Bob Mason, a stewardship manager for the company that owns Oak Glen Nature Preserve, told the Enquirer that the spill "could definitely have been worse later in the spring when all of our wildlife is coming out of hibernation" and that the frozen turf helped to contain the spill.
I believe we need to advance fusion power, it could not only help our environment, but could also enable scale economies so vital to more developed political-economies.
Thousands of Gallons of Crude Oil Spills in Ohio Nature Preserve | Weather Underground
At least it was American crude. Some want us to spill Canadian tar sands crap all over too.
Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.
Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.
Let the Canadians spill their oil for China on their own soil. Why won't they allow a pipeline to their West Coast? Because they are not greedy fools like some here.
:doh what part of "we are still going to consume the oil" is too complex, here? If you don't let a pipeline bring it down, it's going to be put on trucks or boats, either of which spill more.
Dude, it is a fossil fuel. We could be advancing fusion and not have this particular problem any more. What is petroleum going do do about desalinating ocean water, for potable purposes or providing power to advances in laser boring methods?
Yeah! Hell with those jobs! Let's go nuclear, because ya know that nuclear waste isn't near as bad as oil.
Radiation leaks force transfer of nuclear waste from New Mexico to Texas ? RT USA
:doh what part of "we are still going to consume the oil" is too complex, here? If you don't let a pipeline bring it down, it's going to be put on trucks or boats, either of which spill more.
Newsflash: When you don't transport oil by pipeline, you transport it by truck and boat, both of which actually spill more. When you don't allow oil exploration in the States or encourage it in the West, then it happens in the Gulf and other places, where the environmental policies are less strict to the extent that they are even there (how much do you think that the Chinese operating in Sudan care about protecting the local environment?). If you want to reduce pollution from oil, then you need to start promoting Western development and pipeline transportation.
The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.
The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.
Hence why I have a Cause to advance, in this very thread.
White House adviser John Podesta took aim Wednesday at environmentalists who have criticized the Obama administration’s support for natural gas.
“If you oppose all fossil fuels and you want to turn that switch off tomorrow, that is a completely impractical way of moving toward a clean-energy future,” Podesta told reporters during a roundtable discussion at the White House.
“With all due respect to my friends in the environmental community, if they expect us to turn off the lights and go home, that’s sort of an impractical suggestion,” he added...
No, it is for refinement. Oil is fungible.
The tar sands oil is for EXPORT. We don't have a use for it. We are already exporting 400,000 barrels a day of gasoline.
Is your goal to reduce pollution?And why exactly should we take all the risks of the pipeline and pollution from refining that goop?
Apropos, perhaps:
It's not about the environment. It's about government control of the prvate sector.
It's never been about the environment...
Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report | Fox News
Yes, because "energy prices necessarily skyrocketing" is exactly what you want. Right?
Just pointing out - and it's me doing it, and I generally oppose ad sourcinem - but RT America is actually owned and run by the Russian state.
Yes, because "energy prices necessarily skyrocketing" is exactly what you want. Right?
Tar sands oil is only viable when oil is > $100 a barrel. It is the most expensive oil on the planet.
Is your goal to reduce pollution?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?