Don't This Beat All - Keystone Pipeline Now Obsolete - No Longer Needed

The OP misses the point (deliberately I think), this is not about profit. This is about safety. You're comparing apples and oranges. The oil will, and is getting here, but environmental safety has always been the chosen concern. Well, trucks and trains (some owned by Warren Buffet) have more accidents and spillage than does any pipeline. The pipeline is safer and always has been. Maybe this is about unionized trucking jobs...or unionized rail jobs...then the debate has been about the wrong subject. While the environmental alarmists are filling our TVs the real push has been for good old money and getting it into what the left considers the right hands. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually it has always been about profit. The owners of the oil wanted to find a cheaper way to get the oil to market. Now that they have found cheaper and faster ways to get the oil to market there is no need to cut into profits by building the pipeline.

Ah, but the State Department does not think they are "cheaper" or "safer". The pipeline is both and the other is putting money in the pockets of people like Warren Buffet.

The article posted at #2 says all that needs to be said about the *imaginary* safety of transporting crude by rail.

Well, you've hijacked another thread, IBIdiot, with your rude, insulting, foul mouthed, narcissistic ejaculations.

why does every thread turn into "You and You against the world?" Ever thought that maybe the reason nobody (with the possible exception of Slobbrin) EVER comes to your rescue is because people, regardless of political leaning, genuinely dislike you?

This is no longer snappy repartee. You've hijacked the entire forum. No subject gets past the second or third page before you turn it into a pigsty.

Thanks a lot, ASSHOLE!

Sick creepy bastard. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually, you lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM, those reasons you enumerated are why you received the most votes in those polls.

You want some cheese with that whine? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Take another breath of that pure Dixie air with that wheeze, you pathetic Yankee cretin living in exile in Dixie!

The owners of the oil wanted to find a cheaper way to get the oil to market. Originally Posted by BigLouie

Are you talking about rail or trucking or both?





http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...m#.U3s2W4go6po

Ah, but the State Department does not think they are "cheaper" or "safer". The pipeline is both and the other is putting money in the pockets of people like Warren Buffet. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The oil that Keystone was designed to carry was not "new" oil, it was oil that was already being sent by rail and truck but that was taking too long and did not have the capacity they wanted. So they wanted to build a pipeline to get it to refineries faster. People were claiming it would help the US energy needs. This was not true as it was already sold to the Asian market, they just needed to get it there faster. But due to all the delay the people who owned the oil found other pipelines and methods that would get it to the market faster or as fast without going to the expense of building the Keystone pipeline. So it was not needed any longer or as the article says, obsolete.

Here is something to chew on. Everyone who said we should build it said it would help US energy needs. So if the pipeline is no longer needed because they found faster ways or more capacity to get the oil to the refineries why isn't it helping US energy needs right now?

Are you talking about rail or trucking or both?





http://www.manhattan-institute.org/h...m#.U3s2W4go6po Originally Posted by LexusLover

Trucking and railways pollute more than pipelines, too.

Actually it has always been about profit. The owners of the oil wanted to find a cheaper way to get the oil to market. Now that they have found cheaper and faster ways to get the oil to market there is no need to cut into profits by building the pipeline. Originally Posted by BigLouie

I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but there are no cheaper ways to move gas and liquids than a pipeline. That's why we have two million miles of pipeline in the US.

You might not want to rely on BusinessInsider.

Take another breath of that pure Dixie air with that wheeze, you pathetic Yankee cretin living in exile in Dixie! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You want some cheese with that whine?

You want some cheese with that whine?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Go drink some Wild Irish Rose and get a little more inspiration - that retort is old and lame.

The oil that Keystone was designed to carry was not "new" oil, it was oil that was already being sent by rail and truck but that was taking too long and did not have the capacity they wanted. So they wanted to build a pipeline to get it to refineries faster. People were claiming it would help the US energy needs. This was not true as it was already sold to the Asian market, they just needed to get it there faster. But due to all the delay the people who owned the oil found other pipelines and methods that would get it to the market faster or as fast without going to the expense of building the Keystone pipeline. So it was not needed any longer or as the article says, obsolete.

Here is something to chew on. Everyone who said we should build it said it would help US energy needs. So if the pipeline is no longer needed because they found faster ways or more capacity to get the oil to the refineries why isn't it helping US energy needs right now? Originally Posted by BigLouie

You wisely try to change the subject from "safer and cheaper" (which was changed from environmentally safe) to "faster". The environmental argue is over. The concensus is that a pipeline is the safest way to transport oil. After initial costs the pipeline is also the cheapest way to transport oil. Can't argue with trucks and trains being the fastest (because the roads, trucks, and trains already exist) but this was not about being the fastest at any point in the argument.

I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but there are no cheaper ways to move gas and liquids than a pipeline. That's why we have two million miles of pipeline in the US.

You might not want to rely on BusinessInsider. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I am not saying that rail and trucks are cheaper. Go read the article. They started using other pipelines making Keystone not needed

So you're saying that if a more effective way exists to do something that a factory owner should stick with the old tried and true?

I have missed your dumb ass questions JD.

You want some cheese with that whine?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

It must be all of that pure Dixie air you're breathing while living in exile in Dixie that is making your corrupt self wheeze so, you pathetic Yankee asshole.

The pipeline will get built. It will just cost more when it's finally completed.