Green groups to Obama: "Let's make a deal" on Keystone? Don't even think about it.

There are 6 comments on the Hot Air story from Sep 24, 2013, titled Green groups to Obama: "Let's make a deal" on Keystone? Don't even think about it.. In it, Hot Air reports that:

It's now been just over five years since TransCanada first filed an application for a presidential permit to build a cross-border pipeline, but that hasn't done anything to temper the radical eco-lobbies' relentlessly combative campaign based on nothing more than untenable arguments and outrageous outrage.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hot Air.

LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#1 Sep 24, 2013
I noticed the website name. Truth in advertising?
dhykora ARTS PAUL

Calgary, Canada

#2 Sep 24, 2013
...BAH HUMBUG....go forth romantic Alberta...Oil and Gas...eh...

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

Regina

#3 Sep 26, 2013
Well, they can have a pipeline that is monitored 24/7/365 OR, they can have THOUSANDS of tanker cars rolling through their countryside every day.
Cuz one way or t'other, that oil is going to the US.
But when the rail companies, who stand to make a boat load of cash from this, exclaim that rail is NOT the best/safest method for transporting petroleum products, I think it would behoove us all to pay attention.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#4 Sep 27, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
Well, they can have a pipeline that is monitored 24/7/365 ..
Please explain how this company can miss spills for WEEKS despite being continuously monitors. Are there holidays? Consecutive vacations?

The issue is NOT the relative safety of rail vs pipeline but the LACK of serious attention to spill prevention, leak detection and maintenance. No amount of PR bullshit will change that.

“Seriously guys...”

Since: May 12

Regina

#7 Sep 29, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how this company can miss spills for WEEKS despite being continuously monitors. Are there holidays? Consecutive vacations?
The issue is NOT the relative safety of rail vs pipeline but the LACK of serious attention to spill prevention, leak detection and maintenance. No amount of PR bullshit will change that.
No, the issue according to Obama is global warming. How does a pipeline contribute MORE to global warming than trains hauling an equivalent amount of petroleum products?
Not to mention the propaganda the environazis have been throwing around about the oil sands. Despite the hilarious claims from the left, W2W the oil sands GHG emissions are roughly a little higher than FIFTY PERCENT of what is popularly claimed.
That fifty percent number comes from a company whose job it is to monitor and measure emissions from fossil fueled power plants as well as oil, natural gas and open pit coal fields around the globe. The claim was further backed up by both NASA and Nature Magazine.
The aforementioned company, whose name currently escapes me, has the world's largest database of our planet's energy supply. From extraction facilities to generation and motive power and everything in between.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#8 Sep 29, 2013
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the issue according to Obama is global warming.
Not very smart are you. The issues are plural and run from environmental contamination of critical ground water to loss of jobs in the US oil industry to increases in the price of gasoline once the restrictions on capacity from the Oil Sands is abolished, to risk vs reward for the US which is just going to EXPORT the oil.
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the issue according to Obama is global warming. How does a pipeline contribute MORE to global warming than trains hauling an equivalent amount of petroleum products?
Setting up a 'strawman' based on one phrase of many by the US President is stupid.
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
Not to mention the propaganda the environazis have been throwing around about the oil sands. Despite the hilarious claims from the left, W2W the oil sands GHG emissions are roughly a little higher than FIFTY PERCENT of what is popularly claimed.
It has about 50% higher emissions per unit of oil than conventional crude, but you can have examples like the heavy crude from California that are about equal. The issue, as I see it is risk vs reward. The emissions are secondary since oil is still involved. If you want to reduce emissions, insulation and green energy is the way to go.
Whisgean Zoda wrote:
<quoted text>
The aforementioned company, whose name currently escapes me, has the world's largest database of our planet's energy supply. From extraction facilities to generation and motive power and everything in between.
But your strawman is not the issue. MANY concerns are involved.

MY post was merely to point out that there is no significant difference between moving oil by rail or pipe if the company is NEGLIGENT and the company involved has a VERY bad record on pipeline maintenance and monitoring.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Blitzking 161,925
News Cartoon contest organizer known for inflammator... 4 min serfs up 36
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 min NorCal Native 59,617
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min Namu Myoho Renge Kyo 53,033
News 5 Reasons The American Dream Is Eluding Black P... 8 min R12 Freon 1,122
News Russia providing arms to Ukrainian separatists:... 9 min Zeppelin 1,127
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 13 min X -Man- 326,269
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 25 min RoxLo 1,224,038
News Riots in Baltimore raise questions about police... 1 hr Who 607
More from around the web