- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Energy Dept report lied then?
hey look another retarded post making shit up LMAO
Energy Dept report lied then?
FALSEAnd increase capacity with fewer and less severe environmental issues.
FALSEIt would have helped, no magic involved. The pipeline was much higher capacity than the existing line. It was also in addition to existing capacity. The difference is primarily shipped by rail.
weird that doesn't answer the question ill ask you AGAINPennies on the dollar. That is more than enough given the environmental benefit.
You were aware that XL was an environmental positive project, right?
falseEconomically sound is a given. That was checked to death before permits were issued.
nothgin to thank you proved how factually moneunatlelyy uneducated you are about this topic LAODon't thank me yet.
thread history proves differentWhy not. They have more facts than you can bring to bear.
also falseThe only reason it was shut down is opposition to the entire O&G industry. The project itself is environmentally beneficial and economically sound.
it is several of the largest aquifers in the USAFALSE
it was actually going to run through one of the largest water supplies in the us
FALSE
its Candain TAR oil, a very dirty oil that would go to asian markets mainly for plastics and other things of that nature and it STILL would not be complete even today
weird that doesn't answer the question ill ask you AGAIN
what would gar be today if it wasn't scraped
false
nothgin to thank you proved how factually moneunatlelyy uneducated you are about this topic LAO
thread history proves different
also false
wow that's embarrassing could you make your post look any more retarded next time
dont forget to answer the question you dodged
![]()
![]()
That is a strange comment. Expand and document.FALSE
it was actually going to run through one of the largest water supplies in the us
This is one reason why the pipeline is wanted. It would be designed to handle the viscous, acidic, and abrasive crude in volume and bypass the need for rail transport. Refineries in Louisianna have the capacity to handle the difficulties. They were constructed to handle the equally difficult Venezuelan crude.FALSE
its Candain TAR oil, a very dirty oil that would go to asian markets mainly for plastics and other things of that nature and it STILL would not be complete even today
WTF is gar? If that was a garbled "going on" then the crude would be shipped by rail.weird that doesn't answer the question ill ask you AGAIN
what would gar be today if it wasn't scraped
Document your claim.false
To the ad homs already.nothgin to thank you proved how factually moneunatlelyy uneducated you are about this topic LAO
Demonstrate.thread history proves different
You keep claiming that but always without support.also false
Already on your dodge train. How embarrassing for you.wow that's embarrassing could you make your post look any more retarded next time
dont forget to answer the question you dodged
![]()
![]()
Here I will help you out maybe IF you would read this you might learn somethingThat is a strange comment. Expand and document.
This is one reason why the pipeline is wanted. It would be designed to handle the viscous, acidic, and abrasive crude in volume and bypass the need for rail transport. Refineries in Louisianna have the capacity to handle the difficulties. They were constructed to handle the equally difficult Venezuelan crude.
It also frees the existing pipeline for less difficult crude.
WTF is gar? If that was a garbled "going on" then the crude would be shipped by rail.
What question have you asked? Mostly you have made unsupported claims, as is your norm. Asking you to document said has always been futile.
Document your claim.
The approval documents are a matter of public record so my part is done.
To the ad homs already.
You must be getting to the end of your list of approved talking points.
Demonstrate.
You keep claiming that but always without support.
I brought facts. What have your got? I am guessing nothing.
Already on your dodge train. How embarrassing for you.
The argument about the aquifers is specious IMO. This is not near-surface water and, as the map shows, they can literally be found anywhere you want to look.Here I will help you out maybe IF you would read this you might learn something
this shows the map of where they wanted to put it ( dotted line )![]()
What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?
How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.www.nrdc.org
and here is a map of the Aquifers in the US![]()
What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?
