eddie, after reading your posts today, I have to say that you are half right. The oil and gas saga that has been going on in America for decades is a sordid tale of greed, mistrust and misguided effort. As an example, take refineries, oil companies know that it is expensive in the short term to build a new structure and to develop an increase in capacity will ultimately lower oil and gas prices. Politicians in proposed localities want the jobs a new refinery will bring, but not the headaches. Environmentalists are opposed to any possibility of damage. The point is that no one wants new refineries, albiet for their own reasons. And, now everyone can blame the other side. We have plenty of oil, natural gas and coal in these United States, but because the status quo is so comfortable, politicians and developers are not going to really put forth the effort to really become energy independant. Environmentalists will claim victory and the blame game goes on. And, as far as subsidies to oil companies are concerned, the fed does not send a check for a billion dollars to BP or anyone else. The subsidies are in the form of tax benefits, oil companies simply get tax write off’s, and they are called subsidies. Many other industries have similar write off’s. I would institute tax reform to reflect collection at the tip of the spear and eliminate taxes paid by consumers at the pump. But, either way any taxes are always paid by the consumer. In the end, this is just to say that all these issues are easily twisted by all sides to reflect their point of view. It is truly a complex issue.

eddie . . . the EPA is the reason No New Refineries have been built in over 30 years . . .
One more thinkg eddie . . . its Oil Sands, the Tar Pits are in California. And, oil sands oil is LIGHTER than much of the Western US oil.

Get off the kool aid Dale in bringing up tar pits. Tar sands are much heavier than most oils so the only one you are fooling is yourself.

eddie the word is moot. The point is that the oil industry will survive without subsidies wich as you can guess I am against. As it is the bio-fuels are subsidized to the point of the vehicles that burn them. We would be better off using fossil fuels such as with our coal powered cars. And you did miss the point of the acreage that could be turned into food production not fuel production.

@ eddie, We havn’t built a refinery in the past thirty years because of the envirenmentalists.

Could be that those refineries caused so much damage to the surrounding areas that someone had to put a moratorium on building new ones. I say build new ones and close the dysfunctional ones.

“We havn’t built a refinery in the past thirty years because of the environmentalists.”

Well, I hear you but I very much question just how true it might be. A little true, or a lot true.

and then too, ~I have a lot of family that lives and works the gulf coast bayou areas. Freeport, Klute, Brazoria, Lake Jackson ( Ron Paul’s area home)

Few men live to get really old down in this part of Texas anymore. Both men and women senior years is fraught with strange medical problems. I did have a uncle Jeff Davis that made it to 99, he died 15 years ago. These later generations or not being as lucky. From 55 on, life get rather tricky and lot depending where you have work at the plant.

I have a close cousin Bell, we were always tight, at 63 her days at filled with carrying all the older ones to the doctor, She has nine sisters and was next to the youngest. Between tending to stock and getting everyone to the doctor, Bell is a very busy woman these days.

If you figure 8 sister with eight husbands, plus all the aunts and uncles make a lot of people. ~ of course that number is being whittled down.

Like myself, Bell has accepted the family role of overseer and get it done, early responder person.

Not to get distracted here,~~~

~ But living in the shadows of Dow Chemical company has some serious “down sides” and of course they like to keep that fact low and hidden as much as possible. Dow is a major employer of a large region of South Texas.

So I;m asking you ~ how much do you really know about Chemical refineries and what issues the industry and the people who work them must contend with?

Do you have any experience with living within 10 miles of a concrete plant, or a slaughter house? a major train switching yard?
They all come with up and down sides.

Can I send you a box of pads Dale for you are sure on the rag.

your sad intellectual level never ceases to amaze me. Good grief.

You mean smart azz Dale? Yes he has been an intellectual midget today.

“You mean smart azz Dale? Yes he has been an intellectual midget today.”

If Dale is an intellectual midget you are a speck of intellectual dust.

Eddie is great at dishing out nastiness but then denies his infantile statements.

The refined product swould be distributed just like it is now. Most would go to terminal points by existing pipelines then be distributed by tanker from the terminal points to the local distribution centers so no significant if any increase on trucks carrying the refined product.

There are 142 refineries in the US and Texas has the most capacity and then Louisiana. California has several also.

eddie . . . the Koyota Treaty was based on nonsense science . . . neither China or India were included in the treaty . . . go get some facts.
After the Klinton regeme with krazy Al nogotiating CO2 reductions . . . the Senate voted 95 to 0 to not sign the dumb treaty.
No countries that signed the treaty reduced their CO2 output . . . no countries came anywhere near their reduction targets.
Today . . . we know that CO2 does not control the termperature of the globe . . . it is a benign, colorless, ododless gas the enables plants to grow.

