GOP House fights for the Canadian economy

[Bowfinger]

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I was being factual as most all of those disasters your link cited involved gas pipelines, not oil. I thought this was an important point to note for those among us who prefer to be informed and not so easily misled by "Your cutesy link does nothing to actually inform this discussion". Oh, the irony.

In addition, do you really think you're contributing to informed discussion on this topic by questioning my rationality out-of-the-gate for merely alluding to a recent horrific disaster that significantly affected Canadian's negative perception of using rail to transport oil? More irony. You sir, are a piece of work imo.

You seem to be struggling to follow your own conversation. You posted your link in response to, "Canadians don't want oil travelling on trains." Specifically, you cited its fatalities as "47 reasons" "Canadians don't want oil travelling on trains." I merely pointed out those Canadians are irrational if that is their basis for preferring pipelines over rail since pipelines also have accidents that sometimes kill large numbers of people. It is as irrational as those who prefer to drive rather than fly because of recent news about air disasters. Singular incidents are no substitute for understanding actual statistics.

Now, if you are one of those irrational Canadians, I apologize for bruising your tender ego. I know the truth can hurt. If you are not one of those Canadians, then I wasn't talking about you. Your overreaction suggests you still have that chip on your shoulder.

Finally, yes, I do think I'm contributing to informed discussion by pointing out your singular example is an anecdote, not data, and that emotional overreactions to anecdotal events rather than data is irrational.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh boy. Retard fight.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You seem to be struggling to follow your own conversation. You posted your link in response to, "Canadians don't want oil travelling on trains." Specifically, you cited its fatalities as "47 reasons" "Canadians don't want oil travelling on trains." I merely pointed out those Canadians are irrational if that is their basis for preferring pipelines over rail since pipelines also have accidents that sometimes kill large numbers of people. It is as irrational as those who prefer to drive rather than fly because of recent news about air disasters. Singular incidents are no substitute for understanding actual statistics.

Now, if you are one of those irrational Canadians, I apologize for bruising your tender ego. I know the truth can hurt. If you are not one of those Canadians, then I wasn't talking about you. Your overreaction suggests you still have that chip on your shoulder.

Finally, yes, I do think I'm contributing to informed discussion by pointing out your singular example is an anecdote, not data, and that emotional overreactions to anecdotal events rather than data is irrational.

If you think that your link contributed to informed discussion, you're very mistaken in my opinion. It was highly misleading to post that link without acknowledging that most all of the disasters noted were related to gas pipelines, not oil pipelines.

But I do want to touch on your constant condescension towards myself as well as a host of others on this forum...it makes one wonder if your psychological "needs" are overshadowing any genuine interest in reasonable and informed discussion.

If discussion is truly your objective, you might want to start by treating others with some semblance of respect. But if you'd rather trade personal insults, I can do that too.

 

[cabri]

I find it hilarious that you're attempting to use this article to prove your point since it is completely biased (and an opinion piece, not actual forbes news).

Albert Huber is the president of Patterson Pump Company. Peter Bowe is the president of Ellicott Dredges, LLC. Both companies would stand to benefit economically if the Keystone XL pipeline were built.

the pipeline will be built anyhow.
Either through Canada and use Canadian ports for the terminus or it will be build through the US with US ports for the terminus.

Where do the jobs go?
The Canadian route will cost more for the project and create more jobs in Canada as a result.

 

[werepossum]

If you think that your link contributed to informed discussion, you're very mistaken in my opinion. It was highly misleading to post that link without acknowledging that most all of the disasters noted were related to gas pipelines, not oil pipelines.

But I do want to touch on your constant condescension towards myself as well as a host of others on this forum...it makes one wonder if your psychological "needs" are overshadowing any genuine interest in reasonable and informed discussion.

If discussion is truly your objective, you might want to start by treating others with some semblance of respect. But if you'd rather trade personal insults, I can do that too.

I think most of us understand completely that oil pipelines are closer in danger to sewage lines than to gas pipelines. It's just that some of us don't find it convenient to acknowledge that fact for political reasons. Kind of like how some of us pretend that the pipeline will likely displace 35% of all Nevadans, just with less overt stupidity.

 

[K1052]

the pipeline will be built anyhow.
Either through Canada and use Canadian ports for the terminus or it will be build through the US with US ports for the terminus.

Where do the jobs go?
The Canadian route will cost more for the project and create more jobs in Canada as a result.

Efforts by Kinder Morgan and Enbridge to get oils sands to Canadian ports have run into significant political/legal snags as well for similar reasons.

I say we let Canada keep the couple dozen long term jobs that Keystone promises and take all the risk to bring their product to market.

 

[Bowfinger]

If you think that your link contributed to informed discussion, you're very mistaken in my opinion. It was highly misleading to post that link without acknowledging that most all of the disasters noted were related to gas pipelines, not oil pipelines.

You know what they say about opinions. No matter. If even one of those explosions was from oil (and some were), I gave as least as many anecdotes as you did. Further, if you need to be so anal about which specific petro product was involved, you should learn the oil from your example is not the same kind of product intended for Keystone XL. Finally, no matter how badly you're compelled to attack, the fact remains that my comment was completely true. It is irrational to reach such conclusions based on a single, atypical incident.

But I do want to touch on your constant condescension towards myself as well as a host of others on this forum...it makes one wonder if your psychological "needs" are overshadowing any genuine interest in reasonable and informed discussion.

If discussion is truly your objective, you might want to start by treating others with some semblance of respect.

You reap what you sow. I've had many civil and respectful discussions with people who are willing to be civil and respectful. I've had such discussions with you, when you can keep your chip in check. When people act like asshats, however, I am perfectly capable of responding in kind.

But if you'd rather trade personal insults, I can do that too.

Indeed you did.

 

[Moonbeam]

I have heard the pipeline even if approved won't be built because it makes no economic sense.

 

[MongGrel]

This pipeline is such a farce. Veto away Obama.

GOP and it's supporters are still acting like they have some kind of credibility with this whole 'seeing into the future' act of theirs. Strange.

Pity they can't get this worked up over good ideas.

+1

 

[ElFenix]

Yeah, everyone knows the energy source of the future is proper tire inflation.

are you personally responsible or not? why is personal responsibility the rallying cry of the right, but when you ask them to be responsible they call you a jackass?


underinflated tires eat gas and are a hazard. keep up your maintenance you irresponsible bastards!


required tools for personal responsibility (if you don't have these i assume you are not personally responsible and would prefer to be a ward of the state):

 

[kage69]

I think most of us understand completely that oil pipelines are closer in danger to sewage lines than to gas pipelines. It's just that some of us don't find it convenient to acknowledge that fact for political reasons. Kind of like how some of us pretend that the pipeline will likely displace 35% of all Nevadans, just with less overt stupidity.

What a coincidence, I was just thinking how convenient it was for some to pretend the pipeline we're discussing is going to be carrying normal crude, when it fact it's a much more corrosive version that brings different maintenance and safety concerns with it.

Sewage eats away at the pipes where you live? Bummer.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Pick your poison "truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

Truck and rail shipments are up dramatically the last 2 years and are much more dangerous than pipelines. In fact, more oil was spilled by rail in 2013 than the last 4 decades in the U.S. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/20/215143/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in.html) and this doesn't count the Lac-Megantic rail incident in Canada where 47 people were killed and 1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in a single day.

If people are genuinely concerned with safety and the environment...pipelines, although not perfect, are the way to go for crude oil transit over land.

 

[bshole]

Pick your poison "truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat".


If people are genuinely concerned with safety and the environment...pipelines, although not perfect, are the way to go for crude oil transit over land.

Here's an idea, leave the oil in the ground and import the oil we need. That would settle the whole debate.

 

[K1052]

Pick your poison "truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

Truck and rail shipments are up dramatically the last 2 years and are much more dangerous than pipelines. In fact, more oil was spilled by rail in 2013 than the last 4 decades in the U.S. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/20/215143/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in.html) and this doesn't count the Lac-Megantic rail incident in Canada where 47 people were killed and 1.5 million gallons of crude oil spilled in a single day.

If people are genuinely concerned with safety and the environment...pipelines, although not perfect, are the way to go for crude oil transit over land.

Conventional crude yes. Dilluted bitumen no. Accepting additional capacity for dilbit is not in the US interest, particularity since little to none of it will enter the US market as refined product from Keystone XL.

The Kalamazoo River diluted bitumen spill has resulted in the costliest pipeline spill ever in the US (1.2B cleanup costs and still climbing).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Conventional crude yes. Dilluted bitumen no. Accepting additional capacity for dilbit is not in the US interest, particularity since little to none of it will enter the US market as refined product from Keystone XL.

The Kalamazoo River diluted bitumen spill has resulted in the costliest pipeline spill ever in the US (1.2B cleanup costs and still climbing).

I'll look into diluted bitumen. You'd rather ship it by rail or truck? Is that what you're saying? Anyway, I thought this graphic and article were interesting.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/oil-tank-trains-bakken-crude-accidents

 

[Spungo]

Here's an idea, leave the oil in the ground and import the oil we need. That would settle the whole debate.

That's exactly the point of the pipeline - import oil from Canada.

 

[bshole]

That's exactly the point of the pipeline - import oil from Canada.

I'm not too bright am I?

 

[K1052]

I'll look into diluted bitumen. You'd rather ship it by rail or truck? Is that what you're saying? Anyway, I thought this graphic and article were interesting.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/oil-tank-trains-bakken-crude-accidents

I'd rather not ship more of it through the US than we do now at all. Relatively little comes to the US on rail because you need a special, purpose built rail terminal to load/unload the special heated dilbit cars and the vast majority of US refineries lack them. The terminal to load unit train dilbit cards only opened about a year ago in Canada and they've been having trouble with it.