What's new
What's new

What happened to the pipeline thread?

John Welden got diarrhea of the mouth, let out some anti-conservative hate string full of invectives and got the thread deleted.

I was just about to put forward some info on how Warren Buffett was going to profit heavily from the pipeline not going forward...
 
John Welden got diarrhea of the mouth, let out some anti-conservative hate string full of invectives and got the thread deleted.

I was just about to put forward some info on how Warren Buffett was going to profit heavily from the pipeline not going forward...

Interesting that foul mouthed members are tolerated. They ruin it for everyone. I think it would be a lot easier to just ban a few people than keep deleting posts and threads.
 
It would be good, IMO, if the thread could be restored, the offending post deleted, and the whole thing locked if need be.

A dozen folks contributed information and links to an important topic. Hate to see it all trashed.

As a general policy, I wouldn't mind having a thread locked at the first instance of invective and personal attacks. Just leave it intact, locked, with all the world to see why it was halted. Repeat offenders might get banned.
 
I'm still here....lol

I figure he was loosing his side of the debate and said that to get it deleted on purpose. After tonight we will have some good stuff....when we hear how well our economy is doing....lol
 
I see. He's on my ignore list so I don't get to see his posts. It's not his foulness that I object to, it's his hatefulness. I suspected the thread got deleted because Richard posted a link to Fox news.
 
I figure he was loosing his side of the debate and said that to get it deleted on purpose.

Rich, if you read his posts for awhile, you'll get the general gist. Very, very high sarcasm content :)

I was just about to put forward some info on how Warren Buffett was going to profit heavily from the pipeline not going forward...

I'd like to hear about that!

The whole Keystone deal is a big political clusterf#@%. Whatever the outcome, you can be sure it won't be in our (US or Canadian voters) best interests.
 
Hopefully whatever replaces it will be better.

Oh, I think it will definitely be approved. But not enough money has changed hands yet.

We'll never know if we get a drop of the oil either, because of the way the contract is written: the tar sands will be delivered to the refineries in Texas, and disappear into a black hole.
 
My whole point was we need jobs and as our president once said "shovel ready jobs" and those jobs will help our industry again so we can all see pages of help wanted machinists again. I got sick of the thread leaning "left". I saw today on Fox that to move a barrel of Oil down to Houston via the pipeline would cost $5.00 and to move it by rail (Buffet owned rail) it would cost several times that price. Be sure everyone has the barf bag handy tonight when you watch the "State of the Union"...
 
I was just about to put forward some info on how Warren Buffett was going to profit heavily from the pipeline not going forward...

This just popped up in my inbox -

When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of “infrastructure” projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.
As it turns out, oil is already moved from northern latitudes, such as the booming oil fields of North Dakota, down to the Gulf of Mexico by rail of the old, low-speed variety. Fortunately, as Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Monday night Republican debate in Florida, the oil is on private land, so Obama can’t shut production down.
Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an Associated Press report explains:
Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota's oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation's fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year.

Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state's so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.


Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.


"Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation," Ritter said.

Amusingly, a spokesman for the Sierra Club admitted “there is no question that [transporting] oil by rail or truck is much more dangerous than a pipeline,” but that didn’t stop the zero-growth eco-fanatics from calling in their chips with President Downgrade to kill that pipeline.
Those rail shipments are expected to “increase exponentially with increased oil production and the shortage of pipelines,” according to Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority. That’s going to be quite a windfall for the railroad companies, isn’t it?
As it happens, 75 percent of the oil currently shipped by rail out of North Dakota is handled by Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC… which just happens to be a unit of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. What a coincidence!
For some reason, nobody from BNSF or Berkshire Hathaway would return the AP’s telephone calls, but oilman Harold Hamm told them he was sure this was just a wonderful “lucky break” for Barack Obama’s favorite billionaire, who is “certainly favored by this decision.” I’ve heard Buffett’s famously overtaxed secretary will be a guest at the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe someone could ask her about it.
The “tax me more” refrain from liberal billionaires is one of the oldest sucker games in the book. For the well-connected, the money that can be made through government power – whether by influencing corrupt politicians, or merely predicting what they’re going to do - dwarfs whatever income they offer to cough up.


I wondered why the decision seemed to favor the greenies over the unions, didn't add up to me. Now I see that there's more to consider.


 
Interesting that foul mouthed members are tolerated. They ruin it for everyone. I think it would be a lot easier to just ban a few people than keep deleting posts and threads.

Wasn't someone threatened with a ban recently for offering to post a link to something from a certain bombastic right wing radio host? Yet I've never seen welden publicly chastized for his hate. Maybe I missed it.
 
I'd be ok with train shipping, possibly a new improved railroad that can serve more than one purpose, and at least there would be people on scene if someone happens instead of the " yeah we've been losing pressure for a while now for some reason "
 
If you really think about it. Why do they need to ship it by rail?

Build the processing facilities there and let the fuel companies pay more truck drivers to take it off their hands.
 
I got sick of the thread leaning "left". I saw today on Fox

You realize the utter irony of that statement, right? :D

that to move a barrel of Oil down to Houston via the pipeline would cost $5.00 and to move it by rail (Buffet owned rail) it would cost several times that price.

Yes, the Keystone pipeline would make it very lucrative for the Canadians to sell oil to the Chinese.

Since the US doesn't own the oil, and we won't own the pipeline, and it's going to be built with Indian pipe made from Indian steel, how is the Keystone pipeline in our best interests?
 
This just popped up in my inbox -

When President Obama