Help stop the Keystone XL pipeline AGAIN!

lands11

lands11

Active member
Right now, the Senate is considering legislation to resurrect Keystone XL, overriding President Obama's rejection of the pipeline, and greenlighting construction of this disastrous project.

We have a matter of hours to put together a massive response to show them that approving Keystone is unacceptable. We're partnering with dozens of other organizations, media figures and celebrities to blitz the Senate with over 500,000 messages in 24 hours to demand they stop the pipeline.

FYI I copied that off the link.

Go here to sign http://act.350.org/sign/kxl/

Some of you are against the pipeline some of you are for it, I really don't give a shit if this thread turns into a debate. I just figured some people on NS would actually care about this and sign it. The more signatures the better. Oh and sorry if this is a repost I searched and didn't find anything.
 
Dont freaking sign that.

Keystone is GOING to happen. You're wasting your time trying to stop it. Too many benefits for USA and Canada
 
This. It's not a matter of if but when.

I love how the original post gives absolutely no background as to why the OP thinks this should be stopped. Oil is just plain bad, what explanation do you need, really?
 
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/671632/

I reference my posts in this thread...

You, OP, are misinformed and brainwashed.
 
Honestly, even if the jobs are "temporary" our economy does need the boost. America needs to bring more to the table as far as oil goes because we're completely dependent on oil from the middle east to fill our needs.
 
I work in the oil sands so my opinion is completely biased but...

The alternative is we ship the oil across the pacific by tanker. As far as I can work out the only challenge to this pipe line is from the enviromentalists.

What would you rather?

A shiny new pipeline which can be monitored and inspected for leaks every day or tankers which are notorious for causing spills.

 
Lol misinformed and brainwashed?

I study renvironymental science and consider myself an environmentalist . This pipeline is so bad for the environment it isn't even funny, I'm not going to argue anything in this thread, I'm just hoping there are at least some people on here who also care about the environment.
 
A vote against this is a vote for the Chinese who have a way worse environmental record and would require shipment across the ocean via tanker. We need this pipeline it's good for both Canada and the USA and for jobs and for energy independence don't be emotional get the facts this is the best option it's ether oil here or oil in China but mark my words the oil will be sold. I'm so glad they have found away to atempt to override Zero's decsion against it!
 
This is wrong because you have cast it as an "alternative". No, not really. Both of those things are going to happen. Keystone will be built, and a bunch of oil will head into the USA, which will be good for Canada and the USA economically. Gateway will also be built and a bunch of oil will head overseas to China, which will be good for Canada and China economically.

I'm biased too on this particular project, TCPL is a big client. Everyone thinks their area of expertise's perspective is indisputably the right one. But yeah. Environmentalists are fantastic but really need to target their energies towards finding ways to make these projects as safe and spill-proof (to the extent that's possible) as practicable because trying to "stop" them is essentially boxing a glacier. Causing delays doesn't even help their cause; arguably it just leads to greater environmental risk by creating project management issues and rushing parts of the line's development.
 
Honestly this pipeline would do a lot of good for america....it would reduce the gas prices...and our dependency on foreign oil so.....fuck nature
 
pros of keystone:

american jobs

more oil for the states

less oil for china

cons of keystone:

environment in and around the ogallala acquifer

there's already a pipeline going through the ogallala

spills aren't a question of if, but when (massive pipeline over time)

either way, canada benefits.

suckers
 
They've already started building the Northern Gateway Pipeline, I am going to have to agree the most likely outcome is that they are going to do both pipelines. You gotta understand, by rejecting the keystone, Canada is just going to sell to china and build a relationship with them and rather the US is gonna get all pissy we didn't sell to them. This oils getting out of Canada no question about that, and to be honest it's much safer to do it the keystone way.
 
Thank you to you, sir, and to JD as well for being rational in this regard.

OP there are places where your efforts would be better spent... you are taking a narrow view on this, as Canada is going to manufacture that oil whether you like it or not, and sell it to the US (better environmental standards, increasing fuel efficiency, lessening dependence on oil) rather than china (seen it myself, one of the most polluted countries on earth with minimal regulation and udder disregard for the environment).

Plus, the environmental hazard as measured by the government over a 3 year period starting in early 2009 was declared minimal, even in environmentally sensitive areas.

I think your time would be better spent protecting Brazil's rain forest or encouraging sustainable, decentralized energy production in Africa.

Or put more bluntly, suck it newb.
 
yep i was just about to post this. yeah this pipeline will boost the economy. with construction, hotels, food, transportation of the food and building materials of pipeline and buildings, construction workers.
 
true. Is it foreign oil from a more politically and economically stable region with fewer transport costs with a higher proximity to where we live that will probably encourage more job creation in Canada and the US? yep.

Forgive me for misspeaking... This is "less risky oil" from a political and transport perspective.

Continue reading.
 
This oil, once refined, is mostly going to be exported to Europe and Latin America, so that's not going to help the US oil prices.

Also the reason Obama stopped this the first time was because he wanted a full environmental review which was never completed. The new effort is to try and bypass the environmental review and start building. Essentially no one really knows how much this is going to effect the environment. This is far too big of a project to push through quickly and start building with out the proper research.
 
yeah fuck nature. We have another planet waiting for us when we are done fucking over this one right? All this for the money, which in the long run, means almost nothing.

I don't get why we wouldn't take the money it would cost to build this pipeline and reinvest it into renewable energy sources which would help to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Hmmm, that would also create jobs. But I guess you can never expect our government, or the governments of the world to think logically.
 
Acting like this s going to destroy the planet is such an exaggeration, it's politically convenient to fear monger but it's just that fear mongering. There are certainly environmental risks but the benefits far out wiegh them. I don't know why I'm arguing though. It's going to happen and it's going to turn out to be a good thing in the long run in my opinion, I'm willing to take the risk. I hope you short sited green-freaks don't get anywhere...
 
That's such an ignorant statement. Say this pipeline gets built, then there is a major leak right on top of the Ogallala aquifer. That's going to contaminate the drinking water of 2 million people. The odds of leaks happening is basically 100%, the Keystone I pipeline had 12 leaks in 1 year. TransCanada had predicted that only 1 leak would happen every 7 years, but instead it was 12 in 1.
 
short sighted* green freaks? Says the kid that supports the transport and use of OIL? The refining and use of oil is the most short term energy solution in the history of the earth.Its ignorant people like you that just help to degrade society.
 
I support using every option at our disposal and the pursuit of new alternative sources as well. There's a big difference between supporting alternative solutions and not supporting oil all together. I think it's short sited and extremist to believe the latter. Degradation of our society would be doing what Eco people suggest and ceasing the use of fossil fuels without a solution in place to continue business as usual it would cripple our economy and our competitive abilities globally.
 
Imagine it doesn't leak? And it benefits both countries imensely and reduces the amount of MId eastern oil coming in (which would be good for the environment even if oil in general isn't limiting it's footprint is possible by lowing the distance it travels). Imagine if we never tried anything with a risk.. You can't get anywhere without risking a little and a disaster that big would be awful but the chances of it happening on a catastrophic scale or at all is low. And we will importing oil any way any of which could spill and cause a disaster.
 
Uhm. I may be wrong, but they have 100% not starting building the Northern Gateway. Last time I checked the review panel set up by the NEB was hearing from intervenor's followed by oral comments from citizens at various hearings. Because so many people signed up to speak, the date they wanted to start building at if the project was approved will be pushed back most likely. Northern Gateway crosses thousands of streams a rivers, and the company that is building it (Enbridge) has an average of 50 pipeline leaks or spills a year. In the route that they will ship the tankers through, a BC Ferry sank in 2006, and it is rated one of the most dangerous waterways in Canada by Environment Canada. (It also has more biomass than any other area in Canada) Also, this pipeline is not to ship the oil we are currently producing from the tar sands out, but to make room for expansion, which will make it impossible for Canada to reach their energy goals. Every single native group along the coast of the tanker route is opposed to it.
^ Reasons why it's ridiculous, and if people have any sense, not going to happen.
 
i too studied natural resources, in fact i have a BS from oregon state in NR. you hinted to we need to better prepare ourselves for pipeline, valid statement, prevention is always cheaper than treatment. everything else though is dumb. its gonna happen, its good that its gonna happen. why arent you advocating against natural gas exploration? or better yet, instead of bitching and trying to tear shit down why dont you inform people about a developing field of energy research, geothermal for example?

one of the biggest things i learned in my 4 yrs was you need to pick a choose your battles wisely. why fight a battle in which you will ultimately lose?

and dont mention anything about Obama giving two shits about the NR world. ever hear of Solyndra? he threw $500 million at them, at look what happened. Obama can choke on a porno cock. think about how much R&D could be done with $500 million? had just some of that money gone to geothermal exploration in the Cascades i wouldnt be unemployed right now
 
But the thing is we have a solution. It's just that we have the oil companies so far in our pockets they make us shut down anything promising. But I do believe that we can't go right off fossil fuels, that would be disastrous. We should start weening off them instead of building more plants and pipelines FOR them.
 
It's going to leak, if you think it isn't then I'm sorry but you are just plain dumb. This is a 1700 mile pipeline that is pressurized . Even TransCanada admits it will leak, they just assume it's not going to leak that often, which is exactly what they did the first time around and it got them 12 leaks in 1 year. Also what most people are not realizing is that most of this oil is then going to be exported anyway. Most of this oil will not be used by the US. This pipeline will not help lower gas prices in the US.

 
I'm in complete agreement with you on basically everything you said. What my thoughts are is that instead of building this massive pipeline and continuing our use of fossil fuels why not put the billions this pipeline will cost into researching something else, like geothermal! We need to start creating better alternative energy practices and building an oil pipeline is not the way to go about doing that. They are just rushing this project with out taking the cautious steps they should be taking.
 
Not as much as concern about water contamination... They way the pipeline is proposed to be built is accommodating to migrating species, and high enough off the ground to be an impediment (to my knowledge.) I do get concerned about the heat emanating from the pipe affecting migratory land species.

The main concern is water contamination... but there is a report that covers all this in the previous thread (first post).

To echo what was said earlier... this is going to happen i think. I do think that alternative energy development (geothermal, solar, natural gas, hydrogen, nuclear, hydroelectric) in the long run is a really important economic, political, national security, and environmental move for the USA.

But these ideas have to be pursued in tandem of our current energy resources. A "quick switch" would be disastrous for American economic output and national security.
 
Is this solution a secret or something? I certainly have never heard a respected expert claim we have any viable technology that could replace our reliance on fossil fuel in a cost and space effective way. There are things that could lower our dependence which are already being implemented throughout the country like wind and solar but they are not substitutes. Face it we need to keep researching and in the mean time we need to work on making gas and oil safer (which it gets better at every year in America and Canada) and we need to use it to compete until we have a real solution. In the short term we need to lower our dependence of volatile areas in the world like the Middle East that spikes every time there is a new problem there and which can be manipulated against us by people who certainly do not have our best interest in mind and only like us for our $ we also have to use North Anericas resources as effectively as we can and this pipeline will be a big step towards that along with the ND natural gas fields. . Theres nothing productive or convincing about environmental extremists that are attempting to stone wall anything productive related to fossil fuels. We have to balance new tech with proven tech like oil in order to stay prosperous and inovative while we work toward solutions. Unless I'm missing some comprehensive solution?
 
I like electric... Tesla is making some really cool stuff, including a SUV that comes out next year that can go 300 miles on a single charge, with 4 wheel drive. I think our battery technology has some catching up to do... but this could really be a solution that drops our pollution levels by ~40%. We'd still have coal and oil power plants, but the dependency would drop on a consumption level.

This isn't going to happen overnight, but these initiatives have hope on the horizon, for sure.

Imagine... electric cars fueled by natural gas power plants? That's a viable strategy in the near to mid term.
 
I tend to agree. That said, Canada has a couple hundred billion dollars worth of oil sitting in their backyard. Therefore, they'd be foolish not to develop the crap out of these tar sands. To make matters worse, once the ice caps melt in the northern areas of Canada, they are bound to be filled with more of it (or natural gas in the case of Iceland). Either way you look at it, the $$$ signs associated with the exploitation of these natural resources clouds the future to a certain degree. Mark my words, Europe will/already is ahead of North America in terms of research into alternate energy and all that shit. They simply don't have the oil that we do and will face the reality of no more oil before either of us. Moreover, the main problem resides with American politics and the fact that you can lobby the shit out of the house with these so-called 'Super PACs'; trust me, that shit isn't going to work. For example, it takes money to lobby, right? Oil companies have shit loads of money (in comparison to the alternative energy sector). Therefore, oil ain't going anywhere my friend. Shit, everything uses oil these days. And no one gives a shit about the environment anyway. Why? Because saving the environment doesn't make you money. But fucking it up for oil does. At the end of the day, Earth will most definitely outlast us, but I won't be around to see that. To stop a leak, you have to go to the source. The problem? The source is money.
 
Sure or cars powered by natural gas but pushing the vehicle before the source of the electricity is a clean source seems hasty if coal is going to be the primary source of the power in your Eco friendly electric car why bother with the incontinence yet when the only benefit is zero emissions and there hasn't been a model yet that has been reliabile enough to compete with a proven combustion engine. One of them melts and lights on fire and another has run out of juice in less than 30m when it was being tested for a news report. We need to keep working on this stuff and do stuff like you say like develope ways to replace coal and oil with natural gas when possible because we have it domestically but while we re doing that we have to ,also in the short term, improve our means of getting our current source. You don't just stop using something you want to replace you phase it out as you can replace it with usable substitutes
 
Exactly, this pipeline is going to increase oil consumption. The EROI (Energy return on investment) on the tar sands is 5-10%. That's so ridiculously low that it's not even really worth extracting that oil, unless you're an oil company because it will make you money. That's not the way we should be going about this. Leave the tar sands alone, don't cut down thousands of acres of boreal forests that act as carbon sinks to strip mine the sands. Put the money from this project into researching new means of energy.
 
Uhm. I may be wrong, but they have 100% not starting building the Northern Gateway. Last time I checked the review panel set up by the NEB was hearing from intervenor's followed by oral comments from citizens at various hearings. Because so many people signed up to speak, the date they wanted to start building at if the project was approved will be pushed back most likely.

I believe this to be the case - anyone and their dog can get standing to speak in front of the NEB. I'm pretty sure the Ottawa rotary club has speaking time.

Northern Gateway crosses thousands of streams a rivers, and the company that is building it (Enbridge) has an average of 50 pipeline leaks or spills a year.

Enbridge operates lines in Alberta. Here is a map of the pipeline networks in Alberta and BC.

6842012005_150992c22e_z.jpg


As you can see there are a ridiculous number of lines and... oh, wait, shit, that doesn't actually show light pipelines.

light_pipelines.gif


So... yeah... there might be a couple of spills in a network that size every now and again. The thing is, lines like Gateway and Keystone, if properly built, are significant enough and high-priority enough for the spill likelihood to be relatively low and the response mearsures to a spill to be pretty significant, so it makes sense to work on ensuring that's the case. Doing so is good for the environment AND the oil companies.

In the route that they will ship the tankers through, a BC Ferry sank in 2006

I think the ferry sinking was pilot error wasn't it? I'm pretty sure the captain was found to be at fault, which no one was surprised about as he was reportedly a fuck-up.

Also, this pipeline is not to ship the oil we are currently producing from the tar sands out, but to make room for expansion, which will make it impossible for Canada to reach their energy goals.

Why is expanding our energy production capacity a bad thing??? Increasing exports of our most valuable natural resource is a positive step for the economy which will allow us to maintain the high standard of living Canadians are used to while working on improving aspects of our society we're not so pleased with, like health care wait times and standards. Maybe we can afford to pay teachers more. Provide tax incentives for alternative energy production (hell, we already incentivize wind farming like no tomorrow). Yknow, all that fun stuff that an expanded tax base and a spend-happy consumer population lets governments do.

Every single native group along the coast of the tanker route is opposed to it.

Yes, and every single one will end up signing off. The key for bands is to use whatever leverage they have at their disposal to get the best possible deal out of this that they can. They'll eventually be bought, for money or infrastructure or whatever ends up greasing the wheels. This is how things are done, which is fine because they have that negotiating position for a reason. It's their land.

Reasons why it's ridiculous, and if people have any sense, not going to happen.

There are points against it. You've made a few. Even for a second seriously believing that it's not going to happen, though, is not sense. It's the opposite of sense. It's going to happen. Delaying the inevitable is contrary to everyone's interests.
 
i understand people like the electric car, but they only go so far. once they run out of a charge it takes 13-16 hours to fully charge. people think that it is "clean power" since it comes from an outlet in the wall, but where does the power to that outlet come from............coal burning power plants. then people go oh there is wind power but in order to put up those multimillion dollar turbines you must have an area that gets a major amount of wind. out in kansas on i-70 you see the wind turbines. there are hundreds maybe a few thousand of them and not one was turning. that was a waste of money.......tax payers money...my money....your money. yes i believe that we will eventually run low on oil resources eventually but eventually = a hundred years. we need oil for multiple products not including fuel such as: plastics, rubber, lubrication for heavy machinery. etc. oil is needed. this pipeline will make us more powerful since we wont have to rely on a country like Saudi Arabia or China to give us oil. having the pipeline so close will lower prices of the fuel since we wont have to ship it across the pacific oh and save the fucking ocean less oil spills in the ocean. having the pipeline will = jobs in multiple markets, trucks transporting construction materials for hotels for the workers, homes for the workers, and materials for the pipeline, then transporting goods like food for the workers. then construction of roads to accompany the trucks and roads to make way for the pipeline.
 
The oil we get from this pipeline is going to be exported. It will not help lower gas prices in America and it will not decrease our dependency on the middle east. The oil is going to go to Latin America and Europe once it is refined. That means shipping it there in large takers anyway, after piping it down a 1700 mile pressurized pipeline.
 
source?

So far none of you have produced any scientific evidence or even any basic citation.

You are all retarded. My source for this is the preceding posts in the thread clearly highlighting high levels of mental retardation.
 
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/americans_oppose_the_keystone.html
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/kxlsecurity.asp

Obviously not peer reviewed and obviously biased but this is the most recent article I have read. I have read multiple articles on both sides understanding that they are going to be biased to their own side of the argument. I'm not about to go cite everything I post, this is NS not a report. You obviously have your mind made up that this pipeline will help and and won't be harmful, that's fine. I disagree with you 100% but these are our opinions. Why are we rushing to build a pipeline that has potential be cause more threat to our environment then anything else currently being built? This needs to be looked at properly with the proper environmental assessments, not rushed into building.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top