Topic: Why would we ever fast-track the keystone pipeline
started by: Liberal
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 19 2014,7:44 am
QUOTE
Politics aside, what Senate Democrats are considering is a terrible bill. Fast-tracking the pipeline before its route is even finalized means that the project would be exempt from requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and other environmental protections. And taxpayers would bear the cost of cleaning up leaks and spills since companies who transport oil from tar sands are exempt from paying taxes to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
"If you were 100 percent for the Keystone pipeline, you would have to have a problem with the legislation on the floor, because it exempts the TransCanada pipeline initiative from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said at a press briefing on Thursday at the Capitol. "God willing there would never be a leak. But if there is, [TransCanada] would be totally off the hook."
< http://m.thenation.com/blog...-stupid >
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 19 2014,8:06 am
Just a feeble attempt to save Mary.
Posted by grassman on Nov. 19 2014,8:32 am
#1, any time something is rushed through, something just is not right.#2, I just don't see the benefit of this pipeline for our country.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 19 2014,8:50 am
(grassman @ Nov. 19 2014,8:32 am)
QUOTE
#2, I just don't see the benefit of this pipeline for our country.
Security comes to mind, being able to suppy ourselves especially in the event of some Middle East or Russian dust up.
Posted by grassman on Nov. 19 2014,5:54 pm
The pipeline already exists here, they want to extend it to the gulf. How does that benefit us? 
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 19 2014,11:14 pm
(grassman @ Nov. 19 2014,5:54 pm)
QUOTE
The pipeline already exists here, they want to extend it to the gulf. How does that benefit us?
Probably because there are 14 or so refineries there, plus a bunch more next door in Texas.
Posted by grassman on Nov. 20 2014,8:56 am
Yes...and they will refine and ship out. So, the question remains. How does this benefit the U.S. ?
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 20 2014,9:04 am
I'm sure they'll sell some here,Plus it give the union thugs something to occupy themselves with for awhile.
Besides, how does it help us if the crude gets shipped to China?
Posted by grassman on Nov. 20 2014,12:21 pm
(Self-Banished @ Nov. 20 2014,9:04 am)
QUOTE
I'm sure they'll sell some here,
Oh really!
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 20 2014,12:29 pm
(grassman @ Nov. 20 2014,12:21 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Nov. 20 2014,9:04 am)
QUOTE
I'm sure they'll sell some here,
Oh really!
Sure, market dictates
Posted by grassman on Nov. 21 2014,12:53 am
Why not just refine in the midwest then? If it was intended for U.S. use, central location would be key, would it not. You are a shipping type guy, where do hubs work best?
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 21 2014,4:40 am
(grassman @ Nov. 21 2014,12:53 am)
QUOTE
Why not just refine in the midwest then? If it was intended for U.S. use, central location would be key, would it not. You are a shipping type guy, where do hubs work best?
I would have to say that the capacity is not there. Ashland is tiny, Pine Bend (oh no! Evil Koch bros.) is about twice the size but still small.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 28 2014,7:01 am
Wow, I watched oil dip momentarily below $69 this am.Gas should continue to fall.
Trouble is I can here the progressives now, "we need to increase the gas tax"
...or add more ethonal (farmer welfare)
Posted by grassman on Nov. 28 2014,8:13 pm
(Self-Banished @ Nov. 28 2014,7:01 am)
QUOTE
Wow, I watched oil dip momentarily below $69 this am.
Gas should continue to fall.
Trouble is I can here the progressives now, "we need to increase the gas tax"
...or add more ethonal (farmer welfare)
Gas should continue to fall.
Trouble is I can here the progressives now, "we need to increase the gas tax"
...or add more ethonal (farmer welfare)
Not that I am for an increase in the tax, let's look at reality, Our infrastructure is failing. I guess we could bomb the sh!t out of ourselves and then rebuild.
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 28 2014,8:43 pm
QUOTE
However, an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute refers to some studies (e.g. a 2011 study by Danielle Droitsch of Pembina Institute) according to which "a good portion of the oil that will gush down the KXL will probably end up being finally consumed beyond the territorial United States". It also states that the project will increase the heavy crude oil price in the Midwestern United States by diverting oil sands oil from the Midwest refineries to the Gulf Coast and export markets.[38]
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline >
Risk without reward
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 29 2014,4:45 am
(grassman @ Nov. 28 2014,8:13 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Nov. 28 2014,7:01 am)
QUOTE
Wow, I watched oil dip momentarily below $69 this am.
Gas should continue to fall.
Trouble is I can here the progressives now, "we need to increase the gas tax"
...or add more ethonal (farmer welfare)
Gas should continue to fall.
Trouble is I can here the progressives now, "we need to increase the gas tax"
...or add more ethonal (farmer welfare)
Not that I am for an increase in the tax, let's look at reality, Our infrastructure is failing. I guess we could bomb the sh!t out of ourselves and then rebuild.
...or riot like Ferguson.
No, we have plenty of money to rebuild our infrastructure. A little better managed, not spending billions on light rail projects, fixing roads right the first time, not a light grind and a layer of asphalt like they did with Buster's shovel ready BS.
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 29 2014,9:43 am
QUOTE
the Dakota Prairie Refining facility four miles west of Dickinson is the first greenfield refinery of notable size built in the United States since Marathon Oil’s Garyville Refinery in Louisiana was completed in 1976.
Granted, the Dickinson refinery is nowhere near as large or complex as the Garyville Refinery, which processes up to 522,000 barrels per day and is the nation’s third-largest oil refinery.
“It’s smaller than most and it’s, quite frankly, simpler than most,” said Podratz, who will manage
the plant as it refines 20,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil into 7,000 gallons of diesel and roughly the same amounts of two byproducts. (The newest U.S. refinery began operating in 2008 in Douglas, Wyo., and now processes up 3,800 barrels per day for Antelope Refining.)
But its relatively small stature doesn’t detract from the refinery’s significance, said Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council.
“I think you can’t underscore enough the significance of somebody getting this done in America, and the fact that it ends up being a North Dakota company, built by a North Dakota contractor like Westcon … it’s just a fantastic achievement,” he said.
< Dickinson diesel refinery ‘a fantastic achievement’ >
Granted, the Dickinson refinery is nowhere near as large or complex as the Garyville Refinery, which processes up to 522,000 barrels per day and is the nation’s third-largest oil refinery.
“It’s smaller than most and it’s, quite frankly, simpler than most,” said Podratz, who will manage
the plant as it refines 20,000 barrels per day of Bakken crude oil into 7,000 gallons of diesel and roughly the same amounts of two byproducts. (The newest U.S. refinery began operating in 2008 in Douglas, Wyo., and now processes up 3,800 barrels per day for Antelope Refining.)
But its relatively small stature doesn’t detract from the refinery’s significance, said Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council.
“I think you can’t underscore enough the significance of somebody getting this done in America, and the fact that it ends up being a North Dakota company, built by a North Dakota contractor like Westcon … it’s just a fantastic achievement,” he said.
< Dickinson diesel refinery ‘a fantastic achievement’ >
QUOTE
Most, if not all, of the diesel will be sold within 100 miles of the refinery, Podratz said, adding there’s “fairly strong” local demand – enough that one local truck refueling station offered to buy the refinery’s entire diesel output.
QUOTE
North Dakota had the lowest seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the nation in October, at 2.8 percent, according to preliminary figures from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. South Dakota ranked second at 3.3 percent
Just plain local rewards.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 30 2014,5:50 am
We embrace batsh!t-crazy policies becauseQUOTE
For the middle class, it’s the hopes of one day entering the ranks of the rich that keeps people on the straight and narrow. The idea that we will all be rich one day has deeply permeated American society, despite the fact that it will happen for very, very few of us. But it’s those ideas — that one day we’ll all be on top — that keep people voting for policies and politicians, that do enormous harm to us economically.
< Article >
< Article >
Posted by MADDOG on Nov. 30 2014,6:48 am
Up kind of early for an old man. Have to pee? 
Some many are not satisfied with what they have or have been blessed with. One must remember “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."
Don't be greedy for what you do not have. Real life is not measured by how much we own.
Of course I don't have to tell you that Botto. You already knew that.
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 30 2014,4:33 pm
< http://www.cnn.com/2014...t=hp_t2 >
Posted by Liberal on Nov. 30 2014,4:50 pm
< http://www.nytimes.com/2014...ml?_r=1 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,4:36 am
< http://www.forbes.com/sites...-claims >From the article,
As the NOAA and USHCN data show, almost any way you slice and dice the data, the United States is in a long-term winter cooling trend. The period 1930-2014 shows cooling. The period 1995-2014 shows cooling. The long-term trend line from just about any other year to the present shows cooling. Nevertheless, a very few data points can be cherry-picked to give the illusion of winter warming, so that’s just what The Weather Channel and Climate Central did.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,6:31 am
So in your mind an opinion piece in Forbes is comparable to that article? QUOTE
James Taylor Contributor
I write about energy and environment issues.
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,7:03 am
So in your mind a "chosen" gov. agency article is absolute truth?
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,8:27 am
Are you serious?
Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 01 2014,9:26 am
Careful SB. He just posted links to the NY Times and CNN.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,9:53 am
(Liberal @ Dec. 01 2014,8:27 am)
QUOTE
Are you serious?
Are you...
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,10:26 am
So in your mind I'm a sheeple because I don't get my news and opinions from rightwing bloggers?
Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 01 2014,10:46 am
QUOTE
< Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists >
In fact, the experts continued, the White House climate report is “so grossly flawed” that it should play “no role” in analyses of U.S. energy policy and CO2 regulatory schemes. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the [National Climate Assessment] provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions,” they added. That statement, of course, cuts to the heart of the issue: Global-warming theorists claim carbon dioxide, exhaled by humans, is “pollution” that must be taxed, regulated, and used as the basis for a draconian global climate regime led by the UN to ration energy.
Despite the fact that human emissions of the essential-to-life gas make up a fraction of one percent of all the “greenhouse gases” naturally in the atmosphere, climate alarmists insist it is causing “global warming.” The fact that there has been no warming for almost 18 years and counting — debunking 73 out of 73 UN climate models — also does not seem to have chilled the alarmists’ zeal for controlling all human activity either.
For independent scientists, though, the truth is becoming clear. “The National Climate Assessment — 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts,” the 15 scientists and experts explained in their letter. “With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.”
In fact, the experts continued, the White House climate report is “so grossly flawed” that it should play “no role” in analyses of U.S. energy policy and CO2 regulatory schemes. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the [National Climate Assessment] provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions,” they added. That statement, of course, cuts to the heart of the issue: Global-warming theorists claim carbon dioxide, exhaled by humans, is “pollution” that must be taxed, regulated, and used as the basis for a draconian global climate regime led by the UN to ration energy.
Despite the fact that human emissions of the essential-to-life gas make up a fraction of one percent of all the “greenhouse gases” naturally in the atmosphere, climate alarmists insist it is causing “global warming.” The fact that there has been no warming for almost 18 years and counting — debunking 73 out of 73 UN climate models — also does not seem to have chilled the alarmists’ zeal for controlling all human activity either.
For independent scientists, though, the truth is becoming clear. “The National Climate Assessment — 2014 (NCA) is a masterpiece of marketing that shows for the first time the full capabilities of the Obama Administration to spin a scientific topic as they see fit, without regard to the underlying facts,” the 15 scientists and experts explained in their letter. “With hundreds of pages written by hundreds of captive scientists and marketing specialists, the administration presents their case for extreme climate alarm.”
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,11:45 am
(Liberal @ Dec. 01 2014,10:26 am)
QUOTE
So in your mind I'm a sheeple because I don't get my news and opinions from rightwing bloggers?
What's right wing, what's left, think for yourself, who the hell are we to believe anymore?
Seems that for every climate change scientist there's one that debunks it. Why destroy our economy(you'll notice China's partisipation
) for someone's possibly dubious opinion?Sorry about getting flippant with the sheep(I just can't help myself sometimes) I do think you think for yourself, not like other liberals on this site.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,11:59 am
Maddog's idea of debunking climate change is to post a link to a paper by 15 people claiming that there is no such thing. Just another example of the Iowa education system.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,12:58 pm
^^sometimes it's lonely being right.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,5:18 pm
I like how you kooks know that 97% of climate scientists agree, but you choose to believe the 3% that is bought and paid for by big oil/coal. And even better you somehow believe that the 3% is equal to the 97%. 
Where else do you find 97% of scientists agreeing on something, and people not believing them because their political party tells them not to?
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,5:32 pm
< http://ossfoundation.us/project...vidence >< http://www.petitionproject.org >
Now is that global warming or climate change?
What was it in the 70's, global cooling?
Don't forget the ozone
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 01 2014,5:44 pm
< http://youtu.be/nq4Bc2WCsdE >Just in case Alky's reading
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 01 2014,6:21 pm
And then there's this:QUOTE
Curiously, this doesn’t seem to be making much of a splash (no pun intended) on the evening news. Let’s repeat this: The United States Navy has figured out how to turn seawater into fuel and it will cost about the same as gasoline.
This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected? Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.”
I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.
< Article >
This technology is in its infancy and it’s already this cheap? What happens when it’s refined and perfected? Oil is only getting more expensive as the easy-to-reach deposits are tapped so this truly is, as it’s being called, a “game changer.”
I expect the GOP to go ballistic over this and try to legislate it out of existence. It’s a threat to their fossil fuel masters because it will cost them trillions in profits. It’s also “green” technology and Republicans will despise it on those grounds alone. They already have a track record of trying to do this. Unfortunately, once this kind of genie is out of the bottle, it’s very hard to put back in.
< Article >
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,6:33 pm
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 01 2014,5:32 pm)
QUOTE
< http://ossfoundation.us/project...vidence >
< http://www.petitionproject.org >
Now is that global warming or climate change?
What was it in the 70's, global cooling?
Don't forget the ozone
< http://www.petitionproject.org >
Now is that global warming or climate change?
What was it in the 70's, global cooling?
Don't forget the ozone
Ozone?
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 01 2014,8:56 pm
SB posted a curios question.Just when did the marketing department for the global warming movement rebrand themselves to climate change and how many of those scientist make their living off of government grant money supporting the theory.
Now that Al Gore has made it a Democrat Plank, the state run media runs with it, while he makes billions off of a theory that preys on the (unfounded) guilt of the party loyalists. I mean after all, who is for pollution anyway.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 01 2014,10:49 pm
Grant money that supports a theory. Since government grants are public info what don't you try to back up your right wing bullsh1t with an example of one of these predetermined outcome grants.My guess is Limbaugh didn't give you that info so I really don't expect much from you, and I'm guessing I'm not alone with that.
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 01 2014,11:56 pm
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 01 2014,11:45 am)
QUOTE
Seems that for every climate change scientist there's one that debunks it. Why destroy our economy(you'll notice China's partisipation ) for someone's possibly dubious opinion?
Sorry about getting flippant with the sheep(I just can't help myself sometimes) I do think you think for yourself, not like other liberals on this site.
) for someone's possibly dubious opinion?Sorry about getting flippant with the sheep(I just can't help myself sometimes) I do think you think for yourself, not like other liberals on this site.
Not quite, SB. Global warming isn't a "dubious opinion", and the consensus among scientists is far stronger than the opinions about "global cooling" in the 70's.
How do you consider this "thinking for yourself"? Nothing you've posted is independent thought. In a debate between climate scientists and the Republican mainstream, you've chosen a side that bases it's opinion on what corporations tell them to repeat.
Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 02 2014,12:30 am
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 01 2014,8:56 pm)
QUOTE
Just when did the marketing department for the global warming movement rebrand themselves to climate change and how many of those scientist make their living off of government grant money supporting the theory.
Scientists in academia are hardly a "marketing department" for a movement. There was a time when people questioned evolution (oh wait, they still do) and the earth NOT being flat. And much like conservatives today, when they responded to these new breakthroughs in scientific consensus, they wouldn't offer evidence, they'd only offer their personal opinions.
QUOTE
Now that Al Gore has made it a Democrat Plank, the state run media runs with it, while he makes billions off of a theory that preys on the (unfounded) guilt of the party loyalists.
We don't have a state run media, we have a corporate run media, CC.
QUOTE
I mean after all, who is for pollution anyway.
If someone is making a lot more money by using an outdated plant and would rather not let carbon credits get in the way of their margin, than yes, they'd have a pretty good motivation to be FOR pollution.
< View on YouTube >
Nothing wrong with profits, they're great, but we should make the pollution created part of the equation instead of an externality.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,4:27 am
(Liberal @ Dec. 01 2014,6:33 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 01 2014,5:32 pm)
QUOTE
< http://ossfoundation.us/project...vidence >
< http://www.petitionproject.org >
Now is that global warming or climate change?
What was it in the 70's, global cooling?
Don't forget the ozone
< http://www.petitionproject.org >
Now is that global warming or climate change?
What was it in the 70's, global cooling?
Don't forget the ozone
Ozone?
I'm so glad to make your day
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,4:30 am
(irisheyes @ Dec. 02 2014,12:30 am)
QUOTE
We don't have a state run media, we have a corporate run media, CC.
You're kidding, right???
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 02 2014,8:07 am
Anyone thats older than 30 knows the ozone has been repairing itself since every UN recognized nation signed the Montreal protocol. 
Only the craziest of the right wing kooks don't think CFCs caused ozone depletion.
< http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/index.html >
< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion >
Wikipedia doesn't even have an opinion from dissenters because there isn't any other than Limbaugh's dittoheads
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,8:30 am
Wikipedia and Limbaugh Two exalted
sources of information.
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 02 2014,8:34 am
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 02 2014,4:30 am)
QUOTE
(irisheyes @ Dec. 02 2014,12:30 am)
QUOTE
We don't have a state run media, we have a corporate run media, CC.
You're kidding, right???
No, and I'll go you one further: We have a Corporate-run State.
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 02 2014,8:35 am
I don't deny that the climate changes or that the earth has experienced both cooling and warming periods since it's creation. But I do get suspicious of policitcal motives when we suddenly blame man for it's current climate pattern, slap a monetary figure on it, and take up the cause to steal money from one group and give it to another (Carbon Credits) without concrete evidence that it was man who caused it in the first place. Not to mention the left wing groups wanting to regulate cow flatulence for Christ's sake. How do scientist explain all the previous climate changes before man? Volcanoes, plate shifts, and sun spot activity, that's how. Do those things not occur today?
How do scientist explain the rising sea levels and tundra turning to forests in northern Europe in the past when the Earth was less populated with humans and before the dawn of machines?
No one wants pollution but when we think the solution is a monetary one, we're just fooling ourselves. It will go from one greedy group to another and you and I are stuck carrying the water.
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 02 2014,9:01 am
If there's no climate change, why is there HAARP??
Posted by grassman on Dec. 02 2014,9:37 am
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 02 2014,8:35 am)
QUOTE
Not to mention the left wing groups wanting to regulate cow flatulence for Christ's sake.
No one wants pollution but when we think the solution is a monetary one, we're just fooling ourselves. It will go from one greedy group to another and you and I are stuck carrying the water.
No one wants pollution but when we think the solution is a monetary one, we're just fooling ourselves. It will go from one greedy group to another and you and I are stuck carrying the water.
Water and carbon. The building blocks of life. Who would ever have thought we would pay for drinking water one day. If the water supply gets diminished any further, we will be carrying the water bottles to those flatulent cows you speak of. How much will food cost then?!
Posted by MADDOG on Dec. 02 2014,10:12 am
(Botto 82 @ Dec. 02 2014,9:01 am)
QUOTE
If there's no climate change, why is there HAARP??
Didn't that buckle under Bambino's ambitious defense defunding?
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 02 2014,10:30 am
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 02 2014,8:30 am)
QUOTE
Wikipedia and Limbaugh
Two exalted sources of information.
Two exalted
sources of information.Did you eat a lot of paint chips as a child?
Everyone knows Limbaugh was pushing the BS about the hole being natural, that's exactly why Jimhanson always repeated his garbage. Even the chemical companies disagreed with Limbaugh, and some even quit producing CFCs before the treaty.
You have access to the internet, there's really no excuse for being ignorant, unless it's the paint chip thing.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,11:59 am
^^^ I think I posted(rather tougue in cheek) that I thought Limbaugh is a joke.Pay attention
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 02 2014,1:37 pm
(Liberal @ Dec. 01 2014,10:49 pm)
QUOTE
Grant money that supports a theory. Since government grants are public info what don't you try to back up your right wing bullsh1t with an example of one of these predetermined outcome grants.
My guess is Limbaugh didn't give you that info so I really don't expect much from you, and I'm guessing I'm not alone with that.
My guess is Limbaugh didn't give you that info so I really don't expect much from you, and I'm guessing I'm not alone with that.
QUOTE
Climate and Global Change Research and Education. Through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), U.S. scientists are conducting world-class research on climate and global change. The USGCRP coordinates scientific research across 13 Federal departments and agencies with the mission of “build[ing] a knowledge base that informs human responses to climate and global change through coordinated and integrated Federal programs of research, education, communication, and decision support.”
QUOTE
The budget information presented in this report reflects the Administration’s commitment to address climate change while preserving a strong American economy. The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $21.4 billion for climate change activities. This amount is $1.2 billion, or 5 percent, lower than the 2013 enacted level for climate change programs, activities, and related tax policies.
$2.6 billion on research alone. < My Webpage >
Do you think money is handed out willy-nilly to scientists who have differing opinions then that of the Democrat plank?
Big business if you ask me.
And then there is the $5.1 billion budget for energy tax provisions that MAY reduce greenhouse gases. - in other words they aren't sure if it will but let's spend billions anyway.
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 02 2014,2:08 pm
I didn't see any studies that required predetermined outcomes. Maybe you could just single out one study that requires it? I also must have missed where any grant required the researcher to be a member of any political party.Maybe you could show an example of each? And maybe you could explain why all these grants are given out by democrats?
Of course we both know you won't because you're full of sh1t once again.
Posted by grassman on Dec. 02 2014,3:48 pm
This is from the U.S. Energy Information Association.Why is the United States exporting gasoline when prices are so high?
In 2011, the United States exported more petroleum products, on an annual basis, than it imported for the first time since 1949. American refiners still imported large, although declining, amounts of crude oil. Gasoline exports were about 18% of total U.S. petroleum product exports in 2011, however, on a monthly basis, the U.S. was a small net exporter by the end of the year. Distillate fuel exports were about 30% of total U.S. petroleum product exports in 2011.
Most of the U.S. exports for gasoline and distillate come from the U.S. Gulf Coast where an excess in supply has resulted from both declining U.S. demand for gasoline (preliminary data for 2011 show U.S. gasoline consumption 6% lower than 2007) and increasing refining capacity. Gulf Coast refineries have a competitive advantage in some world markets. They have a sophisticated refining complex and can run relatively lower quality, and cheaper crude oils. In addition, they use natural gas for their fuel, which at current prices is an advantage compared to refineries fueled by petroleum, and have good water access and a location that allows for a relatively short-haul voyage to growing Latin American markets.
Historically, the U.S. market has relied extensively on gasoline imports for supply, particularly on the East Coast which has been the destination of about 85% of total U.S. gasoline imports. The Gulf Coast refineries export product rather than send more to the East Coast which receives most of its gasoline import volumes because pipeline capacity and domestic waterborne shipping constraints currently discourage increased volumes from traveling from the Gulf Coast to the East Coast. As long as European and other gasoline supplies remain competitive, the East Coast will continue to draw on these supplies. Additionally, expanded Midwest refining capacity is backing out requirements to ship products from the Gulf Coast north to that area.
The growth in U.S. gasoline exports does not necessarily mean higher pump prices for U.S. consumers. Rather, export markets are providing an outlet for refiners that might otherwise have faced lower profit margins that could encourage them to reduce output or possibly even shutdown, which could cause gasoline prices to increase.
So we should build pipelines for other countries to ship their product out instead of building pipe to the East coast. Smoke and mirrors folks.
Posted by alcitizens on Dec. 02 2014,4:33 pm
Republicans need to set themselves free and be honest for a change.. I would hope that one day Common Citizen's kids will be able to say that he was a man of honor and integrity..
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,5:45 pm
(alcitizens @ Dec. 02 2014,4:33 pm)
QUOTE
Republicans need to set themselves free and be honest for a change..
I would hope that one day Common Citizen's kids will be able to say that he was a man of honor and integrity..
I would hope that one day Common Citizen's kids will be able to say that he was a man of honor and integrity..
I think he is now
The day for honesty was 4 weeks ago, America spoke
8 senate seats(9 come Sat.)
15 house seats,
An azzkickin'
Posted by Liberal on Dec. 02 2014,5:50 pm
America spoke in a midterm election where a dozen or so seats changed? Maybe this would help?
< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy >
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 02 2014,6:00 pm
I've hit a nerve. Alcitizens resorts to using children. Waiting for yo' mama jokes next.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,6:16 pm
(Liberal @ Dec. 02 2014,5:50 pm)
QUOTE
Maybe this would help?
< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy >
< http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapy >
So you've got lead in your ass?
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 02 2014,6:18 pm
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 02 2014,6:00 pm)
QUOTE
I've hit a nerve. Alcitizens resorts to using children.
Waiting for yo' mama jokes next.
Waiting for yo' mama jokes next.
Careful, he'll get pissed off then theaten to do something.
Posted by alcitizens on Dec. 02 2014,6:36 pm
Another dumbass comment by Self Banished..
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 03 2014,4:32 am
^^^ 
Posted by grassman on Dec. 05 2014,6:25 am
(Common Citizen @ Dec. 02 2014,8:35 am)
QUOTE
I don't deny that the climate changes or that the earth has experienced both cooling and warming periods since it's creation. But I do get suspicious of policitcal motives when we suddenly blame man for it's current climate pattern, slap a monetary figure on it, and take up the cause to steal money from one group and give it to another (Carbon Credits) without concrete evidence that it was man who caused it in the first place. Not to mention the left wing groups wanting to regulate cow flatulence for Christ's sake.
How do scientist explain all the previous climate changes before man? Volcanoes, plate shifts, and sun spot activity, that's how. Do those things not occur today?
How do scientist explain the rising sea levels and tundra turning to forests in northern Europe in the past when the Earth was less populated with humans and before the dawn of machines?
No one wants pollution but when we think the solution is a monetary one, we're just fooling ourselves. It will go from one greedy group to another and you and I are stuck carrying the water.
How do scientist explain all the previous climate changes before man? Volcanoes, plate shifts, and sun spot activity, that's how. Do those things not occur today?
How do scientist explain the rising sea levels and tundra turning to forests in northern Europe in the past when the Earth was less populated with humans and before the dawn of machines?
No one wants pollution but when we think the solution is a monetary one, we're just fooling ourselves. It will go from one greedy group to another and you and I are stuck carrying the water.
True, they have occurred but....
Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 05 2014,7:56 am
Uh oh. Which one should we believe? Are these graphs measuring the same thing?
Posted by grassman on Dec. 05 2014,12:09 pm
The header on my graph says"Tracked Closely", so mine is definitely superior. Your graph is based on deuterium, which I would conclude has more to do with hydrogen and nuclear than CO.
Any thoughts as to my post on #55? The question remains unanswered, what benefit is this Keystone pipeline to the United States?
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 05 2014,1:02 pm
< http://m.ibtimes.com/why-us-...1562689 >
Posted by grassman on Dec. 05 2014,1:20 pm
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 05 2014,1:02 pm)
QUOTE
< http://m.ibtimes.com/why-us-...1562689 >
Yeah? Your point is? Has the 2008 recession left your memory already? Oil was a huge part of it. Oil is power. Oil is success, oil is the backbone of most economies. Oil is needed in so many aspects of civilization. Whomever has the oil, has power. Don't let the chance of a quick buck defer that reality.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 05 2014,2:08 pm
(grassman @ Dec. 05 2014,1:20 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Dec. 05 2014,1:02 pm)
QUOTE
< http://m.ibtimes.com/why-us-...1562689 >
Yeah? Your point is? Has the 2008 recession left your memory already? Oil was a huge part of it. Oil is power. Oil is success, oil is the backbone of most economies. Oil is needed in so many aspects of civilization. Whomever has the oil, has power. Don't let the chance of a quick buck defer that reality.
First of all I know how to survive a recession, my gross is down some and is still down but I always survive, I taught this to my children too. Oil is power (duh!) and the more we have,drill,ship, refine the more secure we are.
If a refiner wants to make a profit they can, it's their property, not yours or mine or the gov.s. You seem to be under the impression that it is community property.
The oil bonanza we're currently in is because of private exploration and extraction.
Posted by grassman on Dec. 05 2014,5:52 pm
Ok fine, what about the consequence of building this pipeline over a huge aquifer that provides water to millions of people and millions of head of livestock? Should we take that risk for the profiteering of a couple of oil companies and another country. It's about time you quit looking at your own backyard and realize what is best for all. Don't be a selfish fool. How much should we have to pay for food because of another whoops. Oh yeah, the oil companies are always there to clean up their mess!
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 06 2014,8:40 am
(grassman @ Dec. 05 2014,5:52 pm)
QUOTE
Ok fine, what about the consequence of building this pipeline over a huge aquifer that provides water to millions of people and millions of head of livestock? Should we take that risk for the profiteering of a couple of oil companies and another country. It's about time you quit looking at your own backyard and realize what is best for all. Don't be a selfish fool. How much should we have to pay for food because of another whoops. Oh yeah, the oil companies are always there to clean up their mess!
OK, how about the consequence and danger of moving crude oil by rail tanker?
The consequence, millions of bushels of grain not moved to their prospective markets.
The danger, derailments and explosions, lots of cities have tracks running through, including Albert Lea.
Posted by grassman on Dec. 06 2014,9:38 am
Very good point. I would say the answer would be, to build refineries where the oil is produced. This breaks it down to products that then could be moved at a reasonable pace. There, now that wasn't so bad, now was it.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 06 2014,10:21 am
^^^getting a new refinery built with any sort of real capacity is pretty tough considering the current political climate. Myself, I think that a string of smaller refineries would be great. The shortage of rail capacity would still have to be addressed.
Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 06 2014,12:13 pm
QUOTE
There were 142 operable petroleum refineries in the United States as of January 1, 2014.
The "newest" refinery in the United States began operating in 2008 in Douglas, Wyoming with an initial capacity of 3,000 barrels per calendar day (bbl/cd). As of January 1, 2014, the facility has 3,800 bbl/cd of capacity. However, the newest complex refinery with significant downstream unit capacity began operating in 1977 in Garyville, Louisiana. That facility came online in 1977 with an initial atmospheric distillation unit capacity of 200,000 bbl/cd and as of January 1, 2014 had capacity of 522,000 bbl/cd.
Ground was broken in March 2013 for construction of a new refinery in Dickinson, North Dakota. The 20,000 barrel per stream day (bbl/sd) Dakota Prairie facility is scheduled to open in December 2014.
Kinder Morgan plans to start up a 50,000 bbl/sd condensate processing facility on the Houston ship channel by the end of 2014.
Capacity has also been added to existing refineries through upgrades or new construction. The most recent examples include
In 2012, Motiva upgraded its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, making it the largest refinery in the United States with a capacity of 600,250 bbl/cd.
