0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I apologize for my low PLIQ but: Has there been any major issues with the giant pipeline running through AK/Canada? I get that they're different tech but I would assume newer tech means better tech?
Quote from: jtksu on January 22, 2012, 07:34:59 PMI apologize for my low PLIQ but: Has there been any major issues with the giant pipeline running through AK/Canada? I get that they're different tech but I would assume newer tech means better tech? yes
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on January 22, 2012, 09:39:24 PMQuote from: jtksu on January 22, 2012, 07:34:59 PMI apologize for my low PLIQ but: Has there been any major issues with the giant pipeline running through AK/Canada? I get that they're different tech but I would assume newer tech means better tech? yesTransCanada has had 12 oil spills from it's "state of the art" pipeline in 2011 alone.http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297576/oil-spills-transcanada-keystone-xl-pipeline/?mobile=nc
Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this. Why don't you?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.htmlUnsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe. One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted. Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains. Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2012, 08:20:15 PMLibtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this. Why don't you?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.htmlUnsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe. One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted. Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains. Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer. The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?
Liberals hate poor people. Energy is probably the second biggest expense for the poor, and liberals are ecstatic about prices going up.
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on January 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2012, 08:20:15 PMLibtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this. Why don't you?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.htmlUnsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe. One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted. Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains. Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer. The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?None. Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight. They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it. THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2012, 08:08:43 PMQuote from: Nuts Kicked on January 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2012, 08:20:15 PMLibtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this. Why don't you?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.htmlUnsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe. One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted. Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains. Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer. The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?None. Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight. They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it. THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not?
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on January 25, 2012, 08:57:27 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2012, 08:08:43 PMQuote from: Nuts Kicked on January 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2012, 08:20:15 PMLibtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this. Why don't you?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.htmlUnsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe. One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted. Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains. Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer. The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?None. Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight. They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it. THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? Not sure rolling stock factors into the unemployment numbers, idiot. Nonetheless, there's no shortage of oil and other things that need to be hauled.
If that is the case, then why was this decision such a windfall for Warren Buffet?
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2012, 09:45:22 PMQuote from: Nuts Kicked on January 25, 2012, 08:57:27 PMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2012, 08:08:43 PMQuote from: Nuts Kicked on January 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AMQuote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 24, 2012, 08:20:15 PMLibtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this. Why don't you?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.htmlUnsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe. One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted. Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains. Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer. The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?None. Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight. They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it. THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? Not sure rolling stock factors into the unemployment numbers, idiot. Nonetheless, there's no shortage of oil and other things that need to be hauled.If that is the case, then why was this decision such a windfall for Warren Buffet?
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on January 26, 2012, 08:00:20 AMOh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.You know what will bring a windfall of jobs? Affordable energy.
I'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning. They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.
Quote from: michigancat on January 26, 2012, 11:04:28 AMI'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.Do they buy anything that is shipped with oil? If not, they're probably ok.
Quote from: Nuts Kicked on January 26, 2012, 08:00:20 AMOh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.And we've come full circle. The oil is already carted by train and has been for years. no new jobsThe windfall (not sure if this is your term or the linked article) is that the only option to train the oil right now is bnsf(Buffett). By rejecting the permit, Buffets near monopolistic control of current pipeline (bnsf trains) remains in tact.Sort of an inverse windfall I guess
The availability of tank cars may create a temporary "hiccup" in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are "a pretty hot commodity," as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. and American Railcar Industries Inc. expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1kbPZqpye
Quote from: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 26, 2012, 02:50:35 PMQuote from: Nuts Kicked on January 26, 2012, 08:00:20 AMOh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.And we've come full circle. The oil is already carted by train and has been for years. no new jobsThe windfall (not sure if this is your term or the linked article) is that the only option to train the oil right now is bnsf(Buffett). By rejecting the permit, Buffets near monopolistic control of current pipeline (bnsf trains) remains in tact.Sort of an inverse windfall I guessFrom the article posted by John:QuoteThe availability of tank cars may create a temporary "hiccup" in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are "a pretty hot commodity," as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. and American Railcar Industries Inc. expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1kbPZqpyeHmmm.