DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Why shouldn't the pipeline be built with the least amount of cost? Mandating that the pipeline be built with only US Steel means that US Steel manufacturers won't have to lower their costs as much.
Two questions here:
1: The purpose of this pipeline is to carry 'X' amount of oil per hour of operation. Should a leak (or dare I say rupture) occur, this flow of oil is stopped while repairs are performed. When projects are done with cheap materials, poor engineering, and 'cutting corners', results in faulty problems and people getting pissed off.
Sometimes you can get away with this sort of business model. Unfortunately its not a 'one size fits all' viewpoint.
2: Would you rather we use steel from outside the nation? Do you not support the US Economy? ARE YOU LOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Because that is how conservatives have attacked others when the shoe was on the other foot.
LMFAO!!!
Should we be mandated to use US Steel? I don't think so.
Should there be a standard quality required? I absolutely do think so.
Should we use the most economical steel that exceeds that standard? I absolutely do think so.
Is US Steel the most advanced and highest quality steel available? I don't have any idea about that. Shipping costs for imported steel should help US Steel compete, though, shouldn't it?
Why pay more when you don't have to?
quote:
The pipeline serves the Republican base; the use of US Steel benefits the Democrat's base. You have a problem with one side doing something to appease their base but not the one you support? That's called 'being a hypocrite', DS.
The Unions are in support of the Keystone XL project. The environmentalists aren't. Democrats voted to pass the bill, too.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, you didn't present a bill a Democrat tried to push through. You presented an article about the bill that was passed by the Senate. And, it's a bill that enjoys bipartisan support. It's a project the State Department report comes out in favor of.
Oh, I'm sorry, do I need the HR# of the bill a Democrat pushed to have the oil be sold only in US markets, and got shot down by Republicans? From a guy who has never done that, I call 'bullshit'!
You claimed that there was a bill from a Democrat. You were asked to cite it. In response, you posted a link that didn't cite it.
Look in the mirror when you call "bullshit!"
quote:
The bill didnt 'enjoy' bipartisan support. If you sit down and study things in Washington, D.C., things are never quite what they appear. That one side agrees to one thing, if the other side agrees to something else a few weeks/months down the road. Its messy, trashy, and back-stabbing' but that's what us American's are 'happy' with apparently....
Did Democrats vote for the bill? Yes.
Did Republicans vote for the bill? Yes.
Isn't that the definition of "bipartisan?"
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You have already agreed that refineries and refinery workers will benefit from the tar sands being refined in their refineries. Don't those workers spend money locally?
Yes, that would be called 'logical'. I didn't feel the need to explain the fucking obvious stuff. The problems with this project are not about the 'end point'. And that you keep evading the real issues, shows the dishonesty in your arguments. What's wrong here? Cant talk about the issues at the core of the issue because you do not have any decent and convenient answers?
What endpoint? The endpoint where more workers will still be working and refineries be refining the sludge because of the Keystone XL? Won't those workers still be spending locally? Won't those refineries continue to spend money in upkeep?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
A new pipeline should be built to carry this sludge so it doesn't mix with other types of oil, shouldn't it? This stuff isn't cheap or easy to refine, so preventing it from tainting other supplies of oil is a good idea.
Do you know how many pipelines exist in the United States? Go look that up.
You do not transport 'sludge' by pipeline, DS, you do that with rail cars. The reason (from an engineering perspective) is that it 'gums' up the pipeline. Requiring days if not weeks of in-operations to clean the thousands of miles of piping. Do you have any idea how expensive that is?
Oil, being a liquid base material, is much easier to transport by pipeline. Granted it has properties that will 'stick' to the piping and cause some minimal problems over the lifetime of the structure; its 'cleaning' costs will be dramatically cheaper. You can transport oil by rail car as well. However, I don't think a rail system exist in quite the connection needed from Canada's facilities to the Gulf. Hence, why the creation of the pipeline.
The jury is out as to which mode of transportation is safer. A quick googling shows articles supporting pipelines being safer (a HuffPo link), and a NY Times link supporting rail being safer. Since a rail option might not exist, why not build the pipeline?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The argument that much of the pipeline could be built on lands currently in use with the Keystone pipeline (as opposed to the Keystone XL) is a harder argument to defeat, though I think the State Department report addressed that, too.
The State Department is allowed its views. I dislike the project because of the 'benefits verse liability' isn't in America's favor. Pipelines have been shown to leak and rupture. This has been shown many times. The cost of clean up in communities is pretty expensive. I'm misusing out the 'political bullshit' and 'football game' here, and simply looking at the cost analysis based on historical information from financial, scientific, economic, and utility sources. Demonize me all you want, DS. I just dont see the 'gain' to America past a tiny minority of individuals. An that 'gain' I do see is quickly and nightly over shadowed by the liabilities this nation will incur.
Does it really matter how expensive clean up is when it's the company doing the clean up?
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: Keeping oil prices dear..... - 
Profile
and who were the ones who invented the methods to build houses and other things? Scientists, engineers, intelectuals. You can live without a hand, but you can't live without a brain, although cons seem to be the exception 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread