tj444
Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech Keystone.... The pipeline already runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil companies wanted to extend the pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston Texas so Canadian Crude could have access to an all year port to ship their oil internationally. Since it crosses state boundaries (interstate commerce) it requires permission from the federal government. Kind of like a federal building permit. Nothing in the plans calls for public money. But, the current administration has decided not to allow construction because it does not create enough American jobs nor provides any benefit to the strategic oil reserves. Soooo, the administration replies with a hearty f**k you, Canada over the issue after taking seven years to dither. Yes, he is more PC about it but that was the take away from the press conference. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the selfish ones? Heaven forbid; it would be the U.S. oil companies making money off the transportation fees after the pipeline was built with the oil company's money. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/06/obama-set-to-reject-keystone-xl-project-citing-climate-concerns/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=0 The businessman I most revere is....Warren. Warren owns rail. Warren is the most important financial expert advising the Prez. Do the math. yeah? warren??? rail??? drinking the kool-aid? Why so much oil from the fracking boom is moving by high-risk rail More deaths and injuries past and future, because rail shipping is inherently more prone to these than pipeline transport. Also, a much higher risk of catastrophe as oil-laden "unit trains" of 80 to 120 tank cars move through the nation's largest, densest metropolitan areas, including the Twin Cities. (More oil is moving by truck and barge as well.) It is difficult, for some reason, to clearly attribute injuries and fatalities to rail shipments of oil and gas versus other cargo. However, GAO's auditors found that from 2007 to 2011, Fatalities averaged about 14 per year for all pipeline incidents reported to the [Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation], including an average of about 2 fatalities per year resulting from incidents on hazardous liquid and natural gas transmission pipelines. In comparison, in 2010, 3,675 fatalities resulted from incidents involving large trucks and 730 additional fatalities resulted from railroad accidents. Therefore, increased transport of oil and gas by rail, truck or barge could only increase safety risks. https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/09/why-so-much-oil-fracking-boom-moving-high-risk-rail Imo, people should not want to live anywhere near a rail line (or major hwy).. yup, massive fireballs & explosions from derailment is much safer & better for the environment too.. I wonder.. if they ship other dangerous chemicals along with the oil and gas.. hmmm.. www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PdXwxYBE6E
_____________________________
As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”
|