• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

What is wrong with the Keystone XL?

ChrisL68 said:
Not everybody laps up left-wing talking points like you do.

From everything I have read, the technological innovations of alternative energy solutions to automobiles are on the cusp of overwhelming fossil fuel technology from a cost perspective. It will be interesting to see where we are 10-15 years from now.
Click to expand...

Exactly where do I find these talking points?

Exactly how is using the fact that the BC government blocking Keystone lapping up anything than facts?

There are no technological advances that will allow oil sands gasoline to be used in US cars or trucks any time in near or mid-future.

But as usual you take the lazy way out. You attack me.

You can't dispute the fact that BC doesn't trust the pipeline.

You can't dispute the fact that the spills that have happened already haven't been professionally remedied.

You can't dispute that very, very few jobs will be created.

I give sources. Chris doesn't.

But you can say- "It's RJ. It's gotta be wrong."
 
RJ why so many tag attacks on you? This thread they're fairly tame. Why so many halitosis tags?
 
CarlSpackler88 said:
RJ why so many tag attacks on you? This thread they're fairly tame. Why so many halitosis tags?
Click to expand...

stock-vector-bad-breath-170336117.jpg
 
Funny here is an article from last year and no mention is made of the fact that Keystone oil cannot be used in the US. I scanned the wiki article and saw no mention of this either, which would seem like a pertinent point.

We already export alot of oil anyway as its a commodity.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/25/189680_oil-from-proposed-keystone-pipeline.html?rh=1

Also, you probably need to look for more updated information on the Enbridge Project and BC's stance on it haus.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/21/canada-pipeline-aboriginals-idUSL2N0NA00I20140421

Nov 5, 2013 - Alberta and British Columbia announce framework
agreement that could clear path for new pipeline development to
the West Coast.
 
Last edited:
SkinsNDeacs said:
Again, stopping this pipeline will not stop the extraction. This oil will be extracted and will be shipped. The studies have shown that the environmental impact is greater without the pipeline than with it.
Click to expand...

To the extent the pipeline makes a certain extraction method more cost-effective, you can be sure there will be more of that extraction method.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Funny here is an article from last year and no mention is made of the fact that Keystone oil cannot be used in the US. I scanned the wiki article and saw no mention of this either, which would seem like a pertinent point.

We already export alot of oil anyway as its a commodity.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/25/189680_oil-from-proposed-keystone-pipeline.html?rh=1

Also, you probably need to look for more updated information on the Enbridge Project and BC's stance on it haus.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/21/canada-pipeline-aboriginals-idUSL2N0NA00I20140421

Nov 5, 2013 - Alberta and British Columbia announce framework
agreement that could clear path for new pipeline development to
the West Coast.
Click to expand...

Funny how you didn't read this:

"May 31, 2013 - Government of British Columbia rejects Northern
Gateway project on grounds the company has not spelled out oil
spill response plans."

Keystone has not done this in the US.....but maybe you didn't read what you posted.
 
RJKarl said:
It's very easy. As I've stated before they are the ultimate pussy's move. They allow to hid even more. I simply don't look at them.
Click to expand...

If someone wants to label RJ as an old, senile, bat-shit crazy "moderate" who looks like Dusty Rhodes, at least have the decency to say it to his face (or at least type it on a message board so that he will read it). See, it's not that hard.
 
RJKarl said:
Funny how you didn't read this:

"May 31, 2013 - Government of British Columbia rejects Northern
Gateway project on grounds the company has not spelled out oil
spill response plans."

Keystone has not done this in the US.....but maybe you didn't read what you posted.
Click to expand...

Lets see. May 31, 2013 and Nov 5, 2013. Which day is later and therefore reflects more current information about the status of BC's position on the project? Hmmmmm

I did read that, but I have a brain and concluded that it is outdated based on the fact that they reached an agreement to proceed after this initial rejection.

I find it very hard to believe that they haven't spelled out their oil spill response plans. I was able to find this detailed draft regarding just that in a few seconds searching on the Interwebs. http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/182124.pdf
 
Last edited:
ddeacs98 said:
If someone wants to label RJ as an old, senile, bat-shit crazy "moderate" who looks like Dusty Rhodes, at least have the decency to say it to his face (or at least type it on a message board so that he will read it). See, it's not that hard.
Click to expand...

Aren't you on ignore?
 
TexasDeac10 said:
To the extent the pipeline makes a certain extraction method more cost-effective, you can be sure there will be more of that extraction method.
Click to expand...

Every study that I have seen (including the State Department's latest findings) say that production will not be effected by the pipeline. Do you have any data that says otherwise? Honest question because that seems like an important question.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Every study that I have seen (including the State Department's latest findings) say that production will not be effected by the pipeline. Do you have any data that says otherwise? Honest question because that seems like an important question.
Click to expand...

The hold up on pipelines and falling oil prices is currently discouraging investment which would lead to stagnant or declining production.
 
Again...that is easy to say but I have seen actual studies that have shown that this pipeline will not have an impact on production. Are there scientific studies (we still like science, right?) that show otherwise?
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Again...that is easy to say but I have seen actual studies that have shown that this pipeline will not have an impact on production. Are there scientific studies (we still like science, right?) that show otherwise?
Click to expand...

No. Fucking ideologues (that I 95% of the time probably agree with) are clutching to their last straws here.

The same is true of the ideologues on the opposite side of the spectrum that say this pipeline will greatly help the US economy. It won't do that either other than be a mini-blip for 1-2 years.


I cannot believe this shit is such a huge issue after reading about it from all sides for the last 7 days. Such partisan fuck-wittery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top