How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.www.nrdc.org
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...ylu=c2xrA3RleHQEaXQDQWxzb1RyeV9OBHNlYwNyZWwEc
If you look at the two maps you can see it was going to go thru Montana , SD . NEB, and if you look at the Aquifer map you can see Mon. SD and Nav all have a large aquifers in them
and there are Millions of people in those areas that depend on those Aquifers for their drinking water , and their normal water needs
and IF you read some of the links I provided you will find out that the EPA told the pipeline company that IF they would run it next to the original Keystone pipeline it would be okay and after Obama vetoed the bill that congress passed allowing it to be built they tried to override it and it failed by 4 votes and there were 4 Republican Senators that voted against the override
Have a nice day
already done by multiple posts and posters over the yearsThat is a strange comment. Expand and document.
and why its rejected in canada because the people and environmentalists are smart enough not to want spills all the time and the destruction the pipe line causes and it wont be used for gasolineThis is one reason why the pipeline is wanted.
no, it wouldn't it all carries the tar sandsIt also frees the existing pipeline for less difficult crude.
some one i repeated that you dodged, what would gas be today if the pipeline wasn't rejected by the WH and many other roadblocks in its way that still weren't clearedWhat question have you asked?
says YOU and ZERO facts hence why your posts are getting the shit kicked out of them my multiple posters LOLMostly you have made unsupported claims, as is your norm. Asking you to document said has always been futile.
thread history already does, your topical ignorance/denial is your problemsDocument your claim.
translation you still got nothing and facts are still destroying your lies, i can do this all day because its easyYou must be getting to the end of your list of approved talking points.
no you haven't again thread history proves thatI brought facts. What have your got? I am guessing nothing.
BOOM and you dodged again and ill ask AGAINAlready on your dodge train. How embarrassing for you.
well this was pushed by the KOCH bothers and their billionsThe argument about the aquifers is specious IMO. This is not near-surface water and, as the map shows, they can literally be found anywhere you want to look.
It's an attempt to make all pipelines impossible and indirectly attack the O&G industry itself. All of these objections could be raised during the approval process. The fact of the approval rebuts your contention that there is a significant danger.
Again, pipelines are an improvement on rail transport.
I'm actually on your side on this issue but you are so abrasive in your arguments and so quick to use vicious Ad Homonym attacks that your argument is poisoned. I couldn't possibly support you.hey look another retarded post making shit up LMAO
facts dont need anybody's nor do i but thank you for sharing, your stanceI'm actually on your side on this issue but you are so abrasive in your arguments and so quick to use vicious Ad Homonym attacks that your argument is poisoned. I couldn't possibly support you.
because of the type of posts I'm responding to and the history of those posts and posters in question there's no such thing"Political bias optional. Civility a MUST!"
Can we try a little bit to adhere to this standard? Please?
I hardly find this a convincing excuse for that kind of discourse. It's a shame, because I believe your argument is sound but that is lost in the abusive way you present and respond.facts dont need anybody's nor do i but thank you for sharing, your stance
because of the type of posts I'm responding to and the history of those posts and posters in question there's no such thing
a basic level of respect is given to all . . .
after that, additional respect is EARNED
and a basic level of respect can be lost
if you are a real account, you'll learn who is who and who normal honest conversations can be had with
i have no desire to convinece you of anything so thats meaninglessI hardly find this a convincing excuse for that kind of discourse.
its not an argument, its just amix of reality and factsIt's a shame, because I believe your argument is sound but that is lost in the abusive way you present and respond.
you're welcome, good job and good luck to youI am indeed learning who is who and who normal honest conversations can be had with. Thank you.
And the Dodge Train rolls on.already done by multiple posts and posters over the years
Canada was upset when we canceled it.and why its rejected in canada because the people and environmentalists are smart enough not to want spills all the time and the destruction the pipe line causes and it wont be used for gasoline
its like you now absolutely nothing about this project LMAO
The tar sands would be diverted. It's the point of the project.no, it wouldn't it all carries the tar sands
The Dodge train is in full course.some one i repeated that you dodged, what would gas be today if the pipeline wasn't rejected by the WH and many other roadblocks in its way that still weren't cleared
says YOU and ZERO facts hence why your posts are getting the shit kicked out of them my multiple posters LOL
thread history already does, your topical ignorance/denial is your problems
facts don't care about your feelings
translation you still got nothing and facts are still destroying your lies, i can do this all day because its easy
facts will never lose to posts like yours, that's what makes it so fun
no you haven't again thread history proves that
BOOM and you dodged again and ill ask AGAIN
do you try to make your retarded post fail this hard and provided entertainment for us to mock and laugh at? . so much fun, i love it
what would gas be today if the pipeline wasn't rejected by the WH and many other roadblocks in its way that still weren't cleared?
