Proposed Trans-US oil pipieline - a disaster waiting to happen!

[Geo]

Question-
Why doesn't the Canadian Government partner with an oil company to just build a refinery in Alberta?

 

[scooterbug44]

They don't want all those noxious chemicals in THEIR air?

 

[Zebraspots]

It isn't often you have folks in Oklahoma and Texas fighting the oil industry, they're usually fighting the environmentalists, but the way they are getting land to run the pipeline and the increased toxicity of the oil has many up in arms.

But few politicians will vote against it, as between the Koch brothers and unemployment figures it is political suicide.

"The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that annual greenhouse gas emissions from transporting and burning oil from the Keystone XL pipeline would be 27mn metric tonnes a year — or
82% greater than the average crude processed in the US.

Tar sands, a thick, peanutbutter-like bitumen that is chemically thinned and heated for transport, can contain 11 times more sulphur and nickel, six times more nitrogen and five times more lead than conventional crude."

http://www.gulf-times.com/mritems/streams/2011/2/8/2_414773_1_255.pdf

 

[30ashopper]

Somebody is going to process it and use it. I'd prefer it flow here to the good ol' U.S. of A. than to China and Korea. Decreasing our use is an independent problem. We'll be using oil for a very long time no matter what. Acquiring rights to vast sources near to us is a strategic move aimed at protecting our county's ability to grow economically.

 

[Rita]

.
Anyone willing to get arrested trying to stop big oil from destroying the planet?

“... we want you to consider doing something hard: coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will quite possibly get you arrested."

Climate activists don't have much to rally around now that Congress is shunning global warming legislation. Energy legislation is stalled and stymied in a Senate where a Democratic caucus has a slim 53-47 advantage. And a GOP majority in the House is unveiling any and every tactic to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to deploy the Clean Air Act.
McKibben and his allies figure the $7 billion Keystone XL — which was barely on their environmental radar screen a year ago — could be a galvanizer because the 1,702-mile underground pipeline would be a "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet."
"If the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over," Hansen, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration climatologist, explained about reclaiming a stable climate. "The principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground.

"We don't expect or demand miracles out of politicians. That's not part of the contract," he continued. "But once in a while they get to make a straight-up decision and Keystone XL is one of those.  This one is more like tee ball. It's sitting on the stand and Obama can choose to hit it or not."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/idUS323166223820110627

Invitation:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/invitation/


.

 

[Zebraspots]

Somebody is going to process it and use it. I'd prefer it flow here to the good ol' U.S. of A. than to China and Korea. Decreasing our use is an independent problem. We'll be using oil for a very long time no matter what. Acquiring rights to vast sources near to us is a strategic move aimed at protecting our county's ability to grow economically.

Just because oil may still be a fuel for a long time does not mean we should go out of our way to find the nastiest oil we can in a neighboring country, pipe it across our country, and massively increase air pollution.

People still use kerosene, that doesn't mean we should base our energy policy on it. In 50 years oil will be like a Model T - still around, but not the norm.

 

[30ashopper]

Just because oil may still be a fuel for a long time does not mean we should go out of our way to find the nastiest oil we can in a neighboring country, pipe it across our country, and massively increase air pollution.

People still use kerosene, that doesn't mean we should base our energy policy on it. In 50 years oil will be like a Model T - still around, but not the norm.

If we don't, somebody else will. Where would you prefer that nasty oil be produced and regulated? Here in the U.S., or China?

 

[Zebraspots]

Not if it isn't the best energy option.

And if I have to choose: China - they've pretty much destroyed their country's environment already.

 

[scooterbug44]

China's leaders are very concerned that their inability to guarantee food safety is going to cause a rebellion. You name it, it has a nasty chemical in it that is making people sick.