Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > Off Topic Stuff > General Off-Topic Stuff
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-08-2011   #16 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayaGroom View Post
Riss - you and I got into a "discussion" over this about the time that I joined up on these forums.

I was working for an environmental consulting company that was working on permitting "The Alberta Clipper," another pipeline owned by this same company (Enbridge) that does this exact same thing with the tar sands. I actually took part in doing quite a bit of the USGS land use data for the pipeline foot print that just opened in 2010. (I only worked for them for a few months on contract between jobs right out of school).

You were pretty adamant against the tar sands production at the time, IIRC.

People change their opinions as they gain more knowledge...with age comes wisdom...what can I say?

I used to be a fairly knee jerk liberal on the whole topic (and many others) before I learned more about it . It is not nearly as bad for the environment as some love to claim it is. Usually those who are making those claims stand to benefit in some way, economically. This is true on BOTH sides, by the way- the anti AND the pro. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Disclaimer- the whole industry does nothing to benefit me economically, it is in Alberta. Although we have oilsands here too, it is not yet really being developed.
Rissask is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011   #17 (permalink)
reposado
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nebraska - Go Cornhuskers!
Posts: 1,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDLVancouver View Post
also, there is a specific section of the pipeline route that passes through a vast and quite vulnerable aquifer area in the midwest somewhere (sorry cant remember where...ohio? iowa? idaho? dunno something like that) where if there were a leak the results would be an ecological disaster that would affect everything in the ecosystem and would kill the economy as water from that aquifer is used for crop irrigation (and poisoned water for humans to drink as well, not unlike natural gas fracking). the state governors in the area are just asking for it to be relocated. makes complete sense to me to divert it.

then theres the whole larger issue of the tar sands itself.....

It is supposed to come through Nebraska.
lindalou61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2011   #18 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lindalou61 View Post
It is supposed to come through Nebraska.

I sure understand those opposed to it based on that this extension will be running through that aquifer in Nebraska.

The probability of spills, no matter how remote, is a legit one, for sure.

But the claims of it increasing greenhouse gases, contributing to global warming, etc. are bogus, IMO. Since the oilsands are going to be developed regardless, whether it goes to the USA or to China or India, no matter- the end result is the same.

and really, this is a bonus....


Quote:
The President and CEO of TransCanada Russ Girling has also touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 Billion stimulating the US economy."[44]
Rissask is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011   #19 (permalink)
añejo
 
CalifGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nor Cal
Posts: 5,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissask View Post
Maybe someone could explain why there are protests about this pipeline.


jeez, 100 protesters.....
CalifGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011   #20 (permalink)
reposado
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nebraska - Go Cornhuskers!
Posts: 1,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissask View Post
I sure understand those opposed to it based on that this extension will be running through that aquifer in Nebraska.

The probability of spills, no matter how remote, is a legit one, for sure.

But the claims of it increasing greenhouse gases, contributing to global warming, etc. are bogus, IMO. Since the oilsands are going to be developed regardless, whether it goes to the USA or to China or India, no matter- the end result is the same.

and really, this is a bonus....
I agree with you. Some people here in Nebraska have a problem with it. I don't.
lindalou61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2011   #21 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by lindalou61 View Post
I agree with you. Some people here in Nebraska have a problem with it. I don't.



I just found out today something I didn't realize- the pipeline isn't even underground, true? So that makes it FAR safer! (although more of an eyesore!)
Rissask is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011   #22 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayaGroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southern 'burbs, Minnesota
Posts: 7,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissask View Post


I just found out today something I didn't realize- the pipeline isn't even underground, true? So that makes it FAR safer! (although more of an eyesore!)
IIRC, the pipe that the Alberta Clipper came through Minnesota with was actually underground, but followed the same right-of-way footprint that 5 or 6 other pipelines followed. This caused a stir more because the path that they had to keep clear just kept expanding wider and wider.
PlayaGroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011   #23 (permalink)
añejo
 
PlayaGroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southern 'burbs, Minnesota
Posts: 7,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissask View Post
People change their opinions as they gain more knowledge...with age comes wisdom...what can I say?

I used to be a fairly knee jerk liberal on the whole topic (and many others) before I learned more about it . It is not nearly as bad for the environment as some love to claim it is. Usually those who are making those claims stand to benefit in some way, economically. This is true on BOTH sides, by the way- the anti AND the pro. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Disclaimer- the whole industry does nothing to benefit me economically, it is in Alberta. Although we have oilsands here too, it is not yet really being developed.
So, you're saying I was wiser than you at the time?!