I didn’t mention India and although China was not on board in 1997 they did endorse the treaty in 2001 but wouldn’t sign it unless the USA did. So go ahead and play loose with the facts.

@ eddie. Do you know who is one of the founders of and stands to make a lot of money from the Chicago carbon exchange? (Cap & trade)
None other than Barak Obama.

@ eddie. There are 15 different jobs bills that the Republican house has sent to the Senate. However Harry Reid won’t bring any of them to the floor even for discussion.We have a Democratic “do nothing” Senate thats holding up the works. With the left leaning laberal news media, you won’t hear about this unless you watch Fox news. And before you say it; if Fox news lied constantly, they wouldn’t be the number one rated news channel.

Joyce, I have my refrigerator working right now on 6, 15 watt panels, two golf cart batteries, but it took a 2000 watt inverter to give the neccessary 500 watts 2 second starting boost, running current is 124 watts, cut the thermostat wires and use them to switch the inverter,(low amps at that point) then use a AC delay contactor in the 110v line to allow the inverter to start before the sudden starting load. that allows the inverter to shutoff between refer running cycles.

Wow, Carlos, thanks so much! I really needed this info, it will be a great help!

Somebody told me that the oil from ND is to be sent south with the new to be built Transcanda pipeline.

eddie . . . you are a “Mental Gulag” . . . no facts, just enviro-nonsense. The choice is yours . . . Oil Tankers from the ME Despots – Conflict Oil . . . OR . . . oil from Canada. But if the US prefers Tankers in the Gulf . . . thats OK . . . cause Canada will just sell their excess oil to the Chinese, they are building a LNG Port now . . . be real easy to add a crude oil dock.

eddie . . . no one has “Soiled” the environment more than the left . . . the socialists/progressives/communists all preside over the most POLLUTED Countries On The PLANET!!! FACT!!!
Go to Russia, China, North Korea . . . even here in the US I would submit that the most polluted states are run by dimmicraps!!!

I don’t live by the standards of those countries Dale. As a US citizen I don’t have much control over their environmental laws(do you).Living in a great country like America doesn’t mean you have to settle for mediocre like you apparently want. I’ll take clean air and water over whatever you desire. I’m fully aware of the environmental disasters in Russia (Lake Baikal) and those in coastal Nigeria.

TransCanada has a poor track record–14 oil spills in their first year of operation.

TC Pipelines has been in business for over 50 years . . . you just have to stop reading Enviro-Loon Stuff.

What are you snorting Dale you nasty boy? Trans Canada is the one lobbying for the pipeline and Paul Elliot one of their lead spokesman and been doing it for two years. He has also been doing it illegally because entities(agents) for foreign corporations are not allowed to lobby in Washington.There is also other undisclosed lobbying going on too if that matters to you. When the environmental impact statement was written two Trans Canadian employees and one Trans Canadian consultant put in written comments. Yet the independent report by John Stansbury was left out. Which means the oil companies are writing the rules to get the pipeline built. Americans should insist on seeing that independent review before anything is decided.

Try “List of oil spills” on the Internet.

Claire, we still use well water, but we are way out in the country, and few chemicals are used on our farm. Our water is the best, tests pure constantly, and taste better than bottled water. Our place is not a rarity. There are many of us who live “in the woods” that have excellent water to drink. The problem is now, the counties are trying to put water lines in our area, and FORCE us to drink their chemical laden “city” water. I can’t believe, in America, that we can be forced to drink poison. I am a retired chemist, and I know what is put in the water. That crap will kill you. Our well is 278 feet deep, and if all people could drink deep well water instead of the chemicals that cities SELL to residents, everyone would be healthier. I will fight to keep my well water! It’s all about money anyway.

Joyce, Checkout Cape Coral Florida (lee County) the city also put in lines for “Free” recycled sewer water, as a sop to the destroyed septictanks and plugged wells $27000 mandatory connect charges, a lien on your home, then they GOT THE PIPES CROSSED one section of the city was watering with flouridated water and DRINKING the sewer water!!! Isn’t government wonderful??

Yeah, I want to trust them, alright!

Joyce from Loris— My point was that we NEVER checked our well water. We NEVER became ill from drinking this water. Now it has to be tested.

I agree, Claire. What good are jobs when the land and people are destroyed to make them. It’s like the coal business in West Virginia. People are dying (and have been dying for many years)because of the coal industry, and the beautiful mountains of W. Virginia are being destroyed. When the job you have causes you to die earlier than you might have, what good is it?

