Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Oil Pipelines: So easy you just turn that sucker off like a bathroom faucet.
[+]
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Is the hamster fat because Jassik is American? The fat hamster is without a hamster wheel. I think Altima might have been referring to the wheelless hamster in his own head. :/
[+]
Should be a crime for him to post a Yoda pic, but I'll just laugh it off as irony...
[+]
[+]
More seriously: Argue the economic angle of the Keystone if you want but the 'more jobs' and lower prices on oil are just political talking points at their finest.
What few jobs come of it won't be lasting (unless you're a highly skilled petrol engineer!) and global oil demand amidst other factors determines how much you pay at the pump. We haven't nationalized our oil gaiz.
[+]
gotta love that OPEC pricing.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » What if it's one of those robo dwarf hamsters?
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » rexcipher said: » Odin.Jassik said: » the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits. No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable? I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe. It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits. So basically what you are saying is.. We can send men to the moon. Cruise around in mile long Air-craft Carriers and nuclear submarines. Build buildings so tall you can see the curve of the earth. Mastered the art of cooking bacon. But we cannot build a pipeline that doesn't leak.. And also completely ignores the history of accidents and failures. You won't get a pipeline that doesn't leak because it would be prohibitively expensive to build it. That, plus longevity of materials in corrosive environments, plus historic malfeaseance in adhering to maintenance schedules, all add up to problematic scenarios. They was meant to be. As for your second paragraph, I was unaware no rules and regulations exist to prevent any of that to happen. PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh There are rules and regulations that exist. History shows them to be not entirely effective, likely for a variety of reasons.
[+]
paper vs reality, etc
Altimaomega said: » They was meant to be. PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh I'm sorry, I laughed way too hard at this.
[+]
>>Fusses libs play the race card too much.
>>>Plays the victimization card immediately after being challenged. This after being hit with relative softballs. Someone telling you to read the WSJ is apparently a lynch mob. I know, reading can be quite difficult.
[+]
Questioning the numbers given to us by politicians is liberal now...
Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » rexcipher said: » Odin.Jassik said: » the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits. No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable? I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe. It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits. So basically what you are saying is.. We can send men to the moon. Cruise around in mile long Air-craft Carriers and nuclear submarines. Build buildings so tall you can see the curve of the earth. Mastered the art of cooking bacon. But we cannot build a pipeline that doesn't leak.. And also completely ignores the history of accidents and failures. You won't get a pipeline that doesn't leak because it would be prohibitively expensive to build it. That, plus longevity of materials in corrosive environments, plus historic malfeaseance in adhering to maintenance schedules, all add up to problematic scenarios. They was meant to be. As for your second paragraph, I was unaware no rules and regulations exist to prevent any of that to happen. PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh There are rules and regulations that exist. History shows them to be not entirely effective, likely for a variety of reasons. You'll be safe from life in here. At least until you run out of food and water. Altimaomega said: » I seem to have stumbled upon a lynch mob of liberals. 
[+]
Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » rexcipher said: » Odin.Jassik said: » the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits. No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable? I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe. It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits. So basically what you are saying is.. We can send men to the moon. Cruise around in mile long Air-craft Carriers and nuclear submarines. Build buildings so tall you can see the curve of the earth. Mastered the art of cooking bacon. But we cannot build a pipeline that doesn't leak.. And also completely ignores the history of accidents and failures. You won't get a pipeline that doesn't leak because it would be prohibitively expensive to build it. That, plus longevity of materials in corrosive environments, plus historic malfeaseance in adhering to maintenance schedules, all add up to problematic scenarios. They was meant to be. As for your second paragraph, I was unaware no rules and regulations exist to prevent any of that to happen. PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh There are rules and regulations that exist. History shows them to be not entirely effective, likely for a variety of reasons. You'll be safe from life in here. At least until you run out of food and water.  Argues that he's been persecuted by da dirty liberals.
Posts a picture of "animated" white conservatives. appropriatememe.jpg Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » >>Fusses libs play the race card too much. >>>Plays the victimization card immediately after being challenged. This after being hit with relative softballs. Someone telling you to read the WSJ is apparently a lynch mob. I know, reading can be quite difficult. Odin.Jassik said: » Questioning the numbers given to us by politicians is liberal now... Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » rexcipher said: » Odin.Jassik said: » the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits. No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable? I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe. It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits. So basically what you are saying is.. We can send men to the moon. Cruise around in mile long Air-craft Carriers and nuclear submarines. Build buildings so tall you can see the curve of the earth. Mastered the art of cooking bacon. But we cannot build a pipeline that doesn't leak.. And also completely ignores the history of accidents and failures. You won't get a pipeline that doesn't leak because it would be prohibitively expensive to build it. That, plus longevity of materials in corrosive environments, plus historic malfeaseance in adhering to maintenance schedules, all add up to problematic scenarios. They was meant to be. As for your second paragraph, I was unaware no rules and regulations exist to prevent any of that to happen. PS. You spelled malfeasance wrong. /sigh There are rules and regulations that exist. History shows them to be not entirely effective, likely for a variety of reasons. You people are insane. 95% of all that was about gas, natural gas, underwater pipelines and ***that ain't even in the USA. Oh and OLD PIPE FFS.. All of you need to get your head outta the sand and stop being so obtuse. Altimaomega said: » You people are insane. 95% of all that was about gas, natural gas, underwater pipelines and ***that ain't even in the USA. Oh and OLD PIPE FFS.. All of you need to get your head outta the sand and stop being so obtuse. you obviously didn't read any of those links...
[+]
Yes, a "List of pipeline accidents in the United States" manages to exclude pipeline accidents in the United States somehow.
[+]
"Get your head out of the sand" from someone who thinks you just turn off an oil pipeline...
Siren.Mosin said: » Altimaomega said: » You people are insane. 95% of all that was about gas, natural gas, underwater pipelines and ***that ain't even in the USA. Oh and OLD PIPE FFS.. All of you need to get your head outta the sand and stop being so obtuse. you obviously didn't read any of those links... Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Yes, a "List of pipeline accidents in the United States" manages to exclude pipeline accidents in the United States somehow. You obviously didn't read ALL the links. smh. Odin.Jassik said: » "Get your head out of the sand" from someone who thinks you just turn off an oil pipeline... 1.5 search Shut Down Oil pipeline. Quote: A diplomatic riff between Russia and neighboring Belarus is affecting Western Europe's oil supply. Russia has shut down the pipeline that runs through Belarus to Poland. Guess only Russia has that power. Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » "Get your head out of the sand" from someone who thinks you just turn off an oil pipeline... 1.5 search Shut Down Oil pipeline. Temporarily shutting down a GAS pipeline is different than shutting down an OIL pipeline for good. And it's not as simple as tearing it down, either. Even if the pipeline itself didn't have to be specially cleaned and deconstructed in a very specific manner, there is a large amount of environmental cleanup that has to be done in conjunction. A lot of the older pipeline sections in AK were actually just abandoned rather than being removed. Apparently, cleaning up after yourself isn't part of the cost analysis of building them. Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » "Get your head out of the sand" from someone who thinks you just turn off an oil pipeline... 1.5 search Shut Down Oil pipeline. Temporarily shutting down a GAS pipeline is different than shutting down an OIL pipeline for good. And it's not as simple as tearing it down, either. Even if the pipeline itself didn't have to be specially cleaned and deconstructed in a very specific manner, there is a large amount of environmental cleanup that has to be done in conjunction. A lot of the older pipeline sections in AK were actually just abandoned rather than being removed. Apparently, cleaning up after yourself isn't part of the cost analysis of building them. Damn dude you said it couldn't be turned off! Then Change your story to deconstruction. Please get your thoughts in order. Odin.Jassik said: » rexcipher said: » Odin.Jassik said: » the environmental risks of pumping billions of barrels of oil across the country outweigh the theoretical benefits. No, I'm questioning the benefit of moving billions of barrels of oil in general as well as the permanence of it. If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Also, who's going to pay for the deconstruction and cleanup when the pipeline is either no longer needed or unservicable? I look at how many people flipped their lid when the government fined BP a pretty low amount of money for Deepwater Horizon and I'm scared to death of what long-term economic and environmental consequences we might be in for with Keystone. I lived and worked within eyeshot of the valdez pipelines and saw the leaks and strip of dead oily landscape around it. Most people don't have a clue what an oil pipeline looks like a few years after it's built. They don't have a clue what kind of chemicals are used to keep the oil flowing through it, either. Crude, especially oil sands, is the consistency of strawberry jam, imagine pumping strawberry jam 2,000 miles... Sections of pipe frequently need to be opened and serviced, plugs are sent through to clear out blockage, chemicals used to lubricate, etc. Every one of those service sections is a potential leak, and there is even an accepted amount of loss per mile of pipe. It's a possible environmental disaster. I'd like to know what actual benefits it offers, because we know fully the possible consequences, but nobody seems to be able to quantify the benefits. As for deconstruction. If everyone is so damn concerned about that, put it in the bill. It would still pass the house. "and the new senate" Do you not understand the difference between the public choosing to change their energy policy and a company choosing not to continue operating a pipeline?
It's not even a matter of perspective, you're just a complete moron. Odin.Jassik said: » Do you not understand the difference between the public choosing to change their energy policy and a company choosing not to continue operating a pipeline? It's not even a matter of perspective, you're just a complete moron. Did you just say the public is gonna stop using oil.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I said nothing about not using oil. I said...
Quote: If, at some point, we determine that transporting oil has become inadvisable, we can stop driving trucks, or stop loading traincars, good luck turning off a pipe. Whether we transport crude oil from Canadian sands to US based refineries in gulf or from gulf based fields or from foreign sources by water... There are dozens of reasons why transportation between those points would no longer be advisable. Leave off the fact that the expansion is simply a shorter route to direct their product to the gulf to cut out the extra cost of transportation from the midwest refineries where it already goes to the foreign sources where it's ultimately sold. You're talking in support of a Canadian company building a pipeline across US soil to sell their product to South America. It won't create a significant number of US jobs in construction and almost none to maintain it. Every positive note that's been used for it has been shown to be either suspect or completely fabricated, but the negative aspects are well known and proven. And most people aren't even opposing it! Most people just want to know exactly what it's going to contribute to our economy, some numbers that are founded in reality. I'm done spoonfeeding information to you. If you want to be ignorant, have at it. Altimaomega said: » I seem to have stumbled upon a lynch mob of |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.