Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Keystone Pipeline, A proven environmental threat!

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 11:15 a.m. EST by paulg5 (673)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

A proven environmental threat the Keystone Pipeline will contaminate freshwater supplies in America's agricultural heartland and increases refinery emissions, It will not reduce the cost of fuel at the pump. But still the GOP candidates back the Keystone Pipeline and are holding a middle class tax cut hostage in order to get this pipeline built. What is up with that? There has got to be something in it for them that were not seeing! Again seems like another blatant scam to fatten the wallets of those in power while putting our nation natural resources and people at risk!

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/dirtyfuels_tar.asp?gclid=CIiUmKi6ia0CFcNo4AoddQEDmA

Also check out Zendogs post- I think were begining to be on the same page with this!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/action-alert-stop-the-end-run-on-the-keystone-xl-p/

Also check out Girlfridays Cornell Study Post

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf-2.pdf

142 Comments

142 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4784) 2 years ago

Hi paulg5, Good post. Good link. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Thanks, hope you sign the petition

[-] 2 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

I thought the compromise was ridiculous and it once again makes me doubt my vote for Obama vs.Clinton. - How hard is it for the president to argue that the pipeline should not be linked with the payroll tax cut????? Worse - Even if the pipeline did not have the potential to be an environmental disaster - it still won't be our oil!!

http://wordsofwhizdumb.com/2011/08/drool-baby-drool.html

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Do you have any clue as to how many pipelines already run through there? Obama has nothing to do with it.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

Hi HC: - From the maps I have looked at there are two major existing pipeline from Canada to US in that region. Keystone is unique in that it will travel all the way to the Gulf Coast. Not sure what your point is as I would have a concern if there were 2 - or 6 or 8, etc. Obama has EVERYTHING to do with it as he has ultimate authority - even under the payroll tax compromise - to approve or disapprove the pipeline. Regardless, I am finding the never ending capitulation on his part tiresome. It harkens back to his oratory against the Bush tax cuts two years ago and - He let's them continue rather then just letting them expire. Ultimately, what frustrates me the most as the way this junk is done - if there is an up and down vote on the pipeline and things don't go my way - so be it - I can live with that. But to add the issue to the payroll tax bill is insidious - guess I'm growing ever frustrated with the process

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Texas wants it. The other ones stop at Oklahoma. If the state of Texas wants it, then we should let them do it.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

The states between Canada and Texas don't matter?????

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Let them vote. Let the people vote.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

The people don't vote on this HC - their reps do

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Two existing underground and natural gas heated oil sands pipelines with 6500 horsepower pumping stations every ten miles? Homey don't think so.

Despite the spurious wiki pix, of a 3' diameter heavy wall pipeline laid in a shallow ditch, that ain't what this one is about.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Doesn't matter. There's already pipelines running through there, and the unions and the people in those areas want the work. Leave it up to the states, and all the states say yes.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

I didn't gather that "all the states say yes" watching the congressional hearings, not even close. I did however gather than the Canadians were lying and would not agree to have put in writing what they verbally promised.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

The Prime Minister is from Alberta, he's hard-core for financing the oil pipeline and keep the money in the west. He's using the oil pipeline as a threat to Obama with bad-economic woes. Meanwhile; all the cash is going to the Transcanada. The refineries in Texas are foreign co-owned, with Saudi Oil. It's not ethical oil. It's a get-rich quick scheme.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Politics is politics. Go to the people. Ask them if they want the jobs. This is the type of stuff those people in those towns do. If the majority want it, you give it to them.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

See, the problem is, that anyone breathing and as a citizen of the corporate government, they have the right to vote, only in the elections however, and we all know that the only thing that motivates the results of their token vote, their representative, is money.

How do I know that any of these people have any sense or are reasonable persons? Not that it matters, because the voting citizens are out of the loop, you know, politics is politics.

Regardless, I don't believe you watched the hearings as citizens from various states, of which this monster would go through, were there and spoke far differently than your baseless assertion, perhaps a personal opinion or desire, would leave others to believe.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Remember, anyone can drum up some supporters to bring to congress and put on a show. Direct Democracy- let the states vote.

[-] 1 points by FrogWithWings (1367) 2 years ago

Direct democracy has bee historically proven to fail. I'd never support of have any part of direct democracy.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

would like to checkout the cornell study but am getting a pager error for the PDF?

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

It sounds like alot of the content of this so called “Tar Sands Oil” is toxic waste material in which The seporation of the oil from the sand and other materials happens hear in the US. So where does the oil saturated sand go after the seporation, back to Canada? I haven't read anything about how the disposal of this material will be handeled. The Wikipedia Discription of Athabasca oil sands really enlightens me on the Marcellus shale ramp up in PA. I guess they'll need all the natural gas they can get because so much is used in the oil sands extraction process Wikipedia Athabasca oil sands The recovered bitumen froth needs to be cleaned to reject the contained solids and water to meet the requirement of downstream upgrading processes. Depending on the bitumen content in the ore, between 90 and 100% of the bitumen can be recovered using modern hot water extraction techniques. After oil extraction, the spent sand and other materials are then returned to the mine, which is eventually reclaimed. More recently, in situ methods like steam-assisted gravity-drainage (SAGD) and cyclic steam stimulation (CSS) have been developed to extract bitumen from deep deposits by injecting steam to heat the sands and reduce the bitumen viscosity so that it can be pumped out like conventional crude oil. The standard extraction process requires huge amounts of natural gas. Currently, the oil sands industry uses about 4% of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin natural gas production. By 2015, this may increase 2.5 fold.

[-] 1 points by ImaDreamer (82) 2 years ago

I think the main reason this pipeline is a bad thing is because it takes oil from North America to the coast where it can be shipped overseas. If it was meant to benefit the American people, it would cost less to build a refinery near the Canadian border. This project is all about lining the pockets of oil companies.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I agree, and Politicians! There has to be something in it for them to push the issue as much as they are!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Another interesting post

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

proven by who? the left wing enviro nuts? do you want jobs or dont you? It's not like it isnt going to be built - it's a matter of if we will benefit - or the Chinese. They can build it north to south & we can benefit - or the Canadians will build it east to west & ship the oil to China. Take you pick but it's going to happen either way.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

and? another leftist Ivy League agenda driven study lol! big deal. No problem - let the Chinese benefit.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Lets break it down! 2 years to build = 2 years worth of jobs after completion you loose most of those jobs, plus all of the transportation jobs it took to fransport the oil before the line was built. the only people to really benefit are the canadians.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 2 years ago

Funny - The unions seems to want it - like I said - let the Chinese take it.

[-] 1 points by PKNOWLEDGE (1) 2 years ago

The pipeline is part of another plan put out by the Bushes and many other people and corporations formed to create UNESCO they snuck a bill through in the dead of night that is already funded, they want to build a super highway from the tip of Mexico all the way to Canada, it will be a five lane highway. The first part of the plan is to get rid of our borders and annul our sovereignty, no more constitution, it will be the North American Continent, the second thing is they are trying to bust up the unions on the East and West coasts ports and have cheap labor truck drivers running North to South, the third thing is they can control this country better if it is divided right down the middle.they have already announced the AMERO! a new coin. if you don't believe me look up UNESCO

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

No I do not see that happening any time soon!

[-] 1 points by applesandoranges (10) 2 years ago

prediction clinton allows keystone to go through.

[-] 1 points by applesandoranges (10) 2 years ago

Hopefully someone smarter than me can figure this out i just know people.

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 2 years ago

Why is it that greenies complain about pollution from power plants and fossil fuels then they have the audacity to complain about energy and gas prices

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

First - they don't complain any more then the "non-greenies" and second, the pipeline will have zero impact on oil prices. Oil did not go from $30 a barrel to $140 a barrel because of a shortage of supply or because of an increase in demand. It prices vary because 70% of the supply is subject to speculative investing (much like gold) and/or monopolistic pricing models such as the cartels.

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 2 years ago

Really? because market valuations in terms of inflation on oil companies have seldom changed since the 1980s.

Last time we Anti-Trusted Oil it made Rockefeller 5 times richer. giving him the ability to lobby for prohibition.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

Yes - Really. First - you picked 1980 as the baseline which was the highest point in 4 decades - followed by a dramatic decrease (due to short selling in the market). The point being that the cost of gasoline bears little relationship to the cost of producing it or it's availability. Let's look at the most recent decade. A barrel of oil was $35.76 in 2000. It reached $140 a barrel in 2009. That is the decade where expanded speculation in oil derivatives took place. Oil prices go up and down primarily for speculative investment reasons and not for your standard demand and supply reasons.

Chevron, BP and other oil companies are - ironically - not the largest traders in oil. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are. They invest in oil futures - just like they do gold - driving the price up well beyond what it actually takes to produce a barrel of oil. Now here's the great part - the oil companies don't mind that prices are going up because they charge a fixed percent per refined gallon. In other words - when the cost of gas at the pump goes from $1 to $4 - they make 4 times the profit per gallon. The bad thing about this is that they have no incentive to do rational things to lower the price of oil. That is why they experienced record profits as gas prices soared. Ask yourself - what other industry can make record profits as the cost of their raw prime material goes through the roof???

The price of oil is only slightly related to the actual inventory vs. demand for oil. Again - think gold because it is traded in exactly the same fashion as oil. Do you really think that there is a world wide gold shortage??

I have read estimates where experts believe that speculative trading practices account for almost half the cost of a barrel of oil. Again - it is no different than GOLD. The last problem is - unlike Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the other OPEC nations - We don't own our oil - so drilling for more doesn't do anything because it is merely sold into the worldwide market by the oil companies that produce it.

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 2 years ago

i can understand the Wall street side. thats why I favor outlawing dirivatives and credit default swaps. and a wall street turn over tax of 1% higher on other industries. I also think we should remove abandonment and let compnies drill as much as we want but off shore drilling should be nationalized. and finally a 21st century government pipe system to manage transportation.

Gold is trading high bc the dollar is worthless.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

We may be closer on the issue - I'm with you on the derivatives and CDR as well as your view on off shore drilling. The only thing I would ask you to remember is that your issues started with this:

Why is it that greenies complain about pollution from power plants and fossil fuels then they have the audacity to complain about energy and gas prices

I would argue that greenies just don't believe that the price of energy has nothing to do with the keystone pipeline (i.e., because of all the factors we have already discussed). Now for me, I don't care if gas drops to $2 a gallon or goes to $10 - it does not change the fundamental issue - we need to get off fossil fuels

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 2 years ago

I'll disagree. I think we use to much fossil fuels but its not a hard problem to fix. 1.) Invest in Mass Transit and Light Rail for ENTIRE metro area's. Not just the City the entire suburbian area. Monorail Long Island, Link light rail the ENTIRE bay area including Silicon Valley,- Tacoma 2 Seattle 2 Everett. The top 25 metropolis area's based on Industrial advantage. in short the 2 to 4 surounding counties, not just the city. 2.) Interstate Maglev. We own GM, and for the most Part Boeing. Make then create a joint owned Subsidary. to create these trains. The Federal Government would only own 100% of the RAIL not the not the carts. the Carts would be owned by private companies or necessary Government programs (USPS or ARMY). This way we could regulate monopolies and cap prices of fares. connect the same 25 metropolitan cities picked above 3.) Legalize Weed. I may sound like a Teabagger but this 100% true, the markets will most likely lead the creation of Hemp Oil Vehicles. Hemp Clothes, and Hemp paper. Cannibis is the solution to both industrial and envirmental (replaces Trees for paper and it takes Co2 to grow) 4.) The first New Deal (in my historical study) was Lincoln's policy of Protectionism and Rail expsansion. It was later destroyed by the Progressive Era. the Second New Deal (the Original) was themed with Social Infrastructures such as abundance of Schools, hospitals (Hill Burton), public parks, and a major energy advancement ie Dams. Our third new deal should be lead by Energy, Modernized Nuclear Powerplants 1000 of them, implement NAWAPA to generate 10,000mgw and turn the Nevada Deserts into farm lands. A Government owned interstate MODERN pipeline system to transport oil rapidly. Left abandonment allow Corperations to drill as much as they want DOMESTIC oil. Off Shore will be ran by a government company. ignore the greenies they Neo-Malthusian genocidal maniacs. look up Eco-Science by John Holdren Obamas Science Adivsor.

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

Again - your original premise was - Why is it that greenies complain about pollution from power plants and fossil fuels then they have the audacity to complain about energy and gas prices - I believe that premise is incorrect. In terms of your solutions - above - they, along with several others could start us in the right direction. But remember, we are talking about the pipeline being built under the rules that exist now - those include (a) there is no national pipeline (b) there is no national oil 0 it is corporate oil (c) there is zero assurance that the oil that is produced will stay here. Currently, the US is EXPORTING a record amount of refined oil. So - if you are against the pipeline as currently proposed - we agree - if you are for the pipeline - you need to understand that the national oil and pipeline model simply does not exist yet

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

pipelines should be own nationally

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by eldave1 (35) 2 years ago

No - greenies complain when crap gets put into the air. AND - they know that domestic oil is not their oil - it is BPs, Exxons, etc - please learn - there is no such thing is domestic oil other then the small amount we keep in the strategic reserve. We export our oil and we export coal. So - blow your mountain caps off and pollute the air and streams and - watch your refined gas and coal go to china

[-] 0 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

A pipe line will not bring down prices...and who's complaining And who really needs another one?

[-] 0 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 2 years ago

Personally I would support a government owned pipeline -system. with pipes ranging from coast to coast with no bias. Basically an interstate pipeline.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

You dig that lube don't cha! And they dig that you dig it to fer sure!

[-] 1 points by AmuroRay (45) from Seattle, WA 2 years ago

Are you going to ignorant or have an honest discussion?

Fossil fuels are going to be important for another 200-300 years. I think we should legalize and start making hemp oil cars for consumers and use fossil fuels for more important things like jets and NASA

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Just like that Alaskan pipeline destroyed the caribou herds, and caused such horrible disaster.

[-] 0 points by danmi (66) 2 years ago

As of right now we need oil and the assMonkey Obummer will not let us drill for it here

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4784) 2 years ago

Yes, signed.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Hey - lets network on this. Here's a forum link on this issue, to a post I've put up with recommended action - the action is provided by Credo Action network, and it provides an easy way for you to get the phone number of your representatives so you can call them to voice your objections to the project and the goddamned repelicans behind it.

Repeat - the link above is to a forum topic here - with links to take action and some more background info.

I'll be incorporating the link to this forum topic in that forum post.

Thanks - and Keep At It!

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

This new legislation only forces Obama to declare one way or the other if he's for the pipeline or against. Put him on the spot, make him go one way or the other now and not after his reelection. There is going to be a pipeline no matter what, the only questions is does it go through Canada to the West Coast or south through America to the Gulf.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Actually, this legislation, if signed, will reduce the amount of time to accept or reject the pipeline bill, with emphasis on accept.

There is currently an ongoing study by the State Department on the impact of such a pipeline on America both pro and con.

The oil that would be pumped through this pipeline to refineries in TX and possibly LA, is not slated for sales in America, but will sell, as all refined oil does, to the highest bidder. The only financial difference of where the pipeline is laid is in the actual pipeline itself, the refineries are still on American soil and the refined fuels will still be sold to the highest bidder.

The aquafier is the largest issue. It is the largest source of fresh water, which is extremely important, anything that has the potential to impact that source should not even be considered. It's not environmental, it's survival.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

ah.

The politics of division. Separate Obama from the environmentalists.

I'll bet the pipeline - if it goes through - will cost a good bit more than $7 billion.

How do you know it's already a done deal?

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Politics of truth, does he support it? Yes or no? I'm tired of politicians playing both sides of an issue until after the election.

The Canadians have already talked about simply putting their own pipeline to the Pacific and selling the crude from there. The oil is being taken and it's absolutely going to go somewhere. I also don't think Obama can afford to turn down the union jobs this pipeline means. His present stance of waiting until after the election is, in my opinion, an insult to the environmental movement.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I also don't think Obama can afford to turn down the union jobs this pipeline means

the link that follows addresses that issue:

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/cornell-global-labor-institute-study-finds-keystone-xl-pipeline-create-jobs/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Amazing how much mileage pushing for temp. jobs ( creating another natural disaster waiting to happen gold mine for the Oil people ) can get when people are desperate.

I suppose if your population is hungry enough you can pretty much get away with anything.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

they don't give a rats ass

about anything but cash

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And in presenting a picture that they actually care. I mean gimme a break, the pipe line will barely employ anyone and most of them only short term. Well until you get into the habitual and repetitive hazardous spill clean-ups.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Thanks. I can not stand false/misleading/misinformation promises of major job creation. Besides the fact of trying to approve another repeating environmental disaster.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

We won't be paying for the pipeline!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah?

I don't know who is planning to put up the cash for construction - but the American public will pay for every single goddamned externality associated with it.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

What exactly DO you want? You don't seem to agree with anything. What's it like to be miserable 99% of the time? Is that what you mean about representing the 99%?

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Actually I'm not miserable at all. I'm quite hopeful and optimistic. It may be a long haul ahead of us, but I am confident we will pull through it.

or not.

Doesn't matter. I called for revolt three or four years ago - I'm sure I wasn't alone - and here we are. I like that.

I've also been saying for quite some time: the repelican party is DONE

and I'm sure we will all see that come to pass soon enough.

I'm not miserable at all.

I expect that in time we will overturn completely the philosophy of economic deregulation and set the economy on a footing where it is controlled entirely by public entities.

The same with energy generation. These should be public, non profit enterprises. Energy generation needs to be decentralized.

It will take time - but we will get there.

and we will do so with your help too.

Imagine that.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Dream on, silly boy.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Lennon was a dreamer. Till he got shot.

Care to shoot me too? go ahead. I don't mind . . .

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

I was referring to John Lennon, of the Beatles?

Somehow I doubt he was ever a Ray-gun fan. Though it would not surprise me to find some idiot claiming otherwise.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yeah Ray-gun. That would more likely be Ringo.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

he is definitely a little strange.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26523) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Don't say that!

I think it would be more socially correct to say that he is "special".

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

LoL

well yeah - that does about cover it

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Yes, John Lennon of the Beatles. Click the link. This is old news now.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

an old lie most likely.

fukin conservatives. always trying to co-opt everything popular to justify their own existence.

[-] 0 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

You only believe what you want to believe and that's exactly what you say everyone else does, particularly conservatives. Maybe you should climb out of your bubble and take a look around once in a while.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

bereal

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I would like to take it a bit further, and see if I can get information on Bechtle the engineering management company responsible for building the thing.

http://www.bechtel.com/keystone-pipeline.html

I'm not sure if it's possible but maybe I can get some names of stake holders and more importantely stock holders in the company!

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 2 years ago

Interesting that Bechtel is behind the engineering for this. Bechtel is a criminal corporate enterprise, notorious for attempting to privatize the Bolivian water supply and causing a massive uprising. Warren Bechtel should be prosecuted in front of the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. The idea that they are planning to go along with this pipeline without protest is disgusting. A huge segment of OWS ought to be up there when they start building it, occupying the area and getting in the way of bulldozers and what not as they begin to build.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Thanks for the information, didn't know these things!

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Cool. Would not be surprised to find they tie right in to Wall Street.

It's a network of alliance, financial and ideological.

I've place a link back here in my op on this topic. That way it should make it easy to keep both threads up in the ranks, as long as this issue is up in the air, and we have interest here in keeping it afloat.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I would love to see a name pop up like Pelosi or Cain as share holders.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

http://www.muckety.com/Bechtel-Group-Inc/5000220.muckety

You will see a name Nicholas Moore, click on it. Go ahead on all the names but Nicholas Moore is also a director of Wells Fargo and a few other interesting organizations.

Is this helpful?

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Thanks for this will have to check this out at length!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Please check this out too. It is a study from Cornell. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf-2.pdf

I posted the same on Zen's thread.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Zen, we need you to develop an alternative fuel system. Kind of like a manhattan project. In the mean time, ban all oil as our earth is warming too fast. Better most of our population die off, due to lack of fuel, than all people die off from global warming. Now get busy.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

yeah-ya. I'll get right on that.

never mind we already have hydro, wind, and solar turning out giga watts already.

You want something new, innovative, technologically challenging and not feasible in a decentralized system of power generation - which is just what wall street wants.

. . . . nice . . . .

I guess you've forgotten the blackout that swept the east coast a few years back, huh.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Hydro wind and solar are great alternatives, but also come with problems. Robert Kennedy did not want windmills off of marthas vineyard because of eye pollution. The large rotors also kill large numbers of birds. Solar is inefficient in northern climbs, and unreliable in places where cloud cover is a factor. Hydro requires damming, and we all know the potential problems with that. Nuclear is quite efficient, but look at GE' s Fukishima disaster. Yes, unlike the green revolutionists say, a technological breakthrough is needed.

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 2 years ago

We need this shit.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Hey, if we need this shit then why is it being exported?

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 2 years ago

Example: Lawrenceville IL had a texaco oil refinery years ago which the company sold and it was shut down because it was cheaper to buy refined products from overseas. Now it will take a investor 20 years to make a return on his investment if the money was spent to build a new oil refinery. America does not have enough oil refineries to produce enough finish product to supply the country.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It is too late, we already know it was never intended for US consumption

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 2 years ago

I'm more worried about our drinking water being sucked out of the ground in Americas towns and then it is sold and sent over seas. All the companies do is buy the ground and drill for water then haul it away without reguards to a towns peoples needing that ground water to survive on. That's real bullshit and they are getting away with it. They haul it across the oceans in large rubber bladders pulled behind the ships. Pretty cool way to get a good drink of refreshing unpolluted water.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

If it isn't polluted now, it sure as hell will be with the fracking!!!

[-] 0 points by USCitizenVoter (720) 2 years ago

yep

[-] 0 points by ironboltbruce (371) from Miami, FL 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

i don't understand you people. it is just f#%king pipe line. it may bring US hundreds jobs: building, maintenance, processing of oil, plastic manufacture and etc. And let me say like this: You are dumb, if you think that solar energy is effective. solar power enough only to start monochrome display on the calculator, but not the train engine ha ha ha

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Tell it to Mumia Abu-Jamal

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

yeah man, we have to know how to shoot without the gun. Be smart, be wise, be nimble according situation, have friends who never shuts up and pulls out your ass whatever needed to be done so. i try to play smooth

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

oil spill is too dangerous. let just don't use it. no pipe line, no bloody vessels. ONLY bicycles and electrocars

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

always easier to grab the dirt from the ground rather than from the sea. for those of you who believes in terrorist attacking pipe line

[-] 0 points by timir (183) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

i dont see any problem with building pipeline. Or lets destroy Iran, kill them all, lets bring our troops there and switch their government. Set OUR president for Iranian people and we good to go buy cheap oil. this is US regular scenario

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree the pipeline has its risks, but it isn't true to say it will contaminate freshwater supplies. Technology has risks, state them, make your case honestly. No one is going to intentionally build a leaky pipeline, but it could break.If all you're going to do is lie, at least become a politician and get paid for it.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Did you check out the movie! I would rather not live in a toxic mud puddle that have a job digging one! Ok Remember TMI!

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/dirtyfuels_tar.asp?gclid=CIiUmKi6ia0CFcNo4AoddQEDmA

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

I agree there are risks and they are serious, doesn't change my comment. You can say it may contaminate our water or the pipeline is likely to break, but when you step over that line and say something definitely will happen when you can't know the future, that just isn't true.

Alternative energy technology is decades away. Problems are being discovered about wind energy. Solar is still just a dream. Unfortunately the tar sands are close and people want the oil. Get ready for a real battle though, sooner or later they will be after the oil shale deposits in the US.

Three Mile Island was a mechanical failure made almost deadly by human error. Too bad though, nuclear energy is something we at least have the technology for today.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

You really need to google the subject especially the EPA info!

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

Sorry, I don't really care much for cheap oil or gas. When we start to run out of water, people are going to panic and fall sick out of desperation. Anyone who supports this pipeline has little or no consideration for future generations.

There are alternatives to using oil. There are no alternatives to using water, unfortunately.

"In late August, the State Department issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline (Keystone XL). There is ample evidence that Keystone XL will cause an increase in tar sands oil extraction and the significant harm to climate, wildlife, water and health that come from tar sands strip mining and drilling."

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/keystone_xl_tar_sands_pipeline_1.html

"Even as the EPA works to control this new generation of contaminants, however, many Americans still aren't entirely safe from the last one. Most U.S. water providers comply with federal regulations, and they're legally required to report their compliance status to customers, but isolated risks aren't uncommon — as the infographic at the top of this page illustrates."

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/how-polluted-is-us-drinking-water

"An epic drought in Georgia threatens the water supply for millions. Florida doesn’t have nearly enough water for its expected population boom. The Great Lakes are shrinking. Upstate New York’s reservoirs have dropped to record lows. And in the West, the Sierra Nevada snowpack is melting faster each year. Across America, the picture is critically clear — the nation’s freshwater supplies can no longer quench its thirst."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21494919/ns/us_news-environment/t/crisis-feared-us-water-supplies-dry/#.Tu4S7TXDfzM

• 20 percent of freshwater fish species have been pushed to the edge of extinction from contaminated water.

• Half of the world’s 500 major rivers are seriously depleted or polluted.

• There are more than 300,000 contaminated groundwater sites in the United States.

• The water we drink today is the same water the dinosaurs drank—there is no new water.

"http://blueplanetnetwork.org/water/facts"

Results are as follows; http://www.cfr.org/africa/water-stress-sub-saharan-africa/p11240#p2

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You misunderstand me. I'm not defending Keystone, I my original comment was that the initial post claimed the pipeline WILL contaminate the water and that is not the case. It might do it, I'd even be willing to go along with saying pollution is very likely. The way he wrote it is simply not true.

Not that it matters, people in general seem to be short sighted idiots. They'll most likely take the oil, pipe it somewhere, worry about accidents later. Maybe whatever takes over the top spot on earth next will last longer then we're likely to.

[-] 1 points by badconduct (550) from Ottawa, ON 2 years ago

No no, the pipeline won't contaminate the water unless there is a leak.

The increase in production at the oil sands will contaminate water, absolutely.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Fine, he should state it that way.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Didn't say something definately will happen the link if you looked at it sites instances that have happened involving environmental damages

[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

The way I read the original post "the Keystone Pipeline will contaminate freshwater" it certainly looked like you meant it to be a certainty not a possibility.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Yes the EXTRACTION PROCESS CONTAMINATES FRESH WATER! So at the end of the line fresh water will be contaminated in the extraction process!

Signed, idiot

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Ok, then attack the extraction process. The post said the pipeline will contaminate water. There are enough facts against the project to use without resorting to an over simplification that seems, on the surface, to be intuitively wrong. The way it's seen by the public, a pipe won't contaminate water, they are not made to leak, and most people will dismiss you out of hand. Sticking to actual facts is better for your position.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

The extraction process could not take place without the raw materials and the pipeline what is the difference. The possibility of even more extensive damage could occur if the pipeline breaks! That's like if a nurse in a hospital overdoses you with medication and the hospital says it wasn't the nurse or hospital that kill you it was the needle. Come on!

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

We live in a world where some people want the oil no matter what. If you're going to make a case you don't want to leave flaws in your argument just hanging out there for opponents to pick on. You start the debate out being discredited. There is enough real danger that it should be the focus of the debate, not fears we make up in an attempt to enhance our position.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

In a world of critics there is never any resolution!

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

There will be a resolution to this, they will get the oil or they won't no third option or compromise. The extraction has begun and Canada will get a pipeline, if not through the US then to it's Pacific coast to sell the oil.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

last word

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by bereal (235) 2 years ago

Who cares what some people hating, enviro-wacko says?

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Did the Alaskan pipeline, built on hundreds of miles of tundra, operating for decades now, ever spring a leak? It still could no doubt, but it has survived in extreme climate and terrain.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Thank you for the link.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

There is alot more to the issue than wheather the pipeline will brake, what goes through the pipeline is raw material, do the research if your interested I'm tired of explaining

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

We need the jobs and the energy. Green ain't happening fast enough.

[-] 0 points by Kevabe (81) 2 years ago

OWS Protesters, a proven environmental threat! Remember all the human waste, drug paraphenilia and not to mention rapes that occured in the parks they tented up!

The EPA should regulate the OWS movement.

[-] 2 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

adults play here! Here's a special link for you sweet heart, now go play!

http://www.free-online-games-to-play.net/games/kidsgames/

[-] 1 points by Kevabe (81) 2 years ago

That was pretty funny.

[-] -1 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Your post is pure hyperbole and propaganda.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

So we should go ahead and dump 100 thousand tuns of tar sand each week in your yard then!

[-] 0 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Drama Queen,when you Greeniacs/environMENTALlists put up acres and acres of wind farms you do know it adversely affects nature by killing eagles mostly and many other birds including owls. It makes life unbearable for families who live in the specific area by creating deep vibrations and other anomalies.

Does that bother you?

Should you no longer support wind farms? (I personally think wind farms are an atrocity on the landscape)

Life is full of risk,you can not live life without risk,but you do your best to minimize risk. Does this make any sense to you?

Gas will come back down to a $1.50 to $1.75 because of the pipeline and the opening up our domestic drilling by the next Rep POTUS.

If Obama does what you environMENTALlists want,then you can feel good about how that $10.00 a gal gas is helping to enrich the Oil Corps and helping the Green cause by making so many Americans more and more broke so as not to be able to own and operate a vehicle thus making their lives all that more difficult.

You Greeniacs are so well meaning.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

I did not mention wind farms...where did wind farms come from! If you think that pipeline is going to bring the cost of a gallon of gasoline to 1.50 or 1.75 your living in fantisy land! Don't forget we'll be BUYING the raw material from Canada and then processing it which adds another cost. Plus dumping the sludge another expense. The only real benefit is not buying it from the Mid East, the price will remain the same!

[-] -2 points by headlesscross (67) 2 years ago

Wind farms are another example of giant energy solutions that have some negative impact,It's analogues to the XL pipeline. They actually have far more negative impact than this pipeline ever will.

We'll see,nobody knows for sure the effect on prices but it can only help. If it puts an end to buying oil completely from the ME,that will be a major benefit that can't not be underestimated.

To oppose the pipeline is to oppose energy independence.

[-] 1 points by paulg5 (673) 2 years ago

Don't agree