Building a pipeline is like Mining Coal????
THAT IS JUST FRIGGIN DUMB . . .
The land is not destroyed, the pipe is burried under the ground . . . there are shutoffs valves, pipeline problems are rare and small . . . compared to say a Super Tanker in the Gulf with millions of barrels of oil in the water.
Of course Karolyn . . . you could choose to live like the Engels Family . . . remember Little House on the Prairie . . . that’s what the Enviro-Loons want.

Little House on the Prairie reminds me of how I grew up.

You don’t trust oil companies . . . but you trust Govt???
You and eddie got to stop drinking the kool-aide.
There are 10′s of thousands of miles of pipelines in North America . . . another 1500 miles is insignificant . . . especially if you want to drive to work in the future. Of course, if you stay home and ride a bicycle . . . good luck with that!!!

Why should anyone trust oil companies anymore than government so you point is absurd. Who says the pipeline has to go to Port Arthur when there are refineries in Oklahoma.There is already a pipeline going to that state and it mostly avoids the Ogallala Aquifer. Either way there is the earthquake problem that has increased in Oklahoma. That area is also part of the new Keystone pipeline route. Oklahoma use to get 50 minor earthquakes a year and now(2010) they had 1,047. So no matter if the pipeline is built above or below the damage would be immense. Maybe even more so if it’s underground because it wouldn’t be detected as fast. That could indeed finish off the Ogallala Aquifer.

@ Bryll,,
You are correct in the points you made.
As to this article, with two of O’s base groups in opposition on this he’ll dither, but go with the bigger contributor group. Which, my guess, is unions.

Does it balance out? Destroy the land and wildlife, pollute the atmosphere, but make money. What is left in the end is a big fat zero.

Karolyn,

You’re right, it doesn’t balance out. The net benefit to the economy is greater than the net harm to the environment. Keep in mind that the dirtiest countries in the world are also generally the poorest. Therefore, countries with vibrant economies have the money to maintain clean environments. Shutting down our industries in the name of ecological stewardship, is just another way of actually making the environment dirtier. (Law of unintended consequence.)

“To conquer, first divide!”

A pipeline doesn’t prevent what you describe since it only eliminates those emissions to the refinery….it still has to be shipped to it’s
point of sale. Since the infrastructure HERE (oil refineries) are as
bad or worse than everything else that has been allowed to depreciate,
new refineries with improved technologies would be better solutions
and since it appears that new (oil) discoveries will be located farther north, Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, etc. new refineries closer to
these sources would make more sense.

Water is also going to be a problem in the future, an since the aquifer involved is critical the risk far outweighs any benefits.

Fortunately, the area’s concerned in these new finds, are located in
under populated and underdeveloped area’s……which permits a bit of
forward thinking regarding rebuilding infrastructure in anticipation of the industries you mention, which rely on petroleum, which is useful for other things besides a fuel source.

The oil industry has escaped any responsibility for the damage the industry has caused which keeps the price low, and defers the cost
to the taxpayer in any number of ways……were these calculations included in the actual price, the cost of oil as fuel would be prohibitive.

But the reality here will become clear over time…..

“Do not ask for whom the bell tolls………”

“new refineries with improved technologies would be better solutions”

Agreed however you have to get the EPA and the other federal alphabet agencies to sign off on the building of new refineries.
As it stands now the feds will not approve the building any new refineries.

“To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

Which is wierd because most of the existing refineries are both dangerous and extremly toxic to everything in the immediate vicinity.
They would all qualify to be “super fund” sites, although that would take a bit of a memory stretch for most people.

There have been spills on the Alaska pipeline route mostly due to rusting joints. So pipelines do leak. We just had the pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River and another major one on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The Keystone project is much bigger than any of these other projects and traverses the Ogallala Aquifer. How much more damage to the environment are we willing to endure? What will it take to make these energy companies more responsible? How much collateral damage bond will these oil companies be putting up to protect those 8 states. Yes blame the environmentalist even though they aren’t the ones doing the damage and are only protecting our nations drinking water.

eddie………how many hundreds of thousands of pipelines are there in the US that have had NO leaks?

Probably most leak considering they all rust or crack over time.

Ah, but you have no evidence just an opinion based on your opposition to pipelines.

Looks like I posted more proof than you have.(Yellowstone River break) so take a hike and come back when you can be wiser instead of a wise azz.

But we are not discussing the Yellowstone river break we are discussing the hundreds of thousands miles of other pipelines in the US.

