks, full of domestic goods, for a month. the problem with bio fuel is the amount of ag support needed would mean that we would have to either deforest more or use land that unstable for growing crops. if you choose to use poor land that means chemical fertilizers and soil balancing chemicals which can do more harm than burning crude diesel.

Oh and to think that we, the tax payer, dont pay the oil companies..... you must be joking .... right? only 1%-5% of all energy subsidies go to "green" energy companies. the other 95%+ goes to big oil...


Curious where you got the figures for the subsidies as the numbers Ive seen are way different especially when compared on a per unit of energy basis. I say it time for all subsidies to go and the government quit trying to pick winners and losers.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby sloth » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:06 pm

boney fingers wrote:
sloth wrote:just to add my $0.02... if we even tried to produce enough "bio diesel" to fuel the US for a year it would take nearly every soy bean that the US produces in one year to fuel our semi trucks, full of domestic goods, for a month. the problem with bio fuel is the amount of ag support needed would mean that we would have to either deforest more or use land that unstable for growing crops. if you choose to use poor land that means chemical fertilizers and soil balancing chemicals which can do more harm than burning crude diesel.

Oh and to think that we, the tax payer, dont pay the oil companies..... you must be joking .... right? only 1%-5% of all energy subsidies go to "green" energy companies. the other 95%+ goes to big oil...


Curious where you got the figures for the subsidies as the numbers Ive seen are way different especially when compared on a per unit of energy basis. I say it time for all subsidies to go and the government quit trying to pick winners and losers.


Per unit of energy you are correct. But over all solar and wind energy only make < or = 1% or total energy production in the US. and it is not a very profitable business to be in because of its decentralized nature... we all know that big oil is extremely profitable yet they still get the overwhelming vast majority of subsidies.

and i do agree we should do away with the subsidies all together.

source of info is: Environmental Science: Toward a Sustainable Future 11th edition by Wright and Boorse published by pearson in 2011
DU Member
YAT-YAS
USMC '04-'12
User avatar
sloth
hunter
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: somewhere in Gods country

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby dudejcb » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:54 am

Hemp is a crop that would solve many issues. It makes a stronger fiber for clothing than cotton and hemp oil is a solid bio fuel. It doesn't require as much water or fertilizer (both high energy inputs) to grow as cotton. There are other good reasons as well

The main sticking point against using common sense (i.e., hemp) is our Puritan culture (read that religious conservatives) who associates anything to do with hemp as a hippie thing, despite the fact that most of the founders grew it because of its many valuable uses. Yet another example of the disconnect between conservatives who worship the founders but only follow their exmaple when it suits their agenda.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5250
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby dakotashooter2 » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:17 pm

Sadly I think we may be 50-100 years away from any cost effective, large scale, "green" energy source and we are still going to need fossil fuels until that time. Even when that time arives there will still be applications where fossil fuels are a better choice.
User avatar
dakotashooter2
hunter
 
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby boney fingers » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:21 pm

dudejcb wrote:Hemp is a crop that would solve many issues. It makes a stronger fiber for clothing than cotton and hemp oil is a solid bio fuel. It doesn't require as much water or fertilizer (both high energy inputs) to grow as cotton. There are other good reasons as well

The main sticking point against using common sense (i.e., hemp) is our Puritan culture (read that religious conservatives) who associates anything to do with hemp as a hippie thing, despite the fact that most of the founders grew it because of its many valuable uses. Yet another example of the disconnect between conservatives who worship the founders but only follow their exmaple when it suits their agenda.


Is it illegal? Show us how its done and start a hemp oil company and put exxon out of buisness. If you can do it cheaper and more efficient, then Im all for it. I cant remember ever hearing a sermon about the evils of baling twine so I guess Im not religious enough or conservative enough. Blaming all the failiures of the green energy on the Christian right is pathetic. If I had to guess why the hemp oil thing hasnt caught on , Id say the growers smoke it all before it makes it in the gas tank. Every year we get to hear about how "X" fuel is such a great alternative to oil. Every year the government and some moron investers dump bushels of money (often mine) into these pipe dreams with the same results. If I wanted to be amish I would buy the costume.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Butta boom » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:58 pm

After all these years, this important project is still in the shouting stages. That by itself says a lot about our government. The inability to make a decision because that will get rid of the issue, and any political gain, is tragic. The booming oil shale fields in the Dakotas have muted some of the Canada vs. USA issues but there is another interesting side to the story.

There is plenty of opposition to the alternative route that would take the pipeline west through Alberta and BC. The crossing of dozens of rivers and the Rockies have the local folks very upset. The threat that this pipeline might go west instead of south might not be a sure thing. Canada's low population, and plentiful energy, let's the general public have a rather privileged opinion of what should happen.

The control that the government has on the production of oil, and the profits, actually tips this equation towards pushing it our way. Less opposition from the natives and more money for the government.

I say build it now.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Yuchi1 » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:32 pm

Obama originally vetoed the northern leg of the Keystone pipeline because of Nebraska's opposition.

The pipeline was re-routed to accomodate those concerns.

Obama is now holding up the permit for the US/Canada border crossing.

Why?

A lot of the canadian crude is currently being transported (south) by rail tankcar via the BNSF.

Who owns BNSF?

Who was a major contributor to Obama?

What was the reason he (Obama) won't sign the border crossing permit?

Follow the $$$$$'s.
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Does the number of bands claimed simply mean you have an Ebay account?

FSH Pro Staffer

High Potentate, NSSB (no spinning shotcup brotherhood)
Yuchi1
hunter
 
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby tenfingergrip » Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:22 am

Yuchi1 wrote:Obama originally vetoed the northern leg of the Keystone pipeline because of Nebraska's opposition.