![]()
![]()
You might as well ask for world peace.I'm actually on your side on this issue but you are so abrasive in your arguments and so quick to use vicious Ad Homonym attacks that your argument is poisoned. I couldn't possibly support you.
"Political bias optional. Civility a MUST!"
Can we try a little bit to adhere to this standard? Please?
Nobody is arguing that pipelines can be safer and move a lot more oil just don't put them where they can contaminate peoples drinking waterThe argument about the aquifers is specious IMO. This is not near-surface water and, as the map shows, they can literally be found anywhere you want to look.
It's an attempt to make all pipelines impossible and indirectly attack the O&G industry itself. All of these objections could be raised during the approval process. The fact of the approval rebuts your contention that there is a significant danger.
Again, pipelines are an improvement on rail transport.
That's everything.Nobody is arguing that pipelines can be safer and move a lot more oil
That's nowhere.just don't put them where they can contaminate peoples drinking water
As was this.Trans Canada pipeline company does not have a very good track record when it comes to keeping oil inside their pipes
Now you are repeating already covered points.and on top of it Tar sand oil is very corrosive and eats the pipe from the inside out and they can't see what is happening till there is a leak
Here is a search and links about their track record
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...jExNDcwMDU1OQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1wdHktYnJvd3Nlcl
https://boldnebraska.org/keystone-pipeline-spill-history/
wow 22 spills in 12 years and some really big ones
yes some are real small probably because there were people right there when it happened and others in the hundreds of thousands of gallons
latest one 588,000 gallons last Dec
as I said I wouldn't trust this company with a tar sand oil pipeline seeing it is so corrosive
and with their pipelines that transport Tar sand oil getting older they will start leaking more as the tar sand oil eats the pipe away from the inside out
Have a nice day
Hey look ANOTHER failed and retarded dodge post that answers zero questions and is a personal attack again me, doesn't back up any of your false claims in anyway and easily gets the shit kicked out LMAOAnd the Dodge Train rolls on.
Canada was upset when we canceled it.
Environmentalists are not trying to be fair or give genuine arguments. They are attacking the concept of extracting oil.
The tar sands would be diverted. It's the point of the project.
Reread the ... Never mind. You aren't interested in discussion much less an honest one.
The Dodge train is in full course.
If you buy a fact let me know.
You might as well ask for world peace.
Taunting is what Agent J does. Check his thread history.
The Keystone XL was going to be a branch of the Keystone Pipeline that currently exists pictured below which is a Canadian pipeline owned by TC Energy that carries Canadian tar sand oil for Asian markets but was never built. It had many issues being built fo over 10 years due to environmental concerns and eminent domain issues.
View attachment 67380265
For those of you claiming that this would have magically helped the situation we are in now and we wouldn't be in it if it was built can you tell us what the average "gas" prices would factually be
in us (currently around 4.25)?
in the world (currently about 4.90)?
thanks!
oh yeah and for those that just think the pipeline was just "shut off" and needs to be turned back on, i wouldn't even post if i was you LOL
I NEVER said they weren'tThat's everything.
That's nowhere.
The fact that aquifers are ubiquitous is why this argument is specious. It is also after the fact. The time to raise it was during the approval process.
As was this.
Now you are repeating already covered points.
If you could show that it was not safer than the status quo you might have something. So far, you haven't tried.
welp so far everything in the OP still stands . . . .wonder why its triggered some nutters almost a year later?
did i miss this in the loon tunes news cycles of fox, newsmax, aon and other bat shiti insane propaganda and false narrative pushers? LMAO
so here we are int he same spot
The Keystone XL was going to be a branch of the Keystone Pipeline that currently exists pictured in the quote above which is a Canadian pipeline owned by TC Energy that carries Canadian tar sand oil for Asian markets but was never built. It had many issues being built for over 10 years due to environmental concerns and eminent domain issues.
if it had ZERO road blocks there were gusitmates it could be completed last year and possible running by this spring
but those facts aside
again for those of you claiming that this would have magically helped the situation we are in now and we wouldn't be in it if it was built can you tell us what the average "gas" prices would factually be
by all means guesstimate and support your guess with something intellectual, economically sound nad how the XL would fix the situation
thanks!
![]()
![]()
What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?
How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.www.nrdc.org
![]()
Keystone XL pipeline: Why is it so disputed?
As President Biden cancels the Keystone XL pipeline, we look at its history of controversy.www.bbc.com![]()
Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline had secured most of its funding, it was only 8% constructed
In the weeks following U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to scrap the Keystone XL oil pipeline, posts on social media have claimed that the project “was in Phase 4 & just about completed” and that it had been “paid for” by the time Biden “pulled the plug.” While it is...www.reuters.com
![]()
COLUMN-Keystone, the long way round to China: John Kemp
Canada badly needs to find a way to get its crude to customers in Asia and avoid the oversupplied North American market to fetch a better price for its oil.www.reuters.com
welp so far everything in the OP still stands . . . .wonder why its triggered some nutters almost a year later?
did i miss this in the loon tunes news cycles of fox, newsmax, aon and other bat shiti insane propaganda and false narrative pushers? LMAO
so here we are int he same spot
The Keystone XL was going to be a branch of the Keystone Pipeline that currently exists pictured in the quote above which is a Canadian pipeline owned by TC Energy that carries Canadian tar sand oil for Asian markets but was never built. It had many issues being built for over 10 years due to environmental concerns and eminent domain issues.
if it had ZERO road blocks there were gusitmates it could be completed last year and possible running by this spring
but those facts aside
again for those of you claiming that this would have magically helped the situation we are in now and we wouldn't be in it if it was built can you tell us what the average "gas" prices would factually be
by all means guesstimate and support your guess with something intellectual, economically sound nad how the XL would fix the situation
thanks!
![]()
![]()
What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?
How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.www.nrdc.org
![]()
Keystone XL pipeline: Why is it so disputed?
As President Biden cancels the Keystone XL pipeline, we look at its history of controversy.www.bbc.com![]()
Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline had secured most of its funding, it was only 8% constructed
In the weeks following U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to scrap the Keystone XL oil pipeline, posts on social media have claimed that the project “was in Phase 4 & just about completed” and that it had been “paid for” by the time Biden “pulled the plug.” While it is...www.reuters.com
![]()
COLUMN-Keystone, the long way round to China: John Kemp
Canada badly needs to find a way to get its crude to customers in Asia and avoid the oversupplied North American market to fetch a better price for its oil.www.reuters.com
I wonder if thesepeople on the rightnutters in the US ever wondered why the Canadians didn't want it built to their west coast
maybe they like their fresh water
have a nice day
You are getting slow.Hey look ANOTHER failed and retarded dodge post that answers zero questions and is a personal attack again me, doesn't back up any of your false claims in anyway and easily gets the shit kicked out LMAO
I love it
CHOOOOOO CHOOOOOO
View attachment 67434118
ill ask you AGAIN and will watch your post dodge, deflect attack and or straman AGAIN
what would gas be today if the pipeline wasn't rejected by the WH and many other roadblocks in its way that still weren't cleared
![]()
![]()
This is simply wrong.Yep the XL pipeline was phase 4 of the larger Keystone pipeline NOT in phase 4 of construction
it was only 8% complete and if Biden didn't stop it it still wouldn't be complete
have a nice day
BOOM!!!! and another dodge by your postsYou are getting slow.
You climbed started dodging questions multiple posts ago
This is simply wrong.
The project was in construction phase. That means all the ground testing and foundation work is finished and 8% of the actual pipeline is in place. The construction would have been completed over a year ago. That leaves only testing and certification.
WHY don't YOU READ the link everything you need to know about the Keystone XL pipeline before you make stupid statements ?This is simply wrong.
The project was in construction phase. That means all the ground testing and foundation work is finished and 8% of the actual pipeline is in place. The construction would have been completed over a year ago. That leaves only testing and certification.
again why don't you read the link I postedThis is simply wrong.
The project was in construction phase. That means all the ground testing and foundation work is finished and 8% of the actual pipeline is in place. The construction would have been completed over a year ago. That leaves only testing and certification.