tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post8735836874227164061..comments2023-08-20T07:06:14.115-04:00Comments on Thurber's Thoughts: Jay Carney spins Keystone Pipeline rejection without challenge from reportersMaggiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-89123851990066105872012-02-22T22:03:28.689-05:002012-02-22T22:03:28.689-05:00Mad Jack - I'll just agree to disagree. There...Mad Jack - I'll just agree to disagree. There are more benefits than just expecting the construction of this pipeline to lower gas prices....Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-76409678579902436102012-02-22T20:48:54.689-05:002012-02-22T20:48:54.689-05:00There is no guarantee that the oil coming through ...There is no guarantee that the oil coming through that pipeline will remain in the United States. That condition has already been tried, and the Canadians rejected it so the US withdrew it. Nor is there any guarantee that if the pipeline is built our gas prices will decline.<br /><br />Just collecting this oil left a mess in Ontario that is absolutely criminal, so much so that I'm surprised the Canadians would actually allow it to happen. Over 1000 acres of wilderness got turned into a HAZMAT spill that is truly unbelievable, even if you see the photos. The holding ponds of poisonous chemicals are getting to be the size of lakes.<br /><br />As far as spills go, we've already had one spill in Michigan from the first Keystone pipe, and it was a 30 mile disaster. The damage is still with us and no one knows just what has happened to the ground water. And yeah, the spill does compare to the Exxon Valdez; generally it's worse.<br /><br />No - this is about as bad as it gets. We in the US will derive no benefit from the pipeline and we risk destroying entire aquifers just by having the pipeline operate.Mad Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06190137186843630543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-29316071000967611632012-02-22T13:02:25.291-05:002012-02-22T13:02:25.291-05:00Mad Jack,
There are alternatives, I agree. But t...Mad Jack,<br /><br />There are alternatives, I agree. But this is the most cost efficient one. And while there is certainly a chance - albeit slim considering all the new technology (my engineer brother in law works at a refinery) - a spill on land is much better than a spill at sea. It's easier to contain and causes less damage.<br /><br />So this pipeline is a better option than the one the Canadians are now considering, which is to sell the oil to China and ship it there for processing.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-1121706372109417342012-02-22T11:58:58.016-05:002012-02-22T11:58:58.016-05:00I started reading about the pipeline, and while yo...I started reading about the pipeline, and while you're quite right to criticize <i>The Anointed One</i> for <b>not</b> making a decision, approving the project is something that I hope never happens.<br /><br />I don't know if you've read up on this mess, but if the pipeline is built it will, beyond any shadow of doubt, leak. When it does, the United States has no way at all to contain the spill - check 30 miles of polluted river up in Michigan due to the Keystone pipeline.<br /><br />There are alternatives to this, and I do not mean alternate energy sources (none of which actually work as advertised).Mad Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06190137186843630543noreply@blogger.com