cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

It's NOT going to a refinery! It's going to a SEAPORT in Texas! Have another cup of coffee, please?!

 

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

What?  The maps confirmed the existence of hundreds of pipelines.  What more was there to say about that.  You can;'t drive far from anywhere in teh midwest and not see pipeline popups.

 

I was replying to the total  bull shinola in the accompanying text.  If you wrote that you've surely changed your style overnight.

 

After that I was replying to the great  Ag Forum site official maker upper as he goes contributor.

 

Are you interested in addressing my question to the assertion in the text or did you just want to get into a pissing match like he did? 

 

 

 

And FYI, as you actually already know from reading here over the years,  I'm a big time conservative when it comes to matters of energy policy. 

 

 

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

Do people work at the seaport? Do people work at pipeline construction and maintenance?  And I think you're wrong it will go to refineries then possibly to export. 

 

If the oil comes into the USA it will create some jobs some where in the USA, that should be the goal, beyond that I could care less if a pipeline is built.

r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

I guess you are against high paying refrinery jobs also.

bruce MN
Advisor

Re: Keystone, one of many.

What I've been picking up because allot of people are asking that same question about refineiries in the Dakotas is that nobody has actually asked.  or if they have, has moved on it.

 

Refinery construction is geared around port activity.  That's where the companies who build and maintain them are located.  Somebody would have to create a new blue print, and that's not something that fits into a system built around 30 years of Reagonomc supply side, extraction focused/lowest effort required business practices..  You couldn'tstamp out a workng refinery in the cetnral Dakotas with a cookie cutter sent up from Galveston.

 

 

And then get appropiation approval for water from the state's DNR, of which a quadragazillion gallons would be needed.

 

If that could all be overcome, absolutely.  I can't see how anybody might disagree with that............

 

 

 

except for..............

 

 

 

.........the pipeline contrators and pipe makers......  and the investors and the financiers.  They know which is cheap and simple, and is likely to be taxed less, if at all (what does your municipality charge in real estate taxes for pipe and wire under the ground? ......I thought so).  How much does it charge the pipeline or energy company for a construction permit or inspection fees?  All that might well come into play if a plant were built up north.

 

 

Maybe another prospective WPA project idea?  Refineries built with spades, wheelbarrows and mud boats.  Not sure if we should do them first up here on the prairie or wait until after the "2 hots and a cot" crew are done with the new Vikings Stadium.

GreaTOne_65
Senior Contributor

Sam & 3020

It will be built, of that I am sure, and it won't be until then until it's found out where it goes from there. I think you've been sold a bill of goods, but after it's found out it's to late. It's just to bad that first 380,000 gals. of sludge isn't going to be on YOUR farm, you wouldn't be a Republican any more I can guarantee you that.

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Sam & 3020

That would be about a million dollars worth of crude. Yea, no one would go to great lengths to make sure that didn't leak out.

 

BTW, already not a republican, but it would take a lobotomy to make me a democrat.