In 2009, Marathon upgraded its Garyville, Louisiana refinery. As of January 1, 2014, the capacity (bbl/cd) is more than double its original 1977 capacity.
The "newest" refinery in the United States began operating in 2008 in Douglas, Wyoming with an initial capacity of 3,000 barrels per calendar day (bbl/cd). As of January 1, 2014, the facility has 3,800 bbl/cd of capacity. However, the newest complex refinery with significant downstream unit capacity began operating in 1977 in Garyville, Louisiana. That facility came online in 1977 with an initial atmospheric distillation unit capacity of 200,000 bbl/cd and as of January 1, 2014 had capacity of 522,000 bbl/cd.
Ground was broken in March 2013 for construction of a new refinery in Dickinson, North Dakota. The 20,000 barrel per stream day (bbl/sd) Dakota Prairie facility is scheduled to open in December 2014.
Kinder Morgan plans to start up a 50,000 bbl/sd condensate processing facility on the Houston ship channel by the end of 2014.
Capacity has also been added to existing refineries through upgrades or new construction. The most recent examples include
In 2012, Motiva upgraded its refinery in Port Arthur, Texas, making it the largest refinery in the United States with a capacity of 600,250 bbl/cd.
In 2009, Marathon upgraded its Garyville, Louisiana refinery. As of January 1, 2014, the capacity (bbl/cd) is more than double its original 1977 capacity.
< http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6 >
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 06 2014,2:40 pm
Wow, 3000 and 20000 barrel a day capacity You need to take note where most all the big refineries are.
Again, I like the idea of more small refineries but with our limited rail resources that might not work.
Pine Bend and Ashland refineries are both fed by pipelines, much more efficient by far than transporting by rail.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 10 2014,8:11 am
Oil's at $62/barrel this am, any thoughts to "how low it can go"?
Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 10 2014,8:44 am
Not much lower. Mission accomplished, namely bringing the pain to Iran.
Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 10 2014,11:28 am
Some of the "oracles" are whispering 40'sAlmost into the 50's now
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 08 2015,11:17 am
Gee, < oil futures > hovering in the upper $40s for three days straight. Congress about the pass the XL Pipeline. I don't think the Godfather of Liberalism has enough support from his own party to stop it this time and Hold'em Harry is at home suffering his own calamity.I think I see it now. Obama is in for one.
Posted by grassman on Jan. 08 2015,11:30 am
From what I read some of these fracking and such companies can't thrive on less than $60 A BARREL OIL. Why then, build said pipeline? Things don't add up, or is someone trying to fool us all!
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 08 2015,11:43 am
Sssshhh. Don't tell the libbies. With all those jobs that are created, some of them might have to give up the EBT life.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 12 2015,3:53 am
I smell a Veto coming on the Keystone XL Pipeline.. Canada Tar Sands Oil is already making its way to refineries in the south and with a gradual increase in capacity..
Enbridge, Inc., Canada's largest transporter of crude oil, would bring even more Canadian oil into the U.S. than the much-debated Keystone XL project.
Enbridge Pipeline project — which already crosses the U.S.-Canadian border and thus does not require U.S. government approval — gains the advantage and ends up carrying the same Tar Sands Oil to the Texas Gulf Coast.
< http://insideclimatenews.org/news...-permit >
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 12 2015,8:36 am
(alcitizens @ Feb. 12 2015,3:53 am)
QUOTE
I smell a Veto coming on the Keystone XL Pipeline..
Gee, do you suppose. Bambino has only been claiming this rant for 4 months.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 12 2015,8:51 am
There is a current minimum capacity of 880,000 barrels per day coming from Canada to Texas everyday as we speak by way of the completed pipeline in the above picture labeled 1 to 6 to 11 to the President Obama approved Texas/Oklahoma portion of the Keystone XL pipeline and 12.. Plus an additional 590,000 barrels per day by way of the original Keystone pipeline..The Trunkline(8) is ready for a future capacity of an additional 660,000 barrels per day..
There is absolutely no need to construct the north portion of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline..
2016 will be the year of Hillary.. Sorry Charlie..
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 12 2015,9:26 am
What's it to you that they build more capacity?Because moving petroleum products on a multi-functional rail is better than moving it down a single function pipeline.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 12 2015,10:26 am
(Common Citizen @ Feb. 12 2015,9:26 am)
QUOTE
What's it to you that they build more capacity?
Because moving petroleum products on a multi-functional rail is better than moving it down a single function pipeline.
Because moving petroleum products on a multi-functional rail is better than moving it down a single function pipeline.
Personally I don't care.. I just didn't like the XL pipeline going over such an important fresh water aquifer..
The increased capacity that I explained is from pipelines, not rail.. Why do I always have to draw a picture twice for some of you people?
Everyone should feel some kind of victory.. Yes, Obama won the biggest victory by not having to let down his supporters over XL and also being able to say capacity has been increased by more than what the proposed North portion of the Keystone XL pipeline would have accomplished..
Of coarse he can also say that he approved the South portion of the Keystone XL pipeline years ago..
Win Win Win
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 12 2015,1:43 pm
(MADDOG @ Feb. 12 2015,8:36 am)
QUOTE
(alcitizens @ Feb. 12 2015,3:53 am)
QUOTE
I smell a Veto coming on the Keystone XL Pipeline..
Gee, do you suppose. Bambino has only been claiming this rant for 4 months.
Sorry about that.. I have avoided the news on TV and the Internet almost completely for six months.. Needed a break..
My opinion about a Veto was based on information I got when I did a search to find the name of the aquifer that the XL pipeline was originally proposed to cross.
This is the article that sent me on a research frenzy..
< http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2011...e-issue >
Posted by irisheyes on Feb. 13 2015,6:48 am
We have pipelines and oil wells built regularly in this country, as the map above shows the Keystone is already built (several of them, actually), but you can't say "no" to the oil companies apparently.It's like the "drill baby, drill" crowd all over again. To hell with the environmentally risky areas, they drilled right into the biggest oil spill is U.S. history.
(Common Citizen @ Feb. 12 2015,9:26 am)
QUOTE
What's it to you that they build more capacity?
It's important for those of us who drink water. If you don't drink water, you might still want to pay attention to the impact it has on plants that are grown with water, or livestock that feeds on plants that... Well, you get the picture.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 13 2015,7:20 am
There are those morons that still believe that man has no significant impact on the environment. I guess that's where a lot of this comes from. That, or the fact that they'll be long dead when their actions have any effect on the groundwater or other aspects of the environment. Some might call it capitalism. Our kids will call it mean and stupid.
Posted by grassman on Feb. 13 2015,7:50 am
(Botto 82 @ Feb. 13 2015,7:20 am)
QUOTE
There are those morons that still believe that man has no significant impact on the environment. I guess that's where a lot of this comes from. That, or the fact that they'll be long dead when their actions have any effect on the groundwater or other aspects of the environment. Some might call it capitalism. Our kids will call it mean and stupid.
These same people would probably scream bloody murder if someone pissed in the hot tub they were in. Oh wait, that's a little more in your face.
Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 13 2015,7:57 am
You mean something like < this >?
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 14 2015,12:07 am
On March 17, 2008, the United States Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border for the original Keystone pipeline.< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline >
President Bush had already approved the original Keystone pipeline in 2008..
Not the Keystone XL pipeline..
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2015,4:50 am
Oops,< http://www.foxnews.com/us...a-river >
Posted by Liberal on Feb. 17 2015,7:35 am
We better get that pipeline built then, how long before they can get the WV link going?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2015,8:21 am
No, "oops" is merely to point out the dangers of rail transport with a volitile cargo. The railroads have accidents on a regular basis. It's also why I think using heavy rail for mass transit is dumb as hell.
Posted by MADDOG on Feb. 17 2015,10:15 am
(Liberal @ Feb. 17 2015,7:35 am)
QUOTE
We better get that pipeline built then, how long before they can get the WV link going?
Let me guess. Condescension. 18 points.
Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 17 2015,11:07 am
From the chemical spills exactly a year ago to crude oil spills happening now, W Virginia's lack of regulation in that state is setting it up to fail under multi billion dollar lawsuits and a lack of drinkable water.. And lets not forget about the local corruption that is allowing it to happen..< http://earthjustice.org/feature...38P8HAQ >
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2015,11:54 am
Earth justice?Is that like the He-man woman haters club?
Posted by grassman on Feb. 17 2015,3:04 pm
(Self-Banished @ Feb. 17 2015,11:54 am)
QUOTE
Earth justice?
Is that like the He-man woman haters club?
Is that like the He-man woman haters club?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2015,3:12 pm
^^^
Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 19 2015,6:38 pm
(irisheyes @ Feb. 13 2015,6:48 am)
QUOTE
We have pipelines and oil wells built regularly in this country, as the map above shows the Keystone is already built (several of them, actually), but you can't say "no" to the oil companies apparently.
It's like the "drill baby, drill" crowd all over again. To hell with the environmentally risky areas, they drilled right into the biggest oil spill is U.S. history.
(Common Citizen @ Feb. 12 2015,9:26 am)
It's important for those of us who drink water. If you don't drink water, you might still want to pay attention to the impact it has on plants that are grown with water, or livestock that feeds on plants that... Well, you get the picture.
It's like the "drill baby, drill" crowd all over again. To hell with the environmentally risky areas, they drilled right into the biggest oil spill is U.S. history.
(Common Citizen @ Feb. 12 2015,9:26 am)
QUOTE
What's it to you that they build more capacity?
It's important for those of us who drink water. If you don't drink water, you might still want to pay attention to the impact it has on plants that are grown with water, or livestock that feeds on plants that... Well, you get the picture.
Well that's kind of a liberal elitist viewpoint on things now isn't it.
You ASSume that people who support oil independence through drilling on our land and building infrastructure in this country somehow equates to being anti-environmental. No one wants to pollute the water we drink.
pfft...
Posted by grassman on Feb. 20 2015,5:57 am
^^^^^Nice chicken you got there. When's supper?
Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 25 2015,9:30 am
Ol' Buster vetoed the pipeline, just like he said he would.I write this as I'm waiting for another Warren Buffet oil train again.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2015,4:44 am
Yet again, another oil train derails< http://www.reuters.com/article...0150305 >
How long before it happens in a major population?
Posted by grassman on Mar. 07 2015,7:19 am
Uh sb, That train had nothing to do with the keystone pipeline. Total different oil. Different origination, different destination. Sorry. Now get off that bandwagon and take a nap. 
The Enbridge pipeline which will handle North Dakota oil probably is going to be built. It will pass right through Crow Wing and Aitkin counties.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2015,8:05 am
The point is that trains moving that much volume of a harzardous product are neither efficient or safe.Pipelines are much more efficient and SAFE!
Wow, Galena I'll. I know that town, I used to deliver wine bottles there. Right alone side the Mississippi.
But as long as Buffet keeps a flow of money going to Buster and the Dems we'll have more derailments and explosions.
Posted by grassman on Mar. 07 2015,8:12 am
Like I have pointed out before. The best thing would be to process near site to slow the traffic and urgency for distribution. This will not happen because of greed, so we all face some sort of danger because of them. It is not some conspiracy coming together by Obama and Buffet.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 07 2015,8:27 am
(grassman @ Mar. 07 2015,8:12 am)
QUOTE
Like I have pointed out before. The best thing would be to process near site to slow the traffic and urgency for distribution. This will not happen because of greed, so we all face some sort of danger because of them. It is not some conspiracy coming together by Obama and Buffet.
Well they gov. Gives out permits to build new refineries like they approve pipelines, they don't. And if they did they'd still need transportation, (duh!)
Buffet was and is a major contributor to Buster and the Dems. But if it was Bush receiving money you'd be squealing like a stuck pig!
Posted by grassman on Mar. 07 2015,9:29 am
Like I said, now pay attention, Enbridge Pipeline is in the works. It will handle the North Dakota oil. Your trains can get back to hauling coal.
Posted by Botto 82 on Mar. 07 2015,9:45 am
(grassman @ Mar. 07 2015,8:12 am)
QUOTE
Like I have pointed out before. The best thing would be to process near site to slow the traffic and urgency for distribution.
Actually, the best thing would be to subsidize alternative energy at the same rate we subsidize Big Oil. Sooner or later, the glurp is going to stop coming out of the ground. Imagine hos apesh!t everyone will go then,
Posted by grassman on Mar. 08 2015,7:20 am
I just watched a show yesterday about the advances, already in alternative energy. When someone speaks out against it, I have to stop and question their motive or intelligence. There can be coexistence, not one or the other. Like Botto says, one day oil may run out. Why not use alternative where it can be easily applied.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2015,8:02 am
For the time being carbon fuels are thee must economical fuel we have, speaking mostly of oil. Buster' killing the coal industry. Natural gas is still in development stages but class 8 trucks are now available though years away from replacing diesel.We have centuries of oil left, it just depends on the viability of extraction.
< http://www.fool.com/investi...ft.aspx >
Posted by grassman on Mar. 08 2015,8:46 am
Killing the coal industry? Prove it. I still see 123 car trains loaded with coal everyday.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2015,9:33 am
I see less and more LP gas generation plants.
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 08 2015,9:42 am
On any given day 60 to 70% of our electricity comes from coal, you’ve got to stop your pathetic parroting about things you haven't a clue!< https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/Home.aspx >
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2015,12:16 pm
(Expatriate @ Mar. 08 2015,9:42 am)
QUOTE
On any given day 60 to 70% of our electricity comes from coal, you’ve got to stop your pathetic parroting about things you haven't a clue!
< https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/Home.aspx >
< https://www.misoenergy.org/Pages/Home.aspx >
Oh I see, say nothing you now nothing about
Just a couple years ago I was hauling machinery into NG plants.
here, suck on this you pathetic union hack
< http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...2260056 >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 08 2015,2:27 pm
So you post some hack rag article link. stick to gear jamming dummy, I’ll burn the coal and keep the lights on!
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2015,3:03 pm
(Expatriate @ Mar. 08 2015,2:27 pm)
QUOTE
So you post some hack rag article link. stick to gear jamming dummy, I’ll burn the coal and keep the lights on!
Uh huh, and your rag is so much better
Yep, with you, the lights are on but there' most definitely no one home
Here, let me help you out dumbass, these folks think Obama's energy policies are fine.
< http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...cs.html >
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 08 2015,4:58 pm
To argue with an idiot is a waste of time, you won’t drag me down to your level.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 08 2015,6:53 pm
(Expatriate @ Mar. 08 2015,4:58 pm)
QUOTE
To argue with an idiot is a waste of time, you won’t drag me down to your level.
You'd have to come up quite a ways to get to my level
Posted by grassman on Mar. 09 2015,5:49 am
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 08 2015,3:03 pm)
QUOTE
(Expatriate @ Mar. 08 2015,2:27 pm)
QUOTE
So you post some hack rag article link. stick to gear jamming dummy, I’ll burn the coal and keep the lights on!
Uh huh, and your rag is so much better
Yep, with you, the lights are on but there' most definitely no one home
Here, let me help you out dumbass, these folks think Obama's energy policies are fine.
< http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...cs.html >
SB hangs with Somalians, follows Arabic news sources. hmmm. Carry your rug in your truck? Setting yourself up for some roadside inspections.
So you really think you know more about a subject than someone who is in the business? Get over yourself.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 09 2015,6:23 am
(grassman @ Mar. 09 2015,5:49 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 08 2015,3:03 pm)
QUOTE
(Expatriate @ Mar. 08 2015,2:27 pm)
QUOTE
So you post some hack rag article link. stick to gear jamming dummy, I’ll burn the coal and keep the lights on!
Uh huh, and your rag is so much better
Yep, with you, the lights are on but there' most definitely no one home
Here, let me help you out dumbass, these folks think Obama's energy policies are fine.
< http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...cs.html >
SB hangs with Somalians, follows Arabic news sources. hmmm. Carry your rug in your truck? Setting yourself up for some roadside inspections.
So you really think you know more about a subject than someone who is in the business? Get over yourself.
You need to read Maddogs signature line, maybe if you Union hacks would crack a book sometime you might learn something
Posted by Expatriate on Mar. 09 2015,7:40 am
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 08 2015,3:03 pm)
QUOTE
Uh huh, and your rag is so much better
The link I provided was to the independent system operator, this is where our power is bought, sold, transferred, they manage the grid they also keep track of resources, i.e. coal, natural gas, wind, hydro, etc. used on an hourly basis to create said power!
Posted by grassman on Mar. 09 2015,9:04 am
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 09 2015,6:23 am)
QUOTE
You need to read Maddogs signature line, maybe if you Union hacks would crack a book sometime you might learn something
He is a car salesman for crying out loud, everyday is a new battle for him. Who can I fast talk today?
According to one of his selfies, he doesn't stay focused long enough for much of anything.
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 09 2015,9:45 am
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 09 2015,6:23 am)
QUOTE
You need to read Maddogs signature line, maybe if you Union hacks would crack a book sometime you might learn something
What does the quote from Sun Tzu's Art of War have to do with this?
Are you under the impression that our enemy is a news source based in Qatar?
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 09 2015,10:16 am
(irisheyes @ Mar. 09 2015,9:45 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 09 2015,6:23 am)
QUOTE
You need to read Maddogs signature line, maybe if you Union hacks would crack a book sometime you might learn something
What does the quote from Sun Tzu's Art of War have to do with this?
Are you under the impression that our enemy is a news source based in Qatar?
I consider a competitor an enemy, I may shakes hands, smile and make nice talk but when it comes down to it it's a battle. Sun Tzu's writings apply to business quite nicely.
Are you thinking a news source based in Qatar is you friend?
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 11 2015,7:53 am
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 09 2015,10:16 am)
QUOTE
Are you thinking a news source based in Qatar is you friend?
You're the one who brought it up, apparently you think that even a news source has to be your friend or your enemy and you're going to battle them.
QUOTE
I consider a competitor an enemy, I may shakes hands, smile and make nice talk but when it comes down to it it's a battle. Sun Tzu's writings apply to business quite nicely.
Seriously, a shipping contract? I think you're off the deep end if you psych yourself out and compare it to battle.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 11 2015,8:01 am
(irisheyes @ Mar. 11 2015,7:53 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 09 2015,10:16 am)
QUOTE
Are you thinking a news source based in Qatar is you friend?
You're the one who brought it up, apparently you think that even a news source has to be your friend or your enemy and you're going to battle them.
QUOTE
I consider a competitor an enemy, I may shakes hands, smile and make nice talk but when it comes down to it it's a battle. Sun Tzu's writings apply to business quite nicely.
Seriously, a shipping contract? I think you're off the deep end if you psych yourself out and compare it to battle.
I used that source to illustrate that the sides libs tend to agree with.
I'm curious, what do you do for a living? Public sector maybe??
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 11 2015,9:23 am
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 11 2015,8:01 am)
QUOTE
I used that source to illustrate that the sides libs tend to agree with.
Fair enough. I wouldn't consider them a friend or enemy, but as a news source for international stuff, Al Jazeera isn't bad.
Posted by Self-Banished on Mar. 11 2015,9:32 am
(irisheyes @ Mar. 11 2015,9:23 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ Mar. 11 2015,8:01 am)
QUOTE
I used that source to illustrate that the sides libs tend to agree with.
Fair enough. I wouldn't consider them a friend or enemy, but as a news source for international stuff, Al Jazeera isn't bad.
I probably watch 10-15 min everyday. One should consider all sources.
Posted by grassman on May 21 2015,7:48 am
Just another headline. So Passe'.Pipeline leak in Southern California rekindles fears of environmental disaster
Los Angeles Times
Javier Panzar, Monte Morin and Tony Barboza 7 hrs ago
REFUGIO STATE BEACH, Calif. — It was a scene that generations of people on the Santa Barbara coast have dreaded: Cleanup workers in white protective suits combing tar-splattered beaches, hoping to contain the damage from a crude oil spill.
Nearly 50 years ago, a blowout on an offshore oil platform spewed more than 3 million gallons of oil into the Santa Barbara Channel and devastated the coastline, killing thousands of seabirds and galvanizing the U.S. environmental movement.
The spill that occurred Tuesday when a pipeline ruptured near U.S. 101 was far smaller — up to 105,000 gallons. But the incident gave rise to similar anger and frustration on the part of residents and environmentalists who have long feared a repeat of the 1969 disaster along the same sensitive coastline.
Santa Barbara County Supervisor Salud Carbajal, standing above a pile of blackened, oil-covered rocks at Refugio State Beach, said that the spill "reminds us of the perils this industry has."
Santa Barbara County Supervisor Salud Carbajal, standing above a pile of blackened, oil-covered rocks at Refugio State Beach, said that the spill "reminds us of the perils this industry has."
On Wednesday, the U.S. Coast Guard deployed half a dozen vessels to skim oil from the water and contain it with booms as crews of cleanup workers removed tar and oil from sand and rocks on the shoreline and shoveled mud into clear plastic bags.
Federal authorities said the 24-inch pipeline leaked for several hours after it ruptured near Refugio State Beach. Crews stopped the leak by 3 p.m., Coast Guard Petty Officer Andrea Anderson said.
The oil flowed down a culvert and into the ocean, and by Wednesday morning had formed two slicks totaling a combined nine miles in length.
The rupture occurred on an 11-mile pipe owned by Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline that carries crude from a storage tank in Las Flores to a facility in Gaviota. The pipeline is part of a larger oil transport network that is centered in Kern County and carries oil to refineries throughout California.
The pipeline was designed to carry about 150,000 barrels of oil per day, according to company officials.
The company said its estimate of 105,000 gallons spilled is a worst-case scenario based on the line's elevation and flow rate, which averages about 50,400 gallons an hour. Of that, about 21,000 gallons reached the ocean, but both figures are under investigation, according to a statement from the company and state and federal officials. Investigators won't find a cause for the rupture until they excavate the line, which was installed in 1987. An employee noticed problems and shut the line down about 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, the statement said.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 21 2015,9:31 am
Yep, just another headline The environmentalist will be sqawking like upset chickens
And once again it's time to gather around the campfire and sing kumbyyah.
Posted by Expatriate on May 22 2015,6:17 am
^Tar sands are a high sulfur concentrate sludge, it's unfit for use except for road tar in this country. This stuff has to be heated to above 150 degrees to be piped, it's extremely corrosive.Why you'd want a potential taxpayer super-fund cleanup running across our country for export is beyond me!
Oh yeah, the Koch brothers own those export refineries.
Posted by Expatriate on May 22 2015,7:16 am
Posted by Self-Banished on May 22 2015,10:32 am
^^ so, do you drive a car??
Posted by Botto 82 on May 22 2015,10:56 am
(Self-Banished @ May 22 2015,10:32 am)
QUOTE
^^ so, do you drive a car??
What a stupid argument, one akin to saying, "If you have electric lights, you'd better shut up about the hazards of nuclear power."
Posted by Self-Banished on May 22 2015,11:35 am
No, not stupid, just pointing out hypocrisy. Pipeline oposition, green advocates,global warming whiners would all change their mind if gas went to say $10 a gal? Some say they wouldn't but in all reality they would.
Posted by grassman on May 22 2015,6:04 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 22 2015,11:35 am)
QUOTE
No, not stupid, just pointing out hypocrisy. Pipeline oposition, green advocates,global warming whiners would all change their mind if gas went to say $10 a gal? Some say they wouldn't but in all reality they would.
So what you are saying, if they were to follow safer procedure, the price would be $10.00 per gallon. How fricken lame is that? Look at their profits. Safety is thrown out the window in the name of more profit for the stockholder.
Posted by Expatriate on May 22 2015,6:18 pm
Posted by Botto 82 on May 22 2015,8:28 pm
(grassman @ May 22 2015,6:04 pm)
QUOTE
Safety is thrown out the window in the name of more profit for the stockholder.
But that's okay in SB World.
Posted by Expatriate on May 23 2015,5:55 am
(Self-Banished @ May 22 2015,10:32 am)
QUOTE
^^ so, do you drive a car??
Do you drink water? Once again, running the keystone XL to the gulf is about export!
It’s not a matter of IF we’ll have a spill, but when, and who has to pay for the cleanup!
Several bills have been introduced calling for the use of American labor, American made construction materials,
and the the oil coming down the XL be sold in the US, because we are taking the risk we should receive the
reward, all these bills were voted down by the Republicans!
Posted by grassman on May 23 2015,9:14 am
If one will notice, the pipeline is named Keystone XL. Let us examine this in terms that SB might understand. In the Ford line up of trucks, we have different levels of quality of said product. At the top, we have the King Ranch, it has every imaginable accessory and feature known to man. Then we have the Lariat,(my personal favorite), it has all of the features of the King Ranch except the dark brown leather interior and the the somewhat higher price tag. Next we have the XLT. This is your service truck with many of the same features of the above mentioned. It is a good truck but not the best. Then we come to the XL. This is your basic truck. If you want a stereo, you had better stop off at Best Buy. So, with that said, what do you now think about the XL PIPELINE?
Posted by MADDOG on May 23 2015,10:13 am
QUOTE
< TransCanada is 100 per cent responsible for responding, cleaning and restoring the site in the unlikely event of a pipeline leak. >
MYTH: “Landowners are responsible and liable in the event of an oil spill.” Fact: TransCanada is 100 per cent responsible for responding, cleaning and restoring the site in the unlikely event of a pipeline leak. It’s our responsibility – as a good company and under law. If anything happens on the Keystone XL Pipeline, rapid response is key. That’s why our Emergency Response plans are approved by state and federal agencies, and why we practice them regularly. We conduct regular emergency exercises, and aerial surveys every two weeks. We’re ready to respond with a highly-trained response team standing by. At TransCanada, we continually look at ways to improve our system. Since 2011, TransCanada has invested an average of about $900 million per year in its pipeline integrity and maintenance programs.
MYTH: “Landowners are responsible and liable in the event of an oil spill.” Fact: TransCanada is 100 per cent responsible for responding, cleaning and restoring the site in the unlikely event of a pipeline leak. It’s our responsibility – as a good company and under law. If anything happens on the Keystone XL Pipeline, rapid response is key. That’s why our Emergency Response plans are approved by state and federal agencies, and why we practice them regularly. We conduct regular emergency exercises, and aerial surveys every two weeks. We’re ready to respond with a highly-trained response team standing by. At TransCanada, we continually look at ways to improve our system. Since 2011, TransCanada has invested an average of about $900 million per year in its pipeline integrity and maintenance programs.
And if you liberal tree pokers want to disagree, just remember..
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 23 2015,11:04 am
And how long does it take to clean up spills? How often is the clean-up 100% effective? How easy would clean up of an aquifer be? How devastating to the entire country would it be if an aquifer was hit?The US is an energy hog. Maybe the citizens should be better informed of the true effects of our gluttony and told to think long and hard about what that most likely means for them and undoubtedly for their children and grandchildren.
Posted by Botto 82 on May 23 2015,11:11 am
(Rosalind_Swenson @ May 23 2015,11:04 am)
QUOTE
And how long does it take to clean up spills? How often is the clean-up 100% effective? How easy would clean up of an aquifer be? How devastating to the entire country would it be if an aquifer was hit?
The US is an energy hog. Maybe the citizens should be better informed of the true effects of our gluttony and told to think long and hard about what that most likely means for them and undoubtedly for their children and grandchildren.
The US is an energy hog. Maybe the citizens should be better informed of the true effects of our gluttony and told to think long and hard about what that most likely means for them and undoubtedly for their children and grandchildren.
That's unimportant drivel. Blah Blah Blah.
What's important is money, money, money. All other concerns are secondary. Now hold my drink while I shoot these puppies...
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 23 2015,11:14 am
I've asked this once or twice already about this topic, but I don't think I've gotten an answer. How do either of you feel about a foreign company claiming eminent domain and even arresting land owners?Botto, sad but true. I honestly do think if our national media and officials were trustworthy and honest, things would change. There's a reason so many americans are mindless zombies.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 24 2015,5:40 am
(grassman @ May 23 2015,9:14 am)
QUOTE
If one will notice, the pipeline is named Keystone XL. Let us examine this in terms that SB might understand. In the Ford line up of trucks, we have different levels of quality of said product. At the top, we have the King Ranch, it has every imaginable accessory and feature known to man. Then we have the Lariat,(my personal favorite), it has all of the features of the King Ranch except the dark brown leather interior and the the somewhat higher price tag. Next we have the XLT. This is your service truck with many of the same features of the above mentioned. It is a good truck but not the best. Then we come to the XL. This is your basic truck. If you want a stereo, you had better stop off at Best Buy. So, with that said, what do you now think about the XL PIPELINE?
You drive a Ford
Does it look like this?
Posted by grassman on May 24 2015,8:39 am
Now does that look like an F150 Lariat? Try again. Go to the book with pictures of trucks!
Posted by Botto 82 on May 24 2015,1:39 pm
Potable drinking water coming right out of the ground, for free, no less, is not good for Corporate America. So concerns of aquafer damage are unfounded, and will hinder bottled water profits. When Corporate America can charge you for the air you breathe, they'll do that, too.
Posted by Expatriate on May 24 2015,2:09 pm
Familiar mega-banks and investing powerhouses such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Bank, Barclays Bank, the Blackstone Group, Allianz, and HSBC Bank, among others, are consolidating their control over water. Wealthy tycoons such as T. Boone Pickens, former President George H.W. Bush and his family, Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, Philippines’ Manuel V. Pangilinan and other Filipino billionaires, and others are also buying thousands of acres of land with aquifers, lakes, water rights, water utilities, and shares in water engineering and technology companies all over the world.< http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-new...5383274 >
Posted by Self-Banished on May 24 2015,6:50 pm
(Expatriate @ May 23 2015,5:55 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ May 22 2015,10:32 am)
QUOTE
^^ so, do you drive a car??
Do you drink water? Once again, running the keystone XL to the gulf is about export!
It’s not a matter of IF we’ll have a spill, but when, and who has to pay for the cleanup!
Several bills have been introduced calling for the use of American labor, American made construction materials,
and the the oil coming down the XL be sold in the US, because we are taking the risk we should receive the
reward, all these bills were voted down by the Republicans!
Since when have the Dems been worried about American labor? With the immigration policies they exspouse it's rather telling
Do I drink water? Of course I do, do you drink oil? Gasoline? One needs water to live, you don't need petroleum to live or even exist but it makes life a bit more convenient. So to not be a hypocrite you should probably renounce oil completely.
And as far as the spills? How many nasty rail accidents have we had? And if it continues it's only a matter of time before it derails in some population center.
Posted by Expatriate on May 24 2015,7:14 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 24 2015,6:50 pm)
QUOTE
And as far as the spills? How many nasty rail accidents have we had? And if it continues it's only a matter of time before it derails in some population center.
Seems you have little experience in transporting oil, Tar sands are the equivalent of #6 or bunker C or heavier, to transport and deliver it has to heated to over 150 degrees or the stuff sets up in a heavy sludge that can’t be pumped.
Over the years I’ve burned #6 that was transported heated from the Koch T.C. refinery, had some small spills the stuff
sets up into a heavy goo almost immediately, this stuff is road tar, if they did put it in a rail cars it’d never leak. I don’t
think they’re railing this heavy stuff.
