Quoting dxing (Reply 25): There is a huge difference in the definition of a "leak" and a "spill". One can be contained easily, the other maybe not.

Tell that to San Bruno, California Sept 9 2010. It was just a leak....

Quoting windy95 (Reply 48): I bet if this was a high speed rail that no one was going to ride and could only survive with Government handouts the left would be all over it as a great jobs package.

The difference is: high speed rail will be there when Americans can no longer afford to drive because there is no more oil AND they will be maintaned by Americans. This pipeline will be maintaned by Canadians. The tax breaks are going to Canadians. And, the profits from selling the oil go to Canadians. When the pipe breaks, the burden of fixing the pipe and the aftermath of cleaning it up and the land and animals it destroys falls squarely with the United States.

I have nothing against Canada. I know they need jobs too. But, we Americans need jobs that will benefit Americans.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 49): And the first time when we went to war on a credit card.

Uh, no. The last time we went to war and paid-as-we-went I believe was WWI. In fact the country did not know any significant debt till FDR, and then WWII, although we virtually eliminated that debt in the 50s.

And then came the Great Society programs of the 60s, and here we are.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 49): A totally unnecessary war - and over $3 Trillion long term costs

Actually the cost to date is $1.28 trillion. Less than 10% of our current debt. And the cost is gradulaly disappearing.

Over 90% is caused by domestic programs, and those are INCREASING.

So stop bitching about irrelevancies.

And if you want to compare numbers based on long term commitments (which I agree is a valid view), The long term cost of the WOT are estimated at $3 trillion. Fine. The long term UNFUNDED liabilities of the US government (Medicare, Social Security etc) is over $116 Trillion. The WOT is less than 3% of that, and, like I said, declining.

So I repeat, stop bitching about irrelevancies, and start looking at the real issues.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://costofwar.com/en/

[Edited 2011-11-14 09:17:18]

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 45): A foreign company wants this. Canada is a foreign company as far as I know. No stategic reasons at all. We may not see a gallon of this oil.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 45): Most of them temporary, I imagine the pipe coming from China also. We need manufacturing jobs, not pipelines to feed the country we gave manufacturing jobs to wholesale

Unions Furious at Obama for Killing Pipeline Jobs


Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/keystone-p...illing-pipeline-jobs#ixzz1dhbUQfrA

Quoting dxing (Thread starter): punted on the Keystone XL pipeline decision

And who did this surprise. Of course a sitting president isn't going to make such a key decision a year before his re-election vote. A long history of our presidents of both parties making the same type non-decision.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): go with plan B of developing a Pacific Coast ship exports

An incredibly short sighted plan from all angles. Much worse from every prespective than the pipeline to the Gulf.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 3): The oil is going to be produced. The only decision to make is whether a) we get some jobs out of it with the pipeline, and we send our oil import dollars to a friendly country like Canada, or b) we have to replace those imports by giving our money to Hugo Chavez or other miscreants.

I wish some of the idiots could understand. There are two choices.

1) Pipeline to the US
2) Pipeline for China

There is no option to not build a pipeline. As you rightly point out. A pipeline will be built. The only question is where.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 32): one already in existence along the Keystone XL route.

Yes, as you reminded us - we have a lot of pipelines, but for this project we need more capacity than the existing network can support.

Plus pipelines do not last forever. New pipelines and new technology are better for the enviornment and the country in the long run.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 51): The last time we went to war and paid-as-we-went I believe was WWI.

In WW II there was a lot of government funding via War Bonds & Savings Bonds of various kinds. You certainly didn't see the tax rate for millionaires and billionaires cut.

Under Bush/Cheney the war was fully on the credit card. Off Budget. And Bush & Cheney had no problem in tax cut after tax cut. Look how that worked out.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 51): And the cost is gradulaly disappearing.

Only if you are one of those "Patriotic Americans" who would love to eliminate the Dept of Veterans Affairs. Think of the cost of standing behind all those Vets with all those benefits.

And then there is that nasty go Bill. Bush & McCain wanted to require 12 years of service before qualifying, but those left wing Democrats were there to protect the Vets.

Unless you are ready to shaft the Veterans (and a lot of people are) the country will be paint out benefits for the next 60 years. We still have WW II Vets. The WW I Vets have only recently died off totally.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 51): The long term cost of the WOT are estimated at $3 trillion.

The long term costs of the Ego/Oil War in Iraq is estimated at 3 Trillion.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 51): The long term UNFUNDED liabilities of the US government

So let's look at some of those unfunded liabilities.

If the federal government decides to spend $250 Billion a year on infrastructure development for the next 25 years (adjusting for inflation) it is going to rack up so hefty debt. But that is going to provide jobs, company profits, corporate & individual income tax payments, reduction of payments for unemployment benefits.

But we will ONLY look at the money spent - no way will be we look at benefits.

Same with Medicare. We can change funding to keep in better shape. We can also look at other health costs paid by the federal government and fold them into that program. Start with the grossly overpriced private health insurance given to public employees. Fold them into Medicare (and put current funding into it also) and let them buy gap policies like seniors do.
'
Medicaid? Why in the hell do we help support 50 different state programs? It's stupid to PAY for 50 different government organizations and it certainly does not ensure a basic American standard of Equal Protection. Fold it (and it's funding) into Medicare and use that one single system to handle claims processing.

Another problem with unfunded liabilities is that funding of those liabilities have been cut. We can't afford the tax cuts from the Bush Years. We can't afford to continue the free rides on retirement contributions or employer nanny care.

You want to shaft the elderly? Gut their health care, let them die fast and you reduce Social Security payments. Gotta be proud of that. Toss in the Veterans and you might even get another tax cut.

Or maybe cut education (including free meals) to low income kids. LIttle kids. Great way to keep the, the serfs they have been in the past.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 51): So I repeat, stop bitching about irrelevancies, and start looking at the real issues.

"Irrelevancies" is a word that indicates the Gulf Wars Veterans are heading so a full blown hard right screwing. Used to be the conservatives would have been the leaders in supporting the troops and veterans.

And the poor. Irrelevant? Tell them to get a job or get a gun? Cut education to their kids as they won't amount to anything?

And national medical care? We pretty much eliminated TB. Not it is back because of AIDS. WHile you might believe there is no need to pay your precious money out for "them" you need to remember one simple fact: it is airborne transmission. That means you get on a plane, in an elevator, in a like some where to check out and one of "them" coughs or sneezes news you YOU have a problem. You are at risk just by being close. Airborne transmission.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 54): I wish some of the idiots could understand. There are two choices.

Actually the options are to build it right or screw environmental issues. All you have to do is look at the BP Spill to see what happens when companies get slack on safety/pollution issues.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57): In WW II there was a lot of government funding via War Bonds & Savings Bonds of various kinds. You certainly didn't see the tax rate for millionaires and billionaires cut.

Remember that War Bonds (which paid for more than 70% of the cost of WWII) were entirely voluntary in nature. The citizens of the US chose to loan the government money, which was mostly repaid in the 50s.

In 1944 the top tax rate was 94%, and the bottom rate was 41%. Income Tax receipts were 9% of GDP (out of total fed revenue of 20%)

In 1970 the top tax rate was 70%, and the bottom rate was 22%. Income Tax receipts were 9% of GDP (out of total fed revenue of 19%)

In 1988 the top tax rate was 28%, and the bottom rate was 15%. Income Tax receipts were 8% of GDP (out of total fed revenue of 18%)

In 2000 the top tax rate was 36%, and the bottom rate was 15%. Income Tax receipts were 10% of GDP (out of total fed revenue of 20%) Note that 2000 was a year of vastly inflated tax revenue due to the dot-com bubble)

In 2010 the top tax rate was 33%, and the bottom rate was 10%. Income Tax receipts were 6% of GDP (out of total fed revenue of 15%)

The tax rates may have changed drastically, but the actual tax revenue generated has not varied that much. One problem is that high tax rates tend to drive part of the economy underground. Another (most visible in 2010) is that when the economy tanks, income taxes are disproportionately affected, vs a system that had a substantial tax based on consumption, such as VAT.

One thing is for certain - if we increased the highest rates, or even all the rates, by a few percentage points, or even a lot more, there is no evidence whatsoever that you will get anything more than a small, marginal increase in government revenue.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57): Under Bush/Cheney the war was fully on the credit card. Off Budget. And Bush & Cheney had no problem in tax cut after tax cut. Look how that worked out.

It was off-budget only in terms of the budgeting process. When looking at historical tables, those costs are all included. The only items that are "off-budget" when looking at historical data are 1) Social Security, and 2) the post Office.

I think they should have sold war bonds, myself.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57): Only if you are one of those "Patriotic Americans" who would love to eliminate the Dept of Veterans Affairs. Think of the cost of standing behind all those Vets with all those benefits.

That's one thing i would never want to cut, particularly for those who have served in combat and/or have been injured. However, are you telling me that there is no waste in the VA? Should we really pay for lifetime benefits for someone who served as a private for a few years, never saw any combat, never was deployed? I'm not saying yes or no - frankly I have not delved into the subject.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57): The long term costs of the Ego/Oil War in Iraq is estimated at 3 Trillion.

Whenever you say stuff like that it just makes you come out as a moron. Stop it for your own good.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57): If the federal government decides to spend $250 Billion a year on infrastructure development for the next 25 years (adjusting for inflation) it is going to rack up so hefty debt. But that is going to provide jobs, company profits, corporate & individual income tax payments, reduction of payments for unemployment benefits.

If it was a worthwhile, self-sustaining investment, sure. But what if you build a $250 billion HSR project, and nobody uses it? Sure it employed some people for a while but then it becomes an albatross around the taxpayers' neck. Governments have historically been extraordinary adept in supporting projects that fall flat on its face without federal backing, although I'll grant that once in a blue moon, they get something right (eg the Internet / DARPA).

And back to the subject - here we have a 100% privately funded venture that will employ a lot of Americans (not just Canadians) and generate a lot of tax revenue, and Obama doesn't want it???

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 57): "Irrelevancies" is a word that indicates the Gulf Wars Veterans are heading so a full blown hard right screwing. Used to be the conservatives would have been the leaders in supporting the troops and veterans.

And I expect they still are. You are dealing with a lot of propaganda on behalf of people who have a vested interest in the system. It's like the school debate - If it were proposed to change our school system completely where the cost would be half as much, and it has been 100% proven that the students would learn more and better, it will be trumpeted as being "against education".

Lots of "morons" and "idiots" and inappropriate references to handicapped persons in this thread, it must be about the US. Someone should bring back Mr Tweedly from Elderly Man River together with Stan Freeberg.

"Politeness I think Mr Tweedly".

Also there is an obscure reference to oil not "being around" for a long time. I presume - hard to tell - this is about oil from an oil spill from the pipeline being easy to clean up. As I keep trying to get folk to realise, there are oils and there are oils.

The Macondo oil is very easy to biodegrade compared with, for example, Monterey oils from California.

The Canadian tar sands are a different kettle of fish altogether. As the word tar sands implies, they are not the same as flow oils. The represent the biodegraded remnants of once much much larger deposits of more conventional oils.

The compounds present in the tar sands represent the components that are most difficult to biodegrade.

During processing, some chemical changes take place, so the "product" oil is not the same chemically as the oily components of the tar sands. It is most unlikely, that all the refractory compounds have been removed.

Therefore, I would expect an oil spil from the Canadian tar sands to be much more difficult to remove even than the Monterey oils, and they are difficult enough.

It is all a matter of chemistry, a topic that appears to be all too often ignored in these threads, especially the realms of complex organic chemistry.

This is a reference to biodegradation of the tar sands.
http://www.aicise.ca/system/files/Th...2Baround%2Bthe%2BPeace%2BRiver.pdf
Here is a reference to a problem related to the special nature of products from the tar sands.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jm...michigan_oil_spill_was_indeed.html

Oils ain't oils. Spills from that pipeline are likely to cause many more problems than most (all) other oils, even than Kuwaiti high S oil, and that one is pretty awful too!

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 59): Remember that War Bonds (which paid for more than 70% of the cost of WWII) were entirely voluntary in nature. The citizens of the US chose to loan the government money, which was mostly repaid in the 50s.

Back then the level of patriotism was higher than today. The concept of Cash Over Country would have gotten you run out of town. Today it gets you elected to Congress by the Tea Party.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 59): In 2010 the top tax rate was 33%, and the bottom rate was 10%. Income Tax receipts were 6% of GDP (out of total fed revenue of 15%) The tax rates may have changed drastically, but the actual tax revenue generated has not varied that much.

The revenue generated 50% MORE in 1944 and 1970.

How would that EXTRA 50% have helped if Bush/Cheney hadn't gone the Guns & Butter & Cake route?

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 59): One problem is that high tax rates tend to drive part of the economy underground.

The biggest chunk hidden are hidden overseas by the wealthy, or slipped into tax effective programs that will be continued after tax reform

Then, of course, there is the revenue loss from the tax free rides on private retirement programs and the socialist GOP $1,000 per child handout. That is probably a pretty hefty chunk on the loss from the 70s.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 59): One thing is for certain

I thought that cutting taxes would generate jobs and significantly raise the tax revenues.

SO we went into the Great Recession?

But we did "protect" the "Job Creators" and look what a grand job they have done.

Ooooooops!

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 59): Should we really pay for lifetime benefits for someone who served as a private for a few years, never saw any combat, never was deployed?

If he has an accident in training and becomes a quad, you bet.

We had a kid in bootcamp who get some bleach in his eye, had his pupil distorted and was discharged with a permanent disability. Not a large percentage (probably 10% or 20%) but you will be sending him

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 59): Whenever you say stuff like that it just makes you come out as a moron.

Maybe it shows the fury I still feel at the blood shed by Americans for WMDs that never were. Read Bob Woodward's book (he's the guy that wrote an exceptionally positive book on Bush I & Team during Golf War I) and you will (hopefully) get mad as hell.

How hand Dead. How many widows? How many keys who lost a parent? How many legs and arms and eyes lost? How about PTSD? How many suffering? How many homeless?

