Keystone Pipeline

[Stumpy1]

 

Can someone tell me what viewpoint I'm supposed to have on the pipeline, and why? I genuinely have no idea.

 

Someone answer plz

 

I haven't been following this issue at all

 

I am for the pipeline because I think it could benefit us. I don't care what some newspaper or reporter says about the oil and that it will all be exported overseas. That is far from the truth because that is not how it works. Yes, some of the refined products will go overseas just like it currently does but it will also be put back into our economy. It is all based off of needs and markets. If people want to get pissed at companies for this oil, they need to look at the companies that are buying the oil, such as Valero, Marathon, Conoco, Cenex and other refining companies. These are the ones that purchase the oil, refine it and sell it, not TransCanada.

 

As far as the property issue. TransCanada is wanting to buy easement for the pipeline and people think that they lose control of that land. That is wrong also as the property owner still gets to use the property and do what he wants with it but just has to be careful around the line and follow safety guidelines with the line. If there ever was a leak, the landowner gets compensated for any damage to the land, even the one that the pipeline is on. The land has to be returned to a better condition then what it was before hand. This is a law and is strictly enforced.

 

I will also say that I am a little bias because I work in the petroleum industry and this pipeline would be beneficial to it and to the company that I work for.

 

I will also add that I do see people's concerns with the pipeline because of the potential issues it could cause if there ever was a leak. I will say this though, I would rather have an oil leak instead of a propane or anhydrous ammonia leak. Those would be far more catastrophic then an oil leak.

[carlfense]

As far as the property issue. TransCanada is wanting to buy easement for the pipeline and people think that they lose control of that land. That is wrong also as the property owner still gets to use the property and do what he wants with it but just has to be careful around the line and follow safety guidelines with the line.

So you don't see any problem with the taking of land against the wishes of landowners?

 

If there ever was a leak, the landowner gets compensated for any damage to the land, even the one that the pipeline is on. The land has to be returned to a better condition then what it was before hand. This is a law and is strictly enforced.

Which oil spill cleanup projects should I study to make me believe that these for profit companies will do more than the bare minimum required by law? Last I heard BP was fighting tooth and nail to not pay for their gulf disaster.

[Dbqgolfer]

 

 

Can someone tell me what viewpoint I'm supposed to have on the pipeline, and why? I genuinely have no idea.

Someone answer plz

 

I haven't been following this issue at all

 

Are you a party line Republican voter? If so, you support the pipeline wholeheartedly because we need the 35 permanent jobs and you might think that Canadian oil is not from a foreign country.

 

Are you concerned about private property rights and the ability of the government to take private land against the landowners wishes? If so, you're against the pipeline because a foreign corporation is using the US government to take privately held land even if the landowner doesn't want to sell.

 

Are you concerned about the inevitable spills of oil and the secret cocktail of chemicals that Transcanada injects into the oil? If so, you're probably against the pipeline or at least want to ensure that it is as safe as possible.

 

 

 

Personally, I see virtually no benefit for the US and plenty of risk and trampling of property rights. That said, I do expect the pipeline to be built eventually and I wish that we would make that completion conditional on Transcanada paying a set amount into an account for each and every barrel of oil pumped through the line. That account, up to a certain dollar amount, should be held to pay for cleaning up spills. Every dollar collected in excess of that amount should be dumped into the general fund, or the highway trust, or SS, or wherever. Otherwise I don't see any reason why we should accept these risks to benefit a foreign corporation and China.

 

I haven't followed this issue closely, and would be considered a party line Republican voter (although consider myself conservative before republican), and the property rights issue really cause me concern. So just trying to say that you can be a conservative republican and be against this.

[carlfense]

So just trying to say that you can be a conservative republican and be against this.

Oh, sure. But it is probably going to be the first bill that the GOP Congress gets to President Obama's desk.

 

That tells me that it's a huge (and fake, I might add) issue for Republicans. I think that less than 20% of GOP voters disapprove.

[Stumpy1]

Carlfense, I don't give a sh#t about the BP spill because it has nothing to do with the pipeline in question. I have been in my line of work( petroleum pipelines) for over a decade and will continue to support all pipelines because they are the safest way to transport products. I'm done arguing it because it is a waste of time.

[carlfense]

Carlfense, I don't give a sh#t about the BP spill because it has nothing to do with the pipeline in question.

Which oil spills do you give a sh#t about?

 

If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh?

[Stumpy1]

 

Carlfense, I don't give a sh#t about the BP spill because it has nothing to do with the pipeline in question.

Which oil spills do you give a sh#t about?

 

If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh?

 

You are the one comparing a leak that was 5100 ft underwater to one that "could" be 5-10 ft underground. Big difference don't you think?

[carlfense]

 

 

 

Carlfense, I don't give a sh#t about the BP spill because it has nothing to do with the pipeline in question.

Which oil spills do you give a sh#t about?

 

If the only relevant oil spill cleanups are those of the unbuilt pipeline in question I think that we might get a skewed picture, eh?

You are the one comparing a leak that was 5100 ft underwater to one that "could" be 5-10 ft underground. Big difference don't you think?

Are you going to answer the question?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Can someone tell me what viewpoint I'm supposed to have on the pipeline, and why? I genuinely have no idea.

 

Someone answer plz

 

I haven't been following this issue at all

 

I am for the pipeline because I think it could benefit us. I don't care what some newspaper or reporter says about the oil and that it will all be exported overseas. That is far from the truth because that is not how it works. Yes, some of the refined products will go overseas just like it currently does but it will also be put back into our economy. It is all based off of needs and markets. If people want to get pissed at companies for this oil, they need to look at the companies that are buying the oil, such as Valero, Marathon, Conoco, Cenex and other refining companies. These are the ones that purchase the oil, refine it and sell it, not TransCanada.

 

As far as the property issue. TransCanada is wanting to buy easement for the pipeline and people think that they lose control of that land. That is wrong also as the property owner still gets to use the property and do what he wants with it but just has to be careful around the line and follow safety guidelines with the line. If there ever was a leak, the landowner gets compensated for any damage to the land, even the one that the pipeline is on. The land has to be returned to a better condition then what it was before hand. This is a law and is strictly enforced.

 

I will also say that I am a little bias because I work in the petroleum industry and this pipeline would be beneficial to it and to the company that I work for.

 

I will also add that I do see people's concerns with the pipeline because of the potential issues it could cause if there ever was a leak. I will say this though, I would rather have an oil leak instead of a propane or anhydrous ammonia leak. Those would be far more catastrophic then an oil leak.

 

I really don't care what a news paper says about it either.

You see, I buy raw materials from the petroleum industry. Mine come from the gulf coast where this industry was originally built because that was where most of the natural gas was being pumped. It comes to shore and then is used to produce a number of things, for which one of them, I buy.

 

Now, the industry I buy from is extremely frustrating to work in as far as pricing. Right now, they have announced expansion of capacity. Well, there are other places in the US that produce natural gas now. Why not expand it there? Hmmm...you see, now they have developed exporting this product. They want to be next to the gulf coast so that they can export it. Sure, they will sell to the US. But, if the US comes anywhere close to causing a drop in the price, they simply ship a crap load over seas and the price stays high.

 

So, getting back to this oil. I have read even on this thread people saying..."It can be exported" or " it changes month to month". That is code word for...."if the price appears to be dropping in the US, we will simply export it over seas."

 

So....sorry, I don't see a big benefit for the midwest by pumping all this to the gulf coast where it "can be exported".

[VectorVictor]

I'm done arguing it because it is a waste of time.

 

Spoken like a truly informed voter weaned on the glorious echochamber of Fox News.

 

 

 

I don't care what some newspaper or reporter says about the oil and that it will all be exported overseas. That is far from the truth because that is not how it works. Yes, some of the refined products will go overseas just like it currently does but it will also be put back into our economy. It is all based off of needs and markets.

 

Except that this oil cannot be refined to a level that allows for domestic consumption, so it will all be exported to developing countries (in particular, Brazil, China, India). Of course, these aren't my words, but that of one of my in-laws who is lifer in the oil industry and flies around the globe managing the construction, maintenance, and application of oil rigs and refineries.

 

 

 

As far as the property issue. TransCanada is wanting to buy easement for the pipeline and people think that they lose control of that land. That is wrong also as the property owner still gets to use the property and do what he wants with it but just has to be careful around the line and follow safety guidelines with the line. If there ever was a leak, the landowner gets compensated for any damage to the land, even the one that the pipeline is on. The land has to be returned to a better condition then what it was before hand. This is a law and is strictly enforced.

 

First, they're not going after an easement--they're going through the State of Nebraska as a proxy to use Eminent Domain. Big difference there, and sorry if you don't understand that.

 

Second, you're completely ignoring the immediate impact of a leak over and into the Ogallala Aquifer--the water source for drinking water and crop irrigation for numerous states, including Nebraska.

 

 

 

I will also add that I do see people's concerns with the pipeline because of the potential issues it could cause if there ever was a leak. I will say this though, I would rather have an oil leak instead of a propane or anhydrous ammonia leak. Those would be far more catastrophic then an oil leak.

 

I don't know...having directly lived through two anhydrous ammonia leaks (one an explosion, really) and a rail accident leak, they were certainly less catastrophic. There certainly wasn't a drinking water ban, even though the leak went directly over the city's water source. And the fields directly next to the plant were certainly able to produce the next season. Regardless, it's a stupid decision to make, IMO, because they're all bad, and they should all be prevented if possible.

[ShawnWatson]

 

Oil spills in Yellowstone River after pipeline leak

[VectorVictor]

Oil spills in Yellowstone River after pipeline leak

 

But...but...b...but...track record?!?! Safety?!?!?!

[VectorVictor]

BTW, while I'm loath to link anything from DailyKOS, I still have yet to see anything appear about this on Fox or mainstream media sites yet.

 

Republicans say 'No' to American-Made Steel for Keystone XL Pipeline

 

 

 

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. (Emphasis per article)

 

I'd like to point out that we've known for a while that Keystone XL already purchased their pipeline and steel from the Chinese some time ago, and much of the pipeline and equipment is sitting in Canada, waiting for their American lackeys to get their land and approvals so they can start building.

[carlfense]

But Keystone XL is all about 'Murica!

[Junior]

Excuse me, it's the Keystone JOBS Bill now. Get it right, folks.