You don’t know where they all are either. I’m judging from what has to be replaced in Colorado. Pipes don’t rust as fast out here (dryer) than much of the East and South where they do corrode faster. .

What about the destruction of the land and displacement of wildlife?

Dumb . . . dumb . . . dumb . . .
The pipeline will be burried below the ground, the animals will walk by without ever knowing its there, the farmers will till their fields . . . life will go on . . . just like the other 70 odd thousand miles of pipelines in North America.

It’s the chemicals mixed in with the tar sands that are the greater threat to ground water.

Natural Oil flows into the rivers there daily.
The only way to tell if it’s “processed” oil is by checking for the presence of Naptha. If found operations are stopped immediately and an investigation commenced. Albertans are greatly aware of this and take all possible precautions.

Eddie . . . its “OIL SANDS” . . . the tar pits are in California.
The oil recovered from the sand is actually lighter than some of the oil recovered in the Western US . . . hate to confuse you with FACTS!!!

Dale, FYI…Bituminous sands, colloquially known as “oil sands or tar sands”, are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit. The sands contain naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, water, and a dense and extremely viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen (or colloquially “tar” due to its similar appearance, odour, and colour). Oil sands are found in large amounts in many countries throughout the world, but are found in extremely large quantities in Canada and Venezuela.

The crude bitumen contained in the Canadian oil sands is described by Canadian authorities as “petroleum that exists in the semi-solid or solid phase in natural deposits. Bitumen is a thick, sticky form of crude oil, so heavy and viscous (thick) that it will not flow unless heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. At room temperature, it is much like cold molasses”.

Are you drunk on stupid today Dale. Who said anything about tar pits?

HE WILL KILL THE JOBS,OF COURSE,, DOESN’T MATTER WHO THE BASE SUPPORT IS,,, WE ALL KNOW THIS MAN IS AN ILLEGAL MUSLIM THAT HATES THE GREAT SATAN,, HE WILL SAY WE CAN JUST SHIP THE OIL, USING FOREIGN SHIPS OF COURSE, FROM CANADA TO THE TEXAS REFINERIES,, KILLING THE GREAT SATAN UNDER THE GUISE OF SAVING THE PLANET, IS HIS ONLY CONCERN,,,

The more he tries to straddle this fence, the more likely he is to castrate himself politically.

Evidence eddie? I see no evidence just your opinion.

It should have said below instead of “blow” but that would be beside the point with Opal because like SC Opal never offers anything substantial either.

I learned what to post by reading your posts and copying you.

That’s all you can say Opal. How about what is your opinion on the environmental impact with Keystone? Is being condescending all you have to offer?

eddie – there are 10′s of thousands of miles of pipelines in North America . . . so, why is this 1700 miles a problem??? Me thinks you speak from a position of ZERO KNOWLEDGE!!!

This one pipeline is different because they want to build it over the marshlands of the ogallala aquifer in nebraska, and take that land through imminent domain. I don’t understand why they don’t leave that productive land alone and build the pipeline near the existing transcontinental pipelines already in place through nebraska. It might cost a bit more to build, but it would prevent all this disagreement, create jobs, not be as environmentally risky, and most importantly respect the civil liberties of the current landowners.

From what I have read about the ogallala it is an underground water source not surface water.

…and it’s running out of water from over usage. Will the Keystone project drive a stake through it’s heart.

At last, a sane comment on this discussion. The directions plainly ask that nothing slanderous be posted, yet this particular discussion is full of slanderous epithets, all delivered in an irrational tone. I can’t say this without sounding like a goody-goody stuffed shirt, but I say it anyway: don’t air your frustrations under the guise of expressing opinion. I oppose the Keystone XL project for environmental reasons. To pollute the Ogalalla aquifer is to jeopardize many watersheds, much soil and therefore many needed crops, vast flocks of birds and other animals with whom we share the planet, and ultimately the quality of life. Add to this that soon oil production in North Dakota and south of there will soon be in full force, to judge from investor intelligence I receive, and the heartland of the North American continent will be trashed. Add to that the proposed drilling of the Arctic, which I picture as being like the Sherwin-Williams paint can tipped out and dripping down the rest of the earth, and you have an ineradicable monument to pelf and greed at worst, to shortsightedness at least. If Obama does give Keystone XL the green light, I would hope against hope that he requires for this and all new oil projects a hefty chunk of the profits be devoted to researching and implementing alternative energy.

Thank you kirk.

@eddie. Oil and water DON’T mix dumba$$.

More childish wisdom from Tim.