The pipeline was re-routed to accomodate those concerns.

Obama is now holding up the permit for the US/Canada border crossing.

Why?

A lot of the canadian crude is currently being transported (south) by rail tankcar via the BNSF.

Who owns BNSF?

Who was a major contributor to Obama?

What was the reason he (Obama) won't sign the border crossing permit?

Follow the $$$$$'s.



For inquiring minds that want to know, the answer to Yucchi's question is : ta daa

WARREN BUFFET and his Berkshire Hathaway Group!!! Who woulda thunk it.
User avatar
tenfingergrip
hunter
 
Posts: 1743
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Eastern NC

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby beretta24 » Fri Jul 12, 2013 9:44 pm

Yuchi1 wrote:Obama originally vetoed the northern leg of the Keystone pipeline because of Nebraska's opposition.

The pipeline was re-routed to accomodate those concerns.

Obama is now holding up the permit for the US/Canada border crossing.

Why?

A lot of the canadian crude is currently being transported (south) by rail tankcar via the BNSF.

Who owns BNSF?

Who was a major contributor to Obama?

What was the reason he (Obama) won't sign the border crossing permit?

Follow the $$$$$'s.

We have a winner. Buffet has made boat loads off that deal.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5908
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Butta boom » Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:00 pm

The dead folks in Ontario are thinkin that movin oil by rail is not such a good deal for them, eh?

Oil belongs in a pipeline, just like the water or gas to your home. How much of it you use is one's free choice.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby agengo02 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:34 pm

Nobody is concerned with potential pipeline breaks? Maybe it's because this thing is ending in my hometown, but I don't want to see oil flowing through neighborhoods like it did in Arkansas this year. This doesn't concern anybody else?
agengo02
hunter
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:29 pm
Location: tx

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Botiz630 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm

agengo02 wrote:Nobody is concerned with potential pipeline breaks? Maybe it's because this thing is ending in my hometown, but I don't want to see oil flowing through neighborhoods like it did in Arkansas this year. This doesn't concern anybody else?


My grandparents live about 15 miles from where the Enbridge pipeline burst in Michigan a couple years ago. It was a complete disaster, ruined the river and lots of people lost their homes. There are still oil booms and clean up crews on the river right now two years after the fact. It was the worst inland oil spill in the history of the country, if I remember correctly. And I believe it's the same dilbit that is going to flow through the Keystone XL.

It's definitely something to think about.
Do a barrel roll.
User avatar
Botiz630
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16655
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Botiz630 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:15 pm

Do a barrel roll.
User avatar
Botiz630
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 16655
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:24 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby agengo02 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:23 pm

Botiz630 wrote:
agengo02 wrote:Nobody is concerned with potential pipeline breaks? Maybe it's because this thing is ending in my hometown, but I don't want to see oil flowing through neighborhoods like it did in Arkansas this year. This doesn't concern anybody else?


My grandparents live about 15 miles from where the Enbridge pipeline burst in Michigan a couple years ago. It was a complete disaster, ruined the river and lots of people lost their homes. There are still oil booms and clean up crews on the river right now two years after the fact. It was the worst inland oil spill in the history of the country, if I remember correctly. And I believe it's the same dilbit that is going to flow through the Keystone XL.

It's definitely something to think about.



Yup I have definitely heard about that one too. It seems we as Americans only look at the now and what is the fastest way to get what we want, without taking potential problems into account. My problem with it is I don't want a major spill/leak down here and potentially damage our marshes. We have enough problems with companies dumping silt into them already.
agengo02
hunter
 
Posts: 1547
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:29 pm
Location: tx

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Butta boom » Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:07 pm

The safety record of pipelines is way better than Trux or rail. If environmental protection from accidents is the issue pipelines are the answer. They are many times more energy efficient as well. If you are truly for energy efficiency and safety, the XL should be built.

But most of the opposition to the pipelines is just plain old Eco-Terrorism. Scare and shock people with an accident or two, and then demonize the status quo, which has lead us to the most prosperous society in history, then tout hemp, conservation, Chevy Volts, Fiskars, Solyndra, I may hurl.

You guys really driving Volts out to the swamp to hunt? Here's a challenge for any of you out there. If you can drive your Volt from San Jose to my gun club and back without a charge, I will give you a free hunt and lunch. If you don't make it home, carrying that empty shell bag and loaded duck strap, you buy my wife and I dinner at Trader Vic's in Emeryville.

My v-8 Toyota pickup would make that run no problem, without a stop unless my wife needs a bathroom stop.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Mouthful-of-feathers » Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:35 pm

I wish they would stop pushing corn for alcohol fuel. Alcohol can be made from so many things.
Corn yield around 214 - 392 gal. per acre.
Cattails used at water treatment plant can yield 10,000+ gal. per acre.
Let alone what farmed seaweed could yield. Some estimetes suggests that just off the coast of Cal could produce all of fuel the US needs. But, big oil don't want that.

Now, I do have the Rockies gas line less than half mile from my house and I'm not happy. Sub station less than five miles away and not happy.Loved it when they started that thing up and alarms went off and a big boom and the workers at the sub station ran. Come to find out the factory welds were bad.

And all the fracking going on around here. Cann't wait when the water starts going bad from it.
Mouthful-of-feathers
Newb
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: XL Keystone Pipeline

Postby Butta boom » Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:14 pm

If you will drive to my farm in your volt you got a free hunt too. You can charge it wherever you want across Nevada, Harry Reid's state. You got damages, my brother is a lawyer, he loves damage cases, problem is the damages are usually mental, hard to prove they weren't already there before the event.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Next

Return to Major Environmental Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest