Keystone Pipeline

[Robalo]

MG:

The KXL moves CRUDE not Tar sand. If Obama let the Canucks send it here, it's refined here which means JOBS but you apparently prefer jobs in India or China, not the USA. Maybe you can get a job in China or India? I'm sure the one-way airfare is not too much and likely most of us on here would help you pay for it and watch you board the flight-can you take Obama with you-and Warren Buffett (and Warren's secretary)?

[JT]

Im too stupid to see otherwise. m.

Well I'll be dayemed!! MG said something else I agree with him on.

I thought you werent going to post anymore? Somewhere, there is somebody with a trigger happy finger on the ban button.

[mgstei1]

Nope, bottom line is let Canada do whatever it wants on her territories with the tar sand oil and any and all environmental risks.
Only ones to benefit from the tar sands is Canada, China, India. And Canadian Ted Cruz and his Cuban poppy.
I just threw that in their using Booms logic with Warren Buffet. Right ?

[Curmudgeon]

Bruce, why do you object to building of the the Keystone pipeline?

Interesting leap there, Kenny, as I haven't stated any objection to it. My attention was directed at the news source.

[boom]

Let's face it. It takes less overall input to ship by rail/tanker trucks than it does by underground pipeline. By motorized transport, all you do is fill the container and send it on it's way. Lots more time and money spent on logistically running a steel pipeline. materials, right of ways to be secured or not, environmental laws to be adhered to. Excavating, installing, testing, and backfilling the trench. You get the picture. But when the initial outlay is paid for, the only expense is maintaing the integrity of the line. The expense of the over land route never stops, never goes down, and in most cases goes up. it's kind of like a check that never stops coming in. Do he math and the only one that benefits from this situation is the transport company...

The bottom line is that warren buffet keeps sending in checks to the dems, Whatever it takes, right?

[SCHU]

Let's face it. It takes less overall input to ship by rail/tanker trucks than it does by underground pipeline. By motorized transport, all you do is fill the container and send it on it's way. Lots more time and money spent on logistically running a steel pipeline. materials, right of ways to be secured or not, environmental laws to be adhered to. Excavating, installing, testing, and backfilling the trench. You get the picture. But when the initial outlay is paid for, the only expense is maintaing the integrity of the line. The expense of the over land route never stops, never goes down, and in most cases goes up. it's kind of like a check that never stops coming in. Do he math and the only one that benefits from this situation is the transport company...

[mgstei1]

Im too stupid to see otherwise. Leave your jon boat docked out of the discussion. It aint Americans problem how Canada ships that tar oil sand and not crude. Let them pipeline or ship it however they want to China and India.
I could care less about the Canadians shipping problems to foreign soils. \
Besides, you like Canada so much move up there with Sen Cruz and take his Cuban ol man with him.

[Robalo]

Libs and Enviridiots:

Shipping oil by rail has become far more common as domestic drilling booms in North Dakota, Montana, Texas, Colorado and other states.

In July 2013, a crude train from North Dakota derailed and exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47.


You Libs can tell me that rail transport is safer than crude pipeline now. I know of NO crude pipeline that killed 47 people.

It is all a political/profiteering ploy by Obama and Warren Buffett and if you are too stupid to see otherwise, I have a 1980 18 foot lowside riveted Jonboat ready for you to cruise in high luxury to Europe-you're welcome to set off on the trip tomorrow-you better bring a paddle.

Some folks would say it isn't raining while standing in a thunderstorm downpour getting soaked.

[H.Maier]

I'm with the old millionaire hippies that need a bath.

[mgstei1]

I was for it before I was against it, when I took a hard look at which nation of people the whole damn thing would benefit the most.
Let the tar sand and the dispersants to carry it in a pipe, be Canada's baby.
Whole thing is even more political than Benghazi fiasco.

[kenny]

Some even more than others.

Bruce, why do you object to building of the the Keystone pipeline?

[Curmudgeon]

No media outlet is fair and balanced. Period.

Some even more than others.

[Baby Tran Cat]

No, I'm suggesting that the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch; Mr. Fair & Balanced.

But he did give the world Page 3 of the Sun!

[Ibtsoom]

No media outlet is fair and balanced. Period.

[Curmudgeon]

Are you suggesting that warren buffet has no stake in the use of railways to transport canadian shale? Are you disagreeing that it is safer to use pipelines rather than rails to transfer oil? Maybe you are against the jobs that it would create? (many would be union jobs) Maybe you just have nothing of substance to add?

No, I'm suggesting that the New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch; Mr. Fair & Balanced.