Oil for U.S. or an environmental disaster waiting to happen?

30 Aug 2011 18:49 #1 by CinnamonGirl


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environm ... 08-29.html

The proposed Keystone X.L. pipeline would run 1,700 miles through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma on its way to refineries in Texas. It's projected to cost $7 billion and carry an estimated 800,000 barrels of oil a day. The plan has galvanized a growing opposition from those who fear it would increase greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the prospects of leaks and spills in environmentally sensitive areas.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 19:35 #2 by jf1acai
Faint heart never won fair lady.

If the American pioneers had been as unwilling to take any risks as the environmentalists want us to be today, they never would have made it to, let alone across, the Mississippi River.

Of course there is the possibility of leaks and spills. There is also the possibility that an asteroid will hit in the middle of the US and we won't need any more oil. Not to say that they are equal probabilities, but to point out that there is some risk in everything we do.

It seems more and more that the American people are no longer willing to take risks in order to achieve significant gains. I think that is sad.

Experience enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again - Jeanne Pincha-Tulley

Comprehensive is Latin for there is lots of bad stuff in it - Trey Gowdy

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 19:39 #3 by chickaree
How will the land be acquired?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 19:52 #4 by otisptoadwater
Can you imagine the number of jobs this project will create? Why in the world wouldn't American's want to take a step toward lower energy costs and less unemployed people? As far as risks to the environment go we have a wonderful example in the 800 miles of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. Have a look here for all of the details about the Trans-Alaska pipeline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System more positives than negatives.

I vote to move forward and build it!

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 20:35 #5 by Pony Soldier
I agree - more positives than negatives. Will this diminish the need for deep water drilling?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 21:07 #6 by Rockdoc

towermonkey wrote: I agree - more positives than negatives. Will this diminish the need for deep water drilling?


No. Only if we stop using oil will there be less of a need to drill for oil.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 22:43 #7 by PrintSmith

CinnamonGirl wrote: The proposed Keystone X.L. pipeline would run 1,700 miles through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma on its way to refineries in Texas. It's projected to cost $7 billion and carry an estimated 800,000 barrels of oil a day. The plan has galvanized a growing opposition from those who fear it would increase greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the prospects of leaks and spills in environmentally sensitive areas.

They could make the pipeline a lot shorter if the EPA would let someone build a new refinery that is closer to the source of the oil. Just sayin...........

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 22:53 #8 by otisptoadwater

PrintSmith wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: The proposed Keystone X.L. pipeline would run 1,700 miles through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma on its way to refineries in Texas. It's projected to cost $7 billion and carry an estimated 800,000 barrels of oil a day. The plan has galvanized a growing opposition from those who fear it would increase greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the prospects of leaks and spills in environmentally sensitive areas.

They could make the pipeline a lot shorter if the EPA would let someone build a new refinery that is closer to the source of the oil. Just sayin...........


Yes and then you have to transport the refined products to a sea port. The shortcut to either coast has some challenging terrain in the way. My best guess is that route that has been arrived at is the most cost effective.

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

30 Aug 2011 23:12 #9 by Residenttroll returns
I rather have a pipeline than 100,000,000 solar panels running across mid America and eating up valuable farm land.

Oops, I just exposed another reason why I don't support subsidiaries of solar energy. It's a way to create sacristy of land and make the rich richer...something I am sure my left socialist friends on 285bound would detest.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

31 Aug 2011 08:53 #10 by Pony Soldier
You have socialist friends? Somehow, I doubt it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.151 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+