It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox News Schooled By Nebraska Farmer on Keystone XL Pipeline

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I appreciate your concerns. Here's the thing: we don't really truly need coal and oil anymore. We have enough set aside to keep us going until the reserves run out. We are making natural gas from our own landfills, our cattle-ranch refuse, our recycled material, our solar and wind energy.....we are using clean energy.

Even with the 'regulations' lifted, the former coal-mining companies are not going to go back to the obsolete methods of mining coal. It's just not going to happen. Those people can be trained in newer energy-source tech. They do not need to be sent back underground.




posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
1) I saw no schooling
2) Your quoted material is hack, at best
3) You don't want to live in Nebraska, like mountains, yet you live in Kansas - which is even flatter
3) Why is your avatar the sculpture of a foolish girl about to be gored by a wild animal?


This is disgracefully disingenuous. You and I both know that I live right across the state line from YOU, and that it is anything but "flat."

And you freaking know that. Posing does not become you.


Deflection from rebuttals, that's what you got? Have you been to Nebraska? It is not flat, especially on the eastern side.

And why do you want to see little girls trampled by huge animals?


Lol that's what I thought.
I was born and raised in Kansas and have now lived in Nebraska about 14 years.

Kansas is way flatter. And Nebraska has got a f#$ ton of trees as well.
Hell my current city was voted the Greenest City by Yahoo awhile back.
edit on 23-4-2017 by essentialtremors because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs



The pipeline would create a total of 35 permanent jobs.
Thats a cherry picked number. The US portion of the pipeline is a megaproject with anticipated construction costs of over 3 billion dollars. There will be substantial tax benefits to the counties the pipeline passes through for decades to come. How many permanent employees are created at something like a hydroelectric generating station? Hoover Dam shouldn't have been built with that kind of logic.



The oil coming through it will be Canadian.

That is not entirely true. A portion of the oil flowing will be USA produced Bakken crude added at Baker Montana.




It will be refined here and exported to India and the Middle East (!)

Exporting a value added product is good for the economy is it not?




So it has no real effect on America being self-sufficient in terms of needing to import. North America, maybe, but not the United States herself.

The Keystone pipeline is seen as a way to replace imports of heavy oil-sand crude from Venezuela with Canadian heavy oil.



Trump’s support for Keystone rests on a foundation of disinformation. Independent analysts agree that the the project would create about thirty-five permanent jobs. But even if it created more, that wouldn’t justify destroying communities and the livelihoods of private citizens.
Nonsense. How is a pipeline detroying communities and livelihoods of private citizens?




He said that the goal is to “leave the tar sands in the ground and move more rapidly to renewable fuels.”
You won't like what that does to your energy bill. Look at Germany, three times the rate of North America. Of course big industry is subsidized back to the level of North America, so it doesn't hurt their bottom line. Just the citizens pay the inflated rate.




Yes, he schooled her.
Only the uninformed will think this way.



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Here's the thing: we don't really truly need coal and oil anymore.

I'm sorry, but that is a false statement. We are still highly dependent on oil (hydrocarbons) and somewhat dependant on coal. There is at present no renewable energy source that can handle all of society's needs. All of the reports to the contrary are specific to small areas.

I fully support any renewable energy source that shows practicality; every watt produced thus is a few drops less oil needed. But I do not, and will not, support a premature exit from using oil as a source of power until it can be reliably and fully replaced by something better.

The world needs gasoline, diesel, and all the other products produced from oil. That's just a fact. It's also a fact that the world will continue to use oil for the foreseeable future. I'm not about to argue that. I simply wanted my concerns answered.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Here's the thing: we don't really truly need coal and oil anymore. We have enough set aside to keep us going until the reserves run out.
That made me laugh out loud.
Our society is totally dependant on fossil fuels at the current moment in time.

What do you mean we have enough set aside?

You need to do some research....

eta


After we learned how destructive the chemicals and the tar sands are, we have come to realize that this type of fossil fuel should not be happening.
Wonder if this farmer is willing to give up his tractors in exchange for horses and quit using any pesticides or herbicides? He's nothing but a hypocrite.
edit on 23-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Ok, first of all... Nebraskan here.. born and raised eastern Nebraska. Definitely flat. Flat as a Denny's stack. Not the issue. The whole Nebraskans blocking the pipeline issue has to do with water. Specifically the ogallala aquifer. 90% of irrigated crops in the midwest are from that water source. That doesn't take into account water for livestock for the best beef in the world. This is a pipeline by foreigners for foreigners that threatens the very livelihood of the nation. Nebraskans have every right to be skeptical and pissed about this proposal.

This pipeline will cross through this prescious water source, threatening our way of life.
edit on 24-4-2017 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2017 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I know what fossil fuels are. It's not my brother and uncle who make me an "expert".

I studied environmental science myself, and I am aware of how oil and gas work, where they come from, and that they are fossil fuels. So is coal.

If you ever paid any attention to what I actually say here, you would know that I'm well-educated about these things I talk about. Whether you want to acknowledge that or not is up to you. We can produce our own natural gas now using cow dung and landfills. We don't need to continue fracking. We don't need to continue drilling for oil, either. People who care about the planet, ESPECIALLY people who live in the midwest farm country know this.
Wind and solar are cheaper, cleaner, better, and already advanced enough to eliminate fracking.

Tar sands are awful. Fracking is dangerous and proven to cause earthquakes.

edit on 4/24/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
Ok, first of all... Nebraskan here.. born and raised eastern Nebraska. Definitely flat. Flat as a Denny's stack. Not the issue. The whole Nebraskans blocking the pipeline issue has to do with water. Specifically the ogallala aquifer. 90% of irrigated crops in the midwest are from that water source. That doesn't take into account water for livestock for the best beef in the world. This is a pipeline by foreigners for foreigners that threatens the very livelihood of the nation. Nebraskans have every right to be skeptical and pissed about this proposal.

This pipeline will cross through this prescious water source, threatening our way of life.


Thank you.
Nebraska is a place I would never agree to live, but without the farming and ranching they do, it's more than your way of life that is at risk. It is where our food comes from. Yes, the Ogalala is being depleted and this could poison it.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You and I have discussed this before. The world is moving on from the oil and gas industries. It will not be overnight, but they are moving away from it. It will be by the end of the century, I'm thinking.

My daughter is a materials science engineer, she works with ceramics and has worked on hydrogen fuel cell development. Cars are now being made electric - I own a hybrid myself.

The industrial revolution was over 100 years ago. That stuff is now outdated. Yes, we have to keep the old stuff running until we are ready to let it die, but that is the goal.

As for the Middle East, I don't give a crap what they do to their own desert wastelands. I care very much what the USA does to North America which has plenty of natural resources now.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Why fracking not a good idea

1. Hydraulic fracturing is harmful to the climate
Indeed, fracking has been proved to be linked to important leaks of methane – a 23 times more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

2. Is NOT part of the vital energy transition

Far better solutions like low carbon energy sources such as renewables (solar, wind, geothermal…) and energy efficiency can be part of an energy transition that is safe for our civilization and our climate. While the former are gaining traction, the former could do much more.

An energy transition based on these two could bring thousands of local jobs and money without any risks. As a matter of facts, it has already started…

3.Consumes vast amounts of precious water

As more and more countries are getting drier, using energy sources that consumes vast amounts of water is just sheer madness.

Climate Progress reported that each fracking job requires several million gallons of water, of which only around a quarter is being recovered. The remainder is just lost for ever.

In water stressed areas such as the US Southern States (like Texas or New Mexico), this is not only foolish, it is downright self-destructive…

4. Contaminates soils, air and water

We depend on clean soils in many ways. Feeding ourselves is but one. Clean air is even simpler to comprehend as we breathe the air around us. So if hydraulic fracturing pollutes both soils and air, how can we live healthily ?

Shale gas drilling has been linked in many occasions to flammable drinking water. The Economist published an article on that earlier this year.

Injecting in our environment a cocktail of water, sand and no less than hundreds of chemicals that can cause cancers or are neurotoxins. Not the kind of stuff you want anywhere near you…

5. Causes earthquakes

A recent study from one of the world’s leading seismology labs quoted by Reuters show that ” powerful earthquakes thousands of miles (km) away can trigger swarms of minor quakes near wastewater-injection wells like those used in oil and gas recovery “

...the US Geological Survey (USGS) linked up to 50 earthquakes to fracking in Oklahoma. Magnitudes were ranging from 1.0 to 4.0.

6. Puts arsenic in groundwater tables

Arsenic is a poison of choice if you want to dispose of an Emperor or a King. Most unfortunately to people near fracking wells, it also has been found in groundwater near fracking wells.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found traces of it on multiple occasions as the Los Angeles Times and ProPublica both reported.

7. Doesn’t benefit We, the People.

Because of all the negative side effects, the People can lose a lot because of fracking. The ones who benefit from it are Big Oil and so on… As I noted in my review of Promised Land, a clean energy alternative however can benefit the People at large.

Rural communities can be revived thanks to wind power’s money. I have read about such occurrences in the United States and in France alike.

Hydraulic fracturing is not the solution we should be seeking right now. It is full of dangers and its merits are clearly overhyped by fossil fuels companies.


Just FYI.

But we are talking about the Keystone OIL pipeline.

Keystone XL Pipeline FACTS


An environmental crime in progress

Dirty tar sands oil
Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil.

Water waste and pollution

During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of heat, water and chemicals are needed to separate the tarry substance (known as bitumen) from sand, silt, and clay and to flow up the pipeline. The water used in the process comes from rivers and underground aquifers. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. Ninety-five percent of the water used to extract the oil, which is about 2.4 million barrels per day, is so polluted that the water must be stored in large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds. As the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom of these ponds, the toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, works its way into neighboring clean water supplies.

Forest destruction

The tar sands oil are underneath the world’s largest intact ecosystem, the Boreal forests of Alberta. The forests not only serve as an important carbon sink, but its biodiversity and unspoiled bodies of water support large populations of many different species. They are a buffer against climate change as well as food and water shortages. However, in the process of digging up tar sands oil, the forests are destroyed. This valuable forest and its endangered caribou are both threatened by the pipeline.

Indigenous populations

those living downstream from tailing ponds have seen spikes in rates of rare cancers, renal failure, lupus, and hyperthyroidism. In the lakeside village of Fort Chipewyan, for example, 100 of the town’s 1,200 residents have died from cancer.

These problems will only get worse, unless tar sands production is halted. Investing in a new pipeline would increase the rate of production, while decreasing the quality of life for indigenous populations.

Pipeline spills

The Keystone XL pipeline would traverse six U.S. states and cross major rivers, including the Missouri River, Yellowstone, and Red Rivers, as well as key sources of drinking and agricultural water, such as the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies water to more than one fourth of America’s irrigated land and provides drinking water for two million Americans.

The probability of spills from this pipeline is high and more threatening than conventional spills, because tar sands oil sinks rather than floats, making clean ups more difficult and costly.



edit on 4/24/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Devil's advocate here...

Will those refineries produce any more after the pipeline is finished? I was under the impression we were already running close to 100% production.

TheRedneck


That's the point, they are already near full capacity (I grew up in the region and most of my family works or has worked in those refineries), and thus they are in the process of expanding them. In order to refine what will brought in daily by the new pipeline, they will have to hire many more people for permanent positions. Thus the jobs produced by the pipelines will not have to do with the pipeline itself but in the processing of the oil.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yes, we have, and I am glad to see you coming around a bit. A goal of conversion by the end of the century might be realistic IMO. If we do get alternate forms of energy creation, I am all for stopping oil use.

It will have to be something besides electricity and hydrogen, though. Both of those are just energy transport instead of energy creation. Present technology that qualifies as energy creation would be waste reclamation, wave energy, solar energy, hydroelectric energy, nuclear energy, fossil fuel combustion, or geothermal. All these are just transports if energy in the strictest sense, but they transport wasted energy to usable form. In contrast, we have to use as much usable energy to produce free hydrogen or electricity as we receive back when they are used (minus efficiency costs).

I am intrigued by the progress in electric cars. Wouldn't mind driving a Tesla myself... the advantage, though, is being able to transport the energy, not in the creation of usable energy itself.

I'm not a big fan of NIMBY, sorry.

My point, though, was that pipelines are safer than ocean transport, and that the construction of the pipeline is not going to affect whether or not the tar sands are harvested; that decision has already been made by Canada, and until shown different I prefer to expect them to be as ecologically-friendly as possible.

I believe I read somewhere that authorities had even found evidence of pipeline damage done by protesters. If true, that means I have to discount the dangers of pipeline leaks because the leaks are intentional. I'll try to find a link when I have time.

And yes, I know fracking is bad...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I might be misinformed...

There are two things required for refinement: equipment and labor. Are you saying we are not at 100% equipment capacity, so we just need more labor? Or will expanded capacity involve adding refineries as well?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

As for my "coming around" - my positions have not changed. It is Trump who is uttering things that I want: he pledges clean air and clean water and clean energy now. Fine. Have at it.

Hiring Pruitt who has a history of suing the EPA was a slap in the face for environmentalists, regardless of the reasons, because they led the public to believe they were going to do away with it and all pollution regulations and just let industry run rampant with dirty energy methods and waste. That was not okay.

My own gas lines (natural gas) were found to be leaking. They were installed in 1960. Now we have new hi-tech valves and indestructible pipes. So that's good. The soil they dug out from around the leaks was a nasty sickly greenish-gray color. That's what leaking pipes cause. It was not cool. He said stuff would still grow in it, but that doesn't make it okay. It makes it wasteful, and poisonous nonetheless.

Thanks for your response!
edit on 4/24/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


First, the ecological destruction issue. I think everyone agrees that oil spills are devastating, but a maintained pipeline shouldn't leak. Leaking oil is money wasted. I know there have been instances of improper maintenance (Deep Horizon was at least partially due to BP installing a surplus safety valve), but isn't this one of those areas where regulations would be welcome?


Absolutely! So why do people think Trump's pledge to end all regulations is okay?



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

edit on 4/24/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: I had 40 years of life experience before I went to grad school. Included lots of stuff. Don't need to justify myself

edit on 4/24/2017 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Dirty tar sands oil
Pollution from tar sands oil greatly eclipses that of conventional oil.
About 80 per cent of the emissions attributable to a barrel of oil occur during the downstream combustion of refined fuel in a vehicle – not during the upstream production of crude oil. Wikipedia indicates 17% higher greenhouse gas emissions from the extraction of oil sands compared to extraction of conventional oil.link




Water waste and pollution
Oilsands production accounts for 8 percent of Albertas water allocation on a yearly basis. Water recycling is mandatory.




Forest destruction

The tar sands oil are underneath the world’s largest intact ecosystem, the Boreal forests of Alberta. The forests not only serve as an important carbon sink, but its biodiversity and unspoiled bodies of water support large populations of many different species. They are a buffer against climate change as well as food and water shortages. However, in the process of digging up tar sands oil, the forests are destroyed. This valuable forest and its endangered caribou are both threatened by the pipeline.

Apply some critical thinking skills when you see these appeals to emotion without any data to back it up.

Disturbed oil sands surface minable area equaled to about 895 km2 in 2013 accounting for about 0.2 per cent of Alberta boreal forest which covers over 381,000 km2.

It's about the size of the city of Edmonton, the forest is not threatened by oilsands production, thats utter nonsense. All of the areas that are mined will be reclaimed and planted back to boreal forest.




Pipeline spills

The probability of spills from this pipeline is high and more threatening than conventional spills, because tar sands oil sinks rather than floats, making clean ups more difficult and costly.


Oil sands-derived crudes behave the same way as conventional crude oil, which floats in still or slow-moving water. Crude oil does sink if it is allowed to weather and mix with dirt over time, making a swift response to a spill in water critical. In turbulent water, it is typically driven to the bottom of the river where it tends to stick to rocks, which can make clean-up more difficult.






edit on 24-4-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

Yea, thats definitely a huge issue. We really can't afford to lose use of the aquifer. Nor can the world, really.

OT- You're in eastern Nebraska, so yea it is pretty flat around there unless you're in the extreme SE region. "Head West young man!"



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you know how that electricity is made for your precious electric car?

I assume you do, since you're so educated.



posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Do you know how that electricity is made for your precious electric car?

I assume you do, since you're so educated.


What is US elec generation by energy source?




top topics



 
24
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join