Trump to advance Keystone, Dakota Access pipelines

[K1052]

Yes, it is entirely true. It could be brought to Texas via the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.
The matter of the local tribes and the Canadian government preventing it is an entirely different subject.

That was indeed " largest inland oil spill, and one of the costliest spills in U.S. history ". But still pales in comparison to the many ( dozens ) other oil spills from ships in coastal areas.

Unless the invent the transporter, no it isn't possible.

You changed the argument from pipelines are better than tank cars in every respect to it's better than shipping by sea. Ok then.

 

[pcgeek11]

Unless the invent the transporter, no it isn't possible.

You changed the argument from pipelines are better than tank cars in every respect to it's better than shipping by sea. Ok then.

So it is impossible to transport oil from the Canadian Coast to Texas by ship?

That is incorrect. It was done before the Government stopped it. So it is possible.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/facts-oil-tanker-safety-canada-4513.html

I didn't change anything. I said that pipeline transportation is safer than Any other means of transportation in the grand scheme of things. Why do you think Canada has nearly 97% of its oil and gas through pipelines and not rail or truck. Much faster, efficient and safer. That is what I am still saying.

Nothing is totally safe. Nothing.

 

[K1052]

So it is impossible to transport oil from the Canadian Coast to Texas by ship?

That is incorrect. It was done before the Government stopped it. So it is possible.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/facts-oil-tanker-safety-canada-4513.html

I didn't change anything. I said that pipeline transportation is safer than Any other means of transportation in the grand scheme of things. Why do you think Canada has nearly 97% of its oil and gas through pipelines and not rail or truck. Much faster, efficient and safer. That is what I am still saying.

Nothing is totally safe. Nothing.

So...not possible then. Thanks.

 

[UglyCasanova]

This is just one more pipeline amongst the vast sea of them and has been mentioned before is the safest method of transporting it. Risk free? No, nothing is. But much better than via ship or rail.

 

[pcgeek11]

So...not possible then. Thanks.

So you don't know the definition of impossible and possible. Got it.

 

[K1052]

So you don't know the definition of impossible and possible. Got it.

If you cannot obtain regulatory approval to do something then it isn't possible for the purposes of this conversation.

 

[Bitek]

I don't get why we are doing Canada's bidding.

If a Canadian company can spend its own money to buy all the land, design, build and maintain itself, and pay us a hefty toll for our trouble, then OK.

But using eminent domain to steal American land for a foreign oil company is treasonous.

If they can't pay, they can fuck off.

 

[pcgeek11]

If you cannot obtain regulatory approval to do something then it isn't possible for the purposes of this conversation.

That is what I said to begin with. It could be done, except for the regulations and then you said it was impossible. Which is wrong. Regulations can be changed.

Don't be obtuse.

 

[Zorba]

I don't get why we are doing Canada's bidding.

If a Canadian company can spend its own money to buy all the land, design, build and maintain itself, and pay us a hefty toll for our trouble, then OK.

But using eminent domain to steal American land for a foreign oil company is treasonous.

If they can't pay, they can fuck off.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but do you feel the same about foreign owned/operated toll roads?

 

[agent00f]

Doesn't make it wrong, either.

I sympathize with Native Americans on many issues, but they lost. The losers don't get to dictate what happens to them at the end of a war or hostile takeover. It has never and will never work any other way. Treaties only work when both sides are capable of putting up a fight.

Jews almost had it coming, huh?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Remind me again which pipeline is going to kill us all.

When I did a research paper on domestic oil and gas pipelines there were around 200k miles worth of them stretched across the country which this map depicts quite nicely. I was initially opposed to the Keystone XL until I looked at it versus rail and ship incidents. Once I understood just how many problems there were I came to the conclusion that a pipeline is the safest way to transport crude oil and has strategic value that I feel makes it a necessity.

 

[Puffnstuff]

So it is impossible to transport oil from the Canadian Coast to Texas by ship?

That is incorrect. It was done before the Government stopped it. So it is possible.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/facts-oil-tanker-safety-canada-4513.html

I didn't change anything. I said that pipeline transportation is safer than Any other means of transportation in the grand scheme of things. Why do you think Canada has nearly 97% of its oil and gas through pipelines and not rail or truck. Much faster, efficient and safer. That is what I am still saying.

Nothing is totally safe. Nothing.

Some snowflakes will not accept the truth no matter how many times you provide them with evidence. Pipelines are monitored every step of the way and when a problem occurs it stops the flow until its corrected. In the upper Midwest many of the oil trains are not equipped with PTC's which means that hours can pass before anyone realizes that a derailment has occurred. Even some of the larger carriers haven't installed them yet because of the high associated costs and continue to receive waivers as they've past the mandatory due dates for having them.

Furthermore, pipelines confine the flow to a specific area so if there were a leak you know exactly where it happened at. If trains are going to continue to be allowed to carry crude, which is highly flammable, the tankers should have mandatory gps and radio tracking on them with status reporting so when a problem occurs a notification is sent out at that time with its location for the carrier to respond appropriately to.

 

[K1052]

That is what I said to begin with. It could be done, except for the regulations and then you said it was impossible. Which is wrong. Regulations can be changed.

Don't be obtuse.

What are you going to Make Canada Great Again or something?

You're the one being obtuse stating they can ship by tanker when they can't get approval to pipe it to either coast and have no prospects to do so.

 

[Exterous]

And will probably be buying more back again once it's paid for LOL.

If he sold them at all that puts him in a better light than most of congress.

Four university researchers examined 16,000 common stock transactions made by approximately 300 House representatives from 1985 to 2001, and found what they call “significant positive abnormal returns,” with portfolios based on congressional trades beating the market by about 6 percent annually.

And it certainly spans party lines. But even then you don't have to sell them. You can just give them to your wife or put them in a trust. Supposedly John Kerry never had a conflict of interest because the ~$65M their family had invested in companies lobbying him for favor was in his wife's trust.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/members-of-congress-get-a_n_866387.html

It complies with the ethics rules around trusts that say you can't know how they are invested. That doesn't preclude the elected official from mentioning things to the someone who does. I mean financial experts can't consistently beat the stockmarket but we've apparently elected economic masterminds to office

 

[MrDudeMan]

Jews almost had it coming, huh?

Honestly, you're a moron if you think that's what I said or meant. The Native Americans had no say in what happened to them whether it was right or not. The Jews had no say in what happened to them whether it was right or not. When you are conquered by another group of people, you don't have any leverage, so they will do what they want to do regardless of how you feel about it. Does that help clear it up for you dumbass?

The second part of my statement was about the amount of leverage a group of people may have and how they can use it. If you're strong enough to cause a significant roadblock to the hostile takeover, you may end up signing some kind of treaty. A treaty only works as long as both sides have some amount of power to back up their half of the enforcement. When Native Americans continued to dwindle in numbers, the treaty became meaningless because they no longer had any leverage. Back to your idiotic response - the Jews never had any of this. They just had to suffer through German aggression until someone came to their rescue.

Hopefully you can understand what I just wrote. I don't know any smaller words, so, if you're still confused, please just move on.

 

[pcgeek11]

What are you going to Make Canada Great Again or something?

You're the one being obtuse stating they can ship by tanker when they can't get approval to pipe it to either coast and have no prospects to do so.

Whatever you want to think. The facts speak for themselves.

And a grammar tip for you: instead of saying Impossible you should say Improbable.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The Keystone pipeline is all but a done deal. Get over it and move along.

 

[Darwin333]

Because it goes right through Native American land. Pipeline leaks, water gets poisoned, Natives die from thirst, nobody cares.

I was under the impression that it went NEAR but not through Native American land? As far as the water, it is literally impossible to pipe petrochemicals across the country without crossing water. This particular pipeline has to cross a hundred other waterways. There are countless pipelines that already cross major waterways and major sources of drinking water without which our economy would grind to a halt.

I find it rather ironic that people think that THIS pipeline is beyond evil but would never advocate shutting off all of the "evil" pipelines because they depend upon them for their very livelihoods and well-being yet are likely aging with far fewer safety features.

 

[Bitek]

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but do you feel the same about foreign owned/operated toll roads?

If it meets the criteria I listed? No.

I don't care for the meaningless symbology of the environmentalists making this a statement about climate change. It's counterproductive imo.

I do not like the liberal use of eminent domain, and certainly not to advantage a foreign corporation who is manipulating the political partisanship for its benefit.

 

[Thebobo]

Eminent domain is your friend.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Eminent domain is your friend.

It's not a case of eminent domain, it's the fact that the mining company owns the mineral rights to the land and has for decades.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not a case of eminent domain, it's the fact that the mining company owns the mineral rights to the land and has for decades.

How does that work though, do mineral rights give them the right to physical access to the property and to what end? Can they knock down dwellings, fencing and tear up farms in order to get to their "minerals"? I always assumed that mineral rights meant no one else could extract the minerals without the mineral rights owners permission/compensation. I would have never thought that it gave them free reign over your property.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Mineral rights only apply to the underground assets and the above ground property owner controls access to the above ground property unless there's a right of way clause in the above ground deed.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I don't get why we are doing Canada's bidding.

If a Canadian company can spend its own money to buy all the land, design, build and maintain itself, and pay us a hefty toll for our trouble, then OK.

But using eminent domain to steal American land for a foreign oil company is treasonous.

If they can't pay, they can fuck off.

These pipelines carry American oil too eh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline

 

[IronWing]

Whether the surface owner or the mineral rights owner gets to call the shots should be specified in the deed. In the Appalachian coal fields for example, the broad form deed was commonly used to sever the minerals from the surface. It gave the mineral rights holder almost unlimited right to access the minerals and leave the surface owner with the mess.

Surface owner rights vary from state to state but in most cases, the rights of the mineral estate trump the rights of the surface estate. On split estate lands with federally owned minerals, this relationship is explicitly stated in the original homestead deeds. As these homesteads were later subdivided the language didn't always transfer to the sub-parcels so now there are areas of dense urban development built on top of federal minerals where, in theory, a miner could stake claims and start mining.