How about a Vet committing suicide every 30 minutes?

I'm a Vet.

I'm really pissed.

If you consider that being a moron then I could care less.

Quoting dxing (Reply 46): Correct, that is some fuzzy logic since since the oil was destined for this country. If you read about the pipeline proposal the first and second phase would have gone to refineries located in Illinois. The third phase would have extended the pipeline and added domestic crude to be delivered to refineries in the Port Aurthur, TX area. The decision to delay the pipeline has given China the leg up in obtaining the oil.

I would appreciate the documentation for that. I heard that there was never any guarantee. If I am wrong, please correct me. I heard this on Tv News, not sure where. I am always willing to learn something.

Quoting SKYSERVICE_330 (Reply 73): More at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...14/transcanada-keystone-route.html Will this be enough to alleviate the concerns of those in opposition?

Not sure, but if it avoids the environmentally sensitive sandhills, then I am sure the economic benefits will override the majority of the opposition. They will never please the untra green enviros.


These pipelines do break down over time, and there will be spills. The heating and cooling extremes on the plains is enough to do serious damange to even the best design seals over time. It is best to avoid the aquifer sites.

Quoting SKYSERVICE_330 (Reply 73): TransCanada has agreed to change the route of a controversial proposed oil pipeline so that it doesn't pass through an environmentally sensitive part of Nebraska.

There ya go. Moving to getting the job done in a more intelligent manner.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 74): They will never please the untra green enviros.

When it comes to oil companies I have more tolerance than others. Dad spent 43 years in the business and I know there are a lot of outstanding people in the business.

With issues like this pipeline I tend to take the middle of the road approach. Work it out, even if you have to re-route it. Too bad for the politicians who have already bought land in areas that will loose out.

With situations like the BP Spill I have zero tolerance. I believe that companies played games to make more profits and they got caught. Pressures too high on profitability and not enough on safety.

So decent people died.

Massive spills that will still impact peoples lives.

After reading about the aquifer, I have to agree with the Nebraska governor. This aquifer touches 8 states and supplies water to a large part of our food system. The recent BP accident should not be forgotten when it comes to the potential to spoil lots of water.

They need another route.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 76): The recent BP accident should not be forgotten when it comes to the potential to spoil lots of water.

Very qualified agreement. Qualified because the dangers from the BP oil bear little relationship to those from the tar sands oils. In practice, there would be little relationship between the per barrel damage of the Macondo spill and a spill of oil from tar sands.

Not sure what the multiple would be, but think in terms of thousands. The tar sands oil is derived from the residue of one of nature's greatest ever biodegradation events that lead to the Athabasca tar sands. This means that the start material is close to as far as biodegradation will go.

The processing makes it a bit less difficult to biodegrade, but not much. Basically one barrel of tar sands oil starts off like the biodegraded residue of thousands of barrels of Macondo oil. So getting rid of it is extremely difficult.

Presumably the processing has to get the product oil to a pour point where transmission across the plains in winter does not present a problem but that means that penetration of leaks into aquifers would be easier.

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 74): These pipelines do break down over time, and there will be spills. The heating and cooling extremes on the plains is enough to do serious damange to even the best design seals over time.

Which is another reason to build this pipeline - so that some capacity can be taken away from older pipelines across the US and Canada.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 76): After reading about the aquifer, I have to agree with the Nebraska governor. This aquifer touches 8 states and supplies water to a large part of our food system. The recent BP accident should not be forgotten when it comes to the potential to spoil lots of water.They need another route.

It's ridiculous to compare the challenges of plugging a pipeline leak to the Macondo well. Let's get some context...

The Macondo well was 40 miles offshore and underneath 1 mile of water. At those depths, it's not unlike working on the Moon. Everything must be done remotely using submersible robots or manipulated from the surface. There's not a terrible abundance of resources to work in those conditions. The well pressure was roughly 9,800 PSI. Pretty much anything working in those conditions is either custom-built or in limited supply.

By comparison, the Keystone XL pipeline is accessible by land. It's surrounded by atmospheric conditions where engineerings and work crews won't be crushed to death. There's probably no less than a thousand suppliers for trucks, excavators, and fabricators to repair the pipeline in an emergency. I've seen no exact technical figures, but based on the cross-sectional pictures and assuming it's plain carbon steel, I would estimate the hydrostatic pressure of the XL pipeline to be no more than 2,000 PSI.

You can start to see that the Keystone XL pipeline is in a completely different regime.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 69): Once again Paradise lost, can never be regained.

That is a fallacy. Given sufficient time, the environment will always recover. Placing the environment in such ultimate regard comes at the cost of human well being.

Obama Abandons (Private) Labor The Keystone decision is a signal to blue-collar workers that this is no longer their fathers' Democratic Party.

Top