Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby ronjanec on January 26th, 2017, 5:08 pm 

I've tried to follow this as much as I can Vivian and I have not heard anything about what your friend said.

I believe that there is starting to be mass hysteria on the part of the left, because they are starting to realize that many of the things that they only feared would happen before the election...are actually happening in a very short period of time, and the rumour mill is probably in frantic overdrive amongst the same gloom and doomers.
Last edited by ronjanec on January 26th, 2017, 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby SciameriKen on January 26th, 2017, 5:08 pm 

ronjanec » Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:31 pm wrote:1) No, but it will temporarily improve the lives of many Americans during it's construction.

I do believe it will create a lot of high paying temporary jobs during it's construction SK, and also a lot of temporary jobs in the supply chain(domestic steel and related piping products) So I again think it's a good idea for this, and again for a number of other reasons that I already mentioned. Your point? :)

("the easy out"? I am also trying to watch the Trump news conference at the same time that I'm posting here SK) :)



My point/concern is the long term implications of what you are advocating. Is a short term win for a couple low-middle class Americans worth the threat of environmental disaster and the export of our (and Canadian) oil off of our continent? I am not persuaded by your argument of oil independence. If anything we are losing that by sending the oil away. That oil will be there when needed and we can build the infrastructure - if needed.

Also, does it concern you that those cheerleading the job creation benefits of this project are paid off by those who will likely gain the most from it? Do you ever question why it is you think the way you do on a particular issue?
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby ronjanec on January 27th, 2017, 12:53 am 

SK,

Again, I really can't see much of a downside here except for the possible oil spills. The Alaska Oil Pipeline had a few minor spills but not anything major if my memory is correct: Why should this be considered anything different?

I consider myself a skeptic and question just about everything I read and what people tell me SK. But many times I don't have the time to learn enough about a particular issue to make a strong conclusion one way or the other, and I then consider my thoughts on this just an opinion.

And as long as I am not in a position of authority, I don't get that concerned about this even if I am right or wrong about something because I again just consider this off the cuff shooting the breeze personal opinion.

What I realy do care about here is Metaphysics/Ontology...and this I give an enormous amount of personal thought, and I really care about never being wrong in any particular subject that I talk about here.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby Braininvat on January 27th, 2017, 10:53 am 

Again, I really can't see much of a downside here except for the possible oil spills. The Alaska Oil Pipeline had a few minor spills but not anything major if my memory is correct: Why should this be considered anything different?


This is the downside of posting on a topic of which your are not well-informed.

Keystone XL path crosses an area of highly porous soil over the Ogallala Aquifer, a key source of groundwater to our nation's food supply (aka the Breadbasket). The pipeline carries not crude oil, but liquid bitumen, a far more toxic blend of petrochemicals that fouls water is a more dangerous way than crude. And, as others noted, it doesn't create that many jobs, and involves a form of tar sand extraction that is far dirtier and involves clearing of boreal forestlands and takes a lot more energy to extract. Sometimes ideas, no matter how well-intentioned, are just not good ideas when you factor in these kinds of costs.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5607
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby ronjanec on January 27th, 2017, 3:09 pm 

"This is the downside of posting on a topic of which you are not well-informed"? What's the upside Biv? :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby SciameriKen on January 27th, 2017, 3:32 pm 

ronjanec » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:09 pm wrote:"This is the downside of posting on a topic of which you are not well-informed"? What's the upside Biv? :)


The upside is that at least we have a thread going and something to read :)
User avatar
SciameriKen
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Location: Buffalo, NY


Re: Keystone Pipeline (split from PBS defunding thread)

Postby ronjanec on January 27th, 2017, 4:39 pm 

That was not what I had in mind when I asked the question SK.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Previous

Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests