Tar Sands pipeline

[Danzig]

the protesters mean nothing to me. if canada cleared their end, and it looks like state has cleared this end, build it.

[Riot]

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

Is there a way we could possibly stick you in this pipeline should it come to fruition?

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

Is there a way we could possibly stick you in this pipeline should it come to fruition?

[clyde]

Ah 'ub 'oo, sweetie!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I was looking for a picture of LA smog for the other thread, but found this. Yeah, Canada is "cleared" (which is why environmentalists up there are fighting harder than in the US to stop this expensive destruction so Canada can sell oil overseas)

Before mining for tar sand - After mining for tar sand

Makes mountaintop removal look kind to the earth.

i figure its cleared since i read that theyve already extracted oil. im limited right now on finding out much...but enviros wouldnt be considered such if they werent up in arms~doesnt mean theyre right.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i figure its cleared since i read that theyve already extracted oil. im limited right now on finding out much...but enviros wouldnt be considered such if they werent up in arms~doesnt mean theyre right.

The "up in arms" stems from four concerns:

First, this is the second-largest deposit of carbon in the world, and to extract it in toto would be "game over for climate change" according to the NASA world-reknowned climate expert guy arrested late this week (would have to look up his name again) They call it, "a carbon bomb with a 1700-mile fuse"

Secondly, the loss of all that forest diminishes the planet's capacity to counteract emissions via the forest (like when the threat was to eliminate the rain forest previously, we lost so much oxygenating capacity)

Third, the dirty, sandy oil is extremely expensive and polluting to extract out. That's where the "a gallon of this tar sand used in a Prius is the same pollution as a gallon of gas used in a Hummer" comes from.

And lastly, the oil is very thick, sandy, corrosive, yet they don't have any plans to really change the pipeline construction to prevent the anticipated increased leakage (many leaks already this project in Canada) and they are running the pipeline through the middle of the huge aquafier that provides water to the middle third of the United States. Even a small leak into that would irretrieviably harm the aquifier and leave 1/3 of our nation without water (and don't forget the west already is running out)

And: this oil that is being sent through our country and refined (more dirty than other oil products via pollution) is not going to be sold to us, it's being sold overseas.

Although our midwest oil production can use this pipeline, we are told, which will increase the oil prices in the midwest due to ceasing the constant glut there now due to lack of easy transport other than via Great Lakes (oil produced in the midwest tends to stay in the midwest)

[Danzig]

what does who buys the oil have to do with it? and every country imports and exports. i even read that a company here makes chopsticks that china imports.
at any rate, the customer isnt important. what is important is if the product is too harmful to make it worth extracting. based on the fact they are already extracting it that answer must be no. does the fact that a nasa guy who is a foe of fossil fuels is against this bother me? no. i find us using food as fuel while people starve far more bothersome. will this pipeline create needed jobs? yes, and that is regardless of who buys.
since you believe we elect our officials to take care of us, and theyve signed off on it, i dont see how you can complain. surely they have done their due diligence, have considered environmental impacts, whether there really is a danger that is too great, or whether they feel that proper engineering and construction can handle this task.

[Danzig]

a new article this morning on the subject, with protesters having been arrested:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44386975...-oil-pipeline/

TransCanada, a leading North American pipeline operator, started operation of Keystone I, a 36-inch pipeline system, in June 2010, making it possible to deliver Canadian oil to markets across Midwest farmland in several states, from the Dakotas through Illinois. Keystone XL will incorporate a section of that existing pipeline in its delivery through the bottom half of the US.


...i didn't know they already had a pipeline in the country, that this oil was already being moved thru part of the u.s.
Environment Minister Peter Kent told Reuters that his government “can look forward to eventual approval by the American government” and that TransCanada had “perhaps one of the best records of any pipeline operator” in North America.

Proponents of the pipeline say it will help the troubled US economy. TransCanada says the US will receive $20 billion through new job creation and local property taxes. The State Department report estimates that the pipeline will create between 5,000 and 6,000 new jobs that will generate up to $419 million in total wages. Nearly $7 billion will be added through additional costs, such as supplies and permitting.