You might get it into a rail car but you’d have a hell of a time getting it back out.
Posted by irisheyes on May 26 2015,7:27 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 24 2015,6:50 pm)
QUOTE
Since when have the Dems been worried about American labor?
I'd say about 70-80 years at least, since the Democrats put a stop to the sweatshops, factories, and mines that had children in them. Since they enacted min wage laws, overtime pay, and since they pushed for workers to have the right to organize labor and have a minimum standard of safety and health of the labor that were in those dangerous jobs.
QUOTE
In these industries, it banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.
Forty years later, a distinguished news commentator asked incredulously: "My God! 25 cents an hour! Why all the fuss?" President Roosevelt expressed a similar sentiment in a "fireside chat" the night before the signing. He warned: "Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry." In light of the social legislation of 1978, Americans today may be astonished that a law with such moderate standards could have been thought so revolutionary.
< Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 >
Forty years later, a distinguished news commentator asked incredulously: "My God! 25 cents an hour! Why all the fuss?" President Roosevelt expressed a similar sentiment in a "fireside chat" the night before the signing. He warned: "Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry." In light of the social legislation of 1978, Americans today may be astonished that a law with such moderate standards could have been thought so revolutionary.
< Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 >
S.B.
QUOTE
Do I drink water? Of course I do, do you drink oil? Gasoline? One needs water to live, you don't need petroleum to live or even exist but it makes life a bit more convenient.
Exactly, we don't drink petroleum; however, we drink water and need it to live. That's why we're against the idea of having petroleum wind up in our largest aquifer.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 27 2015,4:49 am
(irisheyes @ May 26 2015,7:27 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ May 24 2015,6:50 pm)
QUOTE
Since when have the Dems been worried about American labor?
I'd say about 70-80 years at least, since the Democrats put a stop to the sweatshops, factories, and mines that had children in them. Since they enacted min wage laws, overtime pay, and since they pushed for workers to have the right to organize labor and have a minimum standard of safety and health of the labor that were in those dangerous jobs.
QUOTE
In these industries, it banned oppressive child labor and set the minimum hourly wage at 25 cents, and the maximum workweek at 44 hours.
Forty years later, a distinguished news commentator asked incredulously: "My God! 25 cents an hour! Why all the fuss?" President Roosevelt expressed a similar sentiment in a "fireside chat" the night before the signing. He warned: "Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry." In light of the social legislation of 1978, Americans today may be astonished that a law with such moderate standards could have been thought so revolutionary.
< Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 >
Forty years later, a distinguished news commentator asked incredulously: "My God! 25 cents an hour! Why all the fuss?" President Roosevelt expressed a similar sentiment in a "fireside chat" the night before the signing. He warned: "Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, ...tell you...that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry." In light of the social legislation of 1978, Americans today may be astonished that a law with such moderate standards could have been thought so revolutionary.
< Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 >
S.B.
QUOTE
Do I drink water? Of course I do, do you drink oil? Gasoline? One needs water to live, you don't need petroleum to live or even exist but it makes life a bit more convenient.
Exactly, we don't drink petroleum; however, we drink water and need it to live. That's why we're against the idea of having petroleum wind up in our largest aquifer.
Oh yes, our borders are pourous, we promote immigration of low level workers and our real unemployment numbers are in the teens, yup, Dems care about workers
The oil? If you're so afraid of contamination,give it up, sell your car, purge your home of all plastic, put up a wind mill, solar panels, etc. My point being it's what we use, it's the only energy source that meets our needs and we should be as independent as possible.
Posted by grassman on May 27 2015,5:43 am
(Self-Banished @ May 27 2015,4:49 am)
QUOTE
The oil? If you're so afraid of contamination,give it up, sell your car, purge your home of all plastic, put up a wind mill, solar panels, etc. My point being it's what we use, it's the only energy source that meets our needs and we should be as independent as possible.
Once again you go the " all or nothing" route. You can't use anything with caution? It's ball to walls for everything? You want something, nothing stands in the way? What a simplistic attitude. There are many ways to use alternative energy, it just keeps getting beaten down by people like you and your masters.
I was just working by Lakes Gas yesterday. They have a huge pipe sticking up in the air shooting a thirty foot flame. I pondered, 'why don't they use that for some use"?
Posted by Expatriate on May 27 2015,6:27 am
The California Oil Spill Is Even Worse Than We ThoughtOil spill estimates soared from 21,000 gallons to more than 105,000 gallons.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 27 2015,8:26 am
(Expatriate @ May 27 2015,6:27 am)
QUOTE
The California Oil Spill Is Even Worse Than We Thought
Oil spill estimates soared from 21,000 gallons to more than 105,000 gallons.
Oil spill estimates soared from 21,000 gallons to more than 105,000 gallons.
Yeah, that's the fault of a pipeline
Posted by grassman on May 27 2015,8:31 am
(Self-Banished @ May 27 2015,8:26 am)
QUOTE
(Expatriate @ May 27 2015,6:27 am)
QUOTE
The California Oil Spill Is Even Worse Than We Thought
Oil spill estimates soared from 21,000 gallons to more than 105,000 gallons.
Oil spill estimates soared from 21,000 gallons to more than 105,000 gallons.
Yeah, that's the fault of a pipeline
No, it's my fault, I bought gas yesterday.
Of coarse it's the fault of the pipeline, that is what malfunctioned you know. They always say a low number to keep people from getting excited about it. Remember the Deep Water Horizon?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 27 2015,9:31 am
Then again, if it's so damned bad shut all the pipelines down, why take the risk? as with any business there's going to be problems but some of the hair-brained solutions that are proposed are ludicris. As far as "all of nothing"? Do you run your business half assed? Do you have jobs that you say," this is good enough, no one will notice"?
I don't.
Posted by grassman on May 27 2015,4:45 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 27 2015,9:31 am)
QUOTE
Then again, if it's so damned bad shut all the pipelines down, why take the risk? as with any business there's going to be problems but some of the hair-brained solutions that are proposed are ludicris.
As far as "all of nothing"? Do you run your business half assed? Do you have jobs that you say," this is good enough, no one will notice"?
I don't.
as with any business there's going to be problems but some of the hair-brained solutions that are proposed are ludicris. As far as "all of nothing"? Do you run your business half assed? Do you have jobs that you say," this is good enough, no one will notice"?
I don't.
I am not saying to shut down any pipeline in service. I am saying why build one that could be a huge catastrophe to many people, just to appease some foreign company. One that is not even beneficial to the US, one bit.
The difference in me and a huge business like oil? Seriously? I better put this up before my board members and see how my stockholders will feel.
You are really out there aren't you! Houston, we have a problem!
Posted by Self-Banished on May 27 2015,5:04 pm
The same principles apply to all businesses.
Posted by grassman on May 27 2015,6:42 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 27 2015,5:04 pm)
QUOTE
The same principles apply to all businesses.
If you haven't noticed, big business is very lacking in any principles.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 27 2015,7:11 pm
(grassman @ May 27 2015,6:42 pm)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ May 27 2015,5:04 pm)
QUOTE
The same principles apply to all businesses.
If you haven't noticed, big business is very lacking in any principles.
That's for sure.
Rules for oil and gas lowered and sometimes they are exempt from rules that others have to abide by.
< http://www.nytimes.com/interac...ne.html >
Oil and gas regulations are a joke. Try finding .gov info on which states even require oil/gas companies to disclose all the chemicals they use, even to regulators.
Oil and gas cozy relationship with regulators
Revolving door between oil industry and regulators
< http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-puc-scandal-20141009-story.html >
< http://www.nytimes.com/2014...re&_r=0 >
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...68.html >
People like the Koch brothers and their employees can get away with anything and just end up paying a fine. How can a company get away with so much and still keep growing? It's mind boggling.
< http://www.bloomberg.com/news...n-sales >
< http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...?page=3 >
Yeah, it's Rolling Stone and Bloomberg News, but all of the court cases can be verified just by google search. These are only the two most "credible" articles I could find that lump so many crimes in one spot.
Tim DeChristopher goes to prison for two years for bidding on land for gas/oil drilling rights at a BLM auction which was being conducted illegally.
< http://billmoyers.com/segment...protest >
You honestly don't think this is bizzarro-world territory SB?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 27 2015,8:03 pm
Omg
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 27 2015,8:23 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 27 2015,8:03 pm)
QUOTE
Omg
And that's in response to what exactly?
Posted by grassman on May 27 2015,8:44 pm
He just can't handle the truth. It doesn't fit his thought pattern. He would rather just keep believing the dream. 
Oh, by the way, welcome back Roz!
Posted by stardust14 on May 27 2015,11:39 pm
Carbonized crazies are clever. As they pillage the earth, poison our environment, fatten their wallets they allow thoughtful citizens to clean water they poisoned, replant forests they devastated, conserve land they raped, control poisons they loosed upon the world, safe-guard their health they endangered---all the while badmouthing these concerned citizens for makng their short-sighted lucrative carbon career inconvenient.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2015,5:01 am
^^^
Posted by grassman on May 28 2015,5:46 am
You have got have the darkest brown eyes. How is wanting something to be done in a secure manner and using the product of such being a hypocrite? You just don't get it do you? You will reach out so far to try and make your case. Let me give you an exmple of a hypocrite. "Hey Johnny, don't smoke. They are nasty and will definitely kill you," while blowing a smoke ring. Get the difference?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2015,5:58 am
^^^ummmm, do you??Obviously not.😜
Posted by grassman on May 28 2015,6:15 am
Enjoy! < https://www.youtube.com/watch?f...YdalClU >
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2015,6:39 am
^^ I was a little worried about the sheep with your history and especially after he put the boots on.You really have some self guilt issues.
Posted by grassman on May 28 2015,7:00 am
That was all for you. Put right there with your Hilary pics!
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 28 2015,7:03 am
(grassman @ May 27 2015,8:44 pm)
QUOTE
He just can't handle the truth. It doesn't fit his thought pattern. He would rather just keep believing the dream.
Oh, by the way, welcome back Roz!
Oh, by the way, welcome back Roz!
Thanks Grassman. Good to see you.
SB, so we either have to be ok with companies continuing to poison the land, air, and water and having far more influence in the government than we do, or we have to live like the Amish, otherwise we're hypocrites?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2015,7:23 am
^^ yes, hypocritesWhy do you think all these big companies do what they do? They have all of use for customers. But you and grass think that because you use very little or do the hand wringing thing that you're above the fray.
Yep, hypocrites.
Posted by grassman on May 28 2015,7:30 am
(Self-Banished @ May 28 2015,7:23 am)
QUOTE
^^ yes, hypocrites
Why do you think all these big companies do what they do? They have all of use for customers. But you and grass think that because you use very little or do the hand wringing thing that you're above the fray.
Yep, hypocrites.
Why do you think all these big companies do what they do? They have all of use for customers. But you and grass think that because you use very little or do the hand wringing thing that you're above the fray.
Yep, hypocrites.
Now that is complete bulls!t! So with that train of thought, bank robbers should rob banks because we put our money there?
I change my own oil in my vehicles, maybe I should just dump that oil in the ditch. I could throw my recycling out there too. Heck, why am I paying for trash removal. See, if we all did what corporate does, it would not take long. You blame the consumer! PPPFFFFTT!!
People should be responsible but corporate gets a pass because they make money doing it. Well I got news for you, they pushed for it. Corporate are people too now!
Posted by Botto 82 on May 28 2015,7:47 am
Corporations are people. Pfft. I'll believe that when I see one tried, convicted, and executed.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 28 2015,8:17 am
Yeah, not sure where you get that idea from SB. Maybe if the mass media wasn't corporate owned and controlled, more of us would be better informed of how things actually are?Corporations are the ones that are "above the fray". They have organizations like ALEC, where they get to sit down with "our" representatives on a regular basis, and can spend millions of dollars on lobbyists. We the people are lucky if we even get a generic form letter or email in response to letters WE write.
They are the ones with the revolving door of employees in key positions of power.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 28 2015,9:43 am
(grassman @ May 28 2015,7:30 am)
QUOTE
(Self-Banished @ May 28 2015,7:23 am)
QUOTE
^^ yes, hypocrites
Why do you think all these big companies do what they do? They have all of use for customers. But you and grass think that because you use very little or do the hand wringing thing that you're above the fray.
Yep, hypocrites.
Why do you think all these big companies do what they do? They have all of use for customers. But you and grass think that because you use very little or do the hand wringing thing that you're above the fray.
Yep, hypocrites.
Now that is complete bulls!t! So with that train of thought, bank robbers should rob banks because we put our money there?
I change my own oil in my vehicles, maybe I should just dump that oil in the ditch. I could throw my recycling out there too. Heck, why am I paying for trash removal. See, if we all did what corporate does, it would not take long. You blame the consumer! PPPFFFFTT!!
People should be responsible but corporate gets a pass because they make money doing it. Well I got news for you, they pushed for it. Corporate are people too now!
I change my own oil too, mine goes to my mechanics shop to be burned in a waste oil burner
I don't think it's the most environmentally friendly process.
Posted by stardust14 on May 29 2015,12:05 am
Carbon Crazies often portray their rampant burning carbon behavior as logical behavior based on some long term well thought out intelligently designed plan, a plan crafted by intelligent people in some think tank somewhere. The only real plan, if any, appears to be wealth/power accumulation, a legitimate plan when considering human fallibility. Long term? No. Well thought out? No. Intelligent? No. Expedient? Definitely!!
It's part of the scam for Carbon Crazies to come out and admit they are true blue environmental thugs. Takes them off the hook of attempting some semblance of environmental ethical behavior(something all humans are capable of), and then being accused of hypocracy with ad hominem attacks.
My carbon footprint is a small fraction of Carbon Crazies. Never claimed to be purist. I do contest the notion held by so many that states "why clean up the pig crap? let's wallow deeper into the maggots. Cuz humans are just two-legged pigs after all".
Posted by stardust14 on May 29 2015,12:20 am
Surprised to see you back, Rosalind. Welcome back to the Gauntlet!!
Posted by grassman on May 29 2015,5:30 am
Here is a point I noticed recently. Oil at its peak was well over $140 a barrel, now less than $60. 5 quarts of Valvoline is still about $20. Where is that extra profit going?
Posted by Self-Banished on May 29 2015,6:15 am
Don't like the price?Once again, don't pay it
Are you starting to get it now? Market forces, charge what the market will bear?
Or do you want the gov. to step in and regulate the life's blood of those oil eating Fords?
Posted by Expatriate on May 29 2015,6:49 am
Posted by Self-Banished on May 29 2015,7:31 am
^^ Let me tell you how my world works
We have a few customers and brokers with crappy freight, attitudes, none exixstant bank accounts etc, they're the type that calls late in the day in a panic that they have to have a can pulled from the rail or maybe need one pulled in to make a cut off. They get a "special" rate and if they've been slow paying in the past or short paying it's a money transfer up front.
Should I be nice? Cut them a break? Hell no,
Capitalism works if you work, I have no worry of my houses being foreclosed on, my vehicles being repossessed or food on the table. The ones that usually want socialism are the ones that are lazy or just plains leeches.
Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on May 29 2015,9:49 am
(stardust14 @ May 29 2015,12:20 am)
QUOTE
Surprised to see you back, Rosalind. Welcome back to the Gauntlet!!
Thanks Stardust. Good to see you again.
The gauntlet!! Yeah, I'll probably soon regret coming back!
Posted by Botto 82 on May 29 2015,4:10 pm
(Self-Banished @ May 29 2015,7:31 am)
QUOTE
Capitalism works if you work, I have no worry of my houses being foreclosed on, my vehicles being repossessed or food on the table. The ones that usually want socialism are the ones that are lazy or just plains leeches.
No, it doesn't. I might, if everyone was forced to play by the rules, but that ain't gonna happen. The biggest leeches are the ones that lobby to have the rules changed so they can shoot craps with loaded dice.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 29 2015,7:04 pm
These people they lobby are the assholes that make the tax code and are the ones we elect
Posted by MADDOG on May 30 2015,8:23 am
(Botto 82 @ May 29 2015,4:10 pm)
QUOTE
The biggest leeches are the ones that lobby to have the rules changed so they can shoot craps with loaded dice.
There in lies one of the biggest problems. I remember a president who not too long ago stated during his campaign there would be NO lobbyist in the WH.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 30 2015,9:06 am
^^ NOOOOO! Who was that?!?
Posted by MADDOG on May 30 2015,9:33 am
Remember what your old bookie always said. I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. < View on YouTube >
Posted by Liberal on May 30 2015,12:35 pm
Why would a bookie ever use that expression? It's like you're slowly turning into Yogi Berra.
Posted by Self-Banished on May 30 2015,5:31 pm
^^That was good, sorry dog
Posted by MADDOG on May 31 2015,10:02 am
Oh well. If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be. 
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 06 2015,11:07 am
So Buster has officially rejected keystone, I thought he already had. I guess he was bored and wanted to hear the sound of his own voice today.He even got in some digs for his 2nd favorite religion, global warming.
Posted by grassman on Nov. 07 2015,6:03 am
Actually the pipeline was unnecessary and if you pay attention, you see see that global warming is real.
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 07 2015,6:44 am
(grassman @ Nov. 07 2015,6:03 am)
QUOTE
Actually the pipeline was unnecessary and if you pay attention, you see see that global warming is real.
Stop with the bourbon in your coffee this early
Global warming is as real as Scientology. When the mother ship arriving
I hope that you never have to realize how nessessary the pipeline is when the Middle East blows a gasket.
Look at this nutjob
Posted by grassman on Nov. 09 2015,6:18 am
What's the matter, the truth got you down?
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 09 2015,8:20 am
The truth is good< http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3 >
Sorry, they said global warming, what are we on now, climate change? Or is it "the sky is falling"?
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 10 2015,4:43 am
And it happens again, 20K gal. of farmer welfare spilled, I guess the pinheads will never learn. < http://www.fox9.com/news/46407744-story, >
Posted by Expatriate on Nov. 10 2015,7:18 am
SB quote:QUOTE
And it happens again, 20K gal. of farmer welfare spilled, I guess the pinheads will never learn
Ethanol is a bird of a different feather, you can ship multiple grades of oil down the same pipeline, gasoline can be ship Via pipeline, Ethanol isn't a real oil based product and presents special problems.
I know they're experimenting but I think some big cost factors exist. I would think they'd be able to ship a mix of say # 2 oil and ethanol in existing pipelines, but that increases cost, or say just adding the 10% mix ethanol to gasoline than sending it, I'm sure they do. I think the big problem is getting the 100% ethanol to the refinery from plants in the middle of nowhere..
Posted by Self-Banished on Nov. 10 2015,7:28 am
^^ very true, ethanol doesn't travel well, if at all through pipeline. The problem is ethanol its self, nothing more than a pipe dream-farmer pandering product that shouldn't exist in the first place. Bio diesel's not as bad but in the same catagory.There's also been a crude oil derailment too, that stuff goes well through pipeline.
Posted by grassman on Apr. 12 2016,6:51 am
Keystone Leak Worse Than ThoughtThe rupture, which went undetected by pipeline owner TransCanada, has spilled roughly 17,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota.
A leak in the Keystone pipeline is worse than first believed, spilling much more oil than first reported.
Nearly 17,000 gallons of oil has leaked in South Dakota since Saturday, pipeline owner TransCanada says – up from the 187 gallons the company initially reported to federal authorities.
TransCanada has "yet to pinpoint the source," the company told CNN Money, but it maintains the leak has been "controlled," and a section of the pipeline was shut down after the spill was discovered.
The leak was not reported by the Keystone pipeline's spill detection system, but instead was discovered by a passerby, according to Chris Nelson, chairman of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
Keystone, which runs about 2,150 miles from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the U.S. Midwest, is less than a decade old. After being commissioned in 2010, it reportedly recorded 35 leaks in its first year alone, including a spill of 21,000 gallons of oil in North Dakota.
Nonetheless, TransCanada maintained that a planned $5.4 billion addition to the pipeline network, Keystone XL, would "set the gold standard for a safe and reliable 21st century pipeline," as it described in a statement in January 2015.
President Barack Obama rejected the Keystone XL project in November, citing concerns about climate change.
The company is now seeking to build the Energy East pipeline, a 2,800-mile project which would carry 1.1 million barrels of crude per day to refineries in eastern Canada. The company also sued the Obama administration in January, arguing it overstepped its constitutional authority in blocking Keystone XL.
The company is now seeking to build the Energy East pipeline, a 2,800-mile project which would carry 1.1 million barrels of crude per day to refineries in eastern Canada. The company also sued the Obama administration in January, arguing it overstepped its constitutional authority in blocking Keystone XL.
Good thing they have safeguards in place.
Posted by Self-Banished on Apr. 12 2016,7:01 am
Oil's up over $40 againI see the trains are running again.