I wasn't trying to point fingers, but I was more trying to see if you remember your reasoning "back then." It could probably answer your questions about the protests.
PlayaGroom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2011   #24 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
jwp0077's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Barra de Navidad, Jalicco
Posts: 383
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDLVancouver View Post
also, there is a specific section of the pipeline route that passes through a vast and quite vulnerable aquifer area in the midwest somewhere (sorry cant remember where...ohio? iowa? idaho? dunno something like that) where if there were a leak the results would be an ecological disaster that would affect everything in the ecosystem and would kill the economy as water from that aquifer is used for crop irrigation (and poisoned water for humans to drink as well, not unlike natural gas fracking). the state governors in the area are just asking for it to be relocated. makes complete sense to me to divert it.

....
The Ogallala Aquifer is an important resource that should be protected. Thousands of miles of hydrocarbon pipelines have crossed the aquifer for the last 80 years with negligible negative effect.
A more serious threat than the proposed pipeline is the over irrigation and draw down of the aquifer driven by taxpayer subsidized ethanol demand. If the State governers are truly concerned about the aquifer they should enact stricter standards of the complete cycle of ethanol production.
jwp0077 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011   #25 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlayaGroom View Post
So, you're saying I was wiser than you at the time?!

I wasn't trying to point fingers, but I was more trying to see if you remember your reasoning "back then." It could probably answer your questions about the protests.


Yes!



This is funny...go here

22 Minutes - Clips & Digital Shorts

And then click on the video clip for 'Oil Sands Protest'...(sorry, I think there is a %^$& ad first, be patient).


Get a load of the Alberta provincial bird. And Daryl Hannah getting arrested.

I think I figured out what the protestors are thinking, at least.



After, click on the Panic Room clip and tell me who you think that 'Betty Hope' is imitating.
Rissask is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011   #26 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rissask View Post
Oh. Roni Roni Roni.....that disappoints me, to see you posting such a proppganda-filled, totally biased site like that. It's akin to posting a Rush Limbaugh editorial in response to something.

It has nothing to do with 'Canadian pride' and everything to do with common sense. Yes, the oilsands do have a 15% higher cost than pools of light sweet crude to extract....I am not denying that.

But newsflash to you and the other environmentalists- there aren't too many of the latter left, and the ones that are in countries that aren't necessarily USA fans. You do what you gotta do.

The oil is coming out of those sands whether people like it or not, I am afraid.

And a pipeline is a lot better and safer of a way to transport it than by railcar or truck tanker or tanker.

ding ding ding !!!!!!!

I might mention ANWAR if we had any common sense..not to dis Canada. I say bring on the pipeline the more the merrier...

The ENVIROMENTALIST would have us all living in the stone age if they had their way...

I'm not sure it would do much good to bring more oil into the US just for the simple reason that I'm don't know if we have the re-fining capacity to handle it .. The US has also be under assault from the enviromentalist whackos on that front also..

Last edited by D33RHUNT3R; 09-14-2011 at 10:09 PM..
D33RHUNT3R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011   #27 (permalink)
¡No mames güey!
 
roni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mérida, Yucatán
Posts: 75,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R View Post
ding ding ding !!!!!!!

I might mention ANWAR if we had any common sense..not to dis Canada. I say bring on the pipeline the more the merrier...

The ENVIROMENTALIST would have us all living in the stone age if they had their way...

I'm not sure it would do much good to bring more oil into the US just for the simple reason that I'm don't know if we have the re-fining capacity to handle it .. The US has also be under assault from the enviromentalist whackos on that front also..
I think Maggie prefers rational thought, and I do not think your post qualifies
roni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2011   #28 (permalink)
añejo
 
MN Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,943
Alberta Clipper



This is a little relative whose dad worked on the pipeline. Mom just happened to post this picture today.

I live VERY close to the Alberta Clipper. Pipelines have run through here for close to 50 years. I don't mind them much except when they spring a leak.

Last edited by MN Annie; 09-14-2011 at 10:52 PM..
MN Annie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2011   #29 (permalink)
añejo
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: THE Minnesota
Posts: 2,164
A good article about what's going on in our neighboring state:

Unemployed? Go to North Dakota
minnjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2011   #30 (permalink)
Canada Dry
 
Rissask's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
Posts: 56,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R View Post
ding ding ding !!!!!!!

I might mention ANWAR if we had any common sense..not to dis Canada. I say bring on the pipeline the more the merrier...

The ENVIROMENTALIST would have us all living in the stone age if they had their way...

I'm not sure it would do much good to bring more oil into the US just for the simple reason that I'm don't know if we have the re-fining capacity to handle it .. The US has also be under assault from the enviromentalist whackos on that front also..
Not much more than a temporary solution...

Quote:
The DOE reported that annual United States consumption of crude oil and petroleum products was 7.55 billion barrels (1.200×109 m3) in 2006 and again in 2007, totaling 15.1 billion barrels (2.40×109 m3).[38] In comparison, the USGS estimated that the ANWR reserve contains 10.4 billion barrels (1.65×109 m3). Although, only 7.7 billion barrels were thought to be within the proposed drilling region.
but I am sure the US WILL be drilling in ANWAR before too long. Inescapable.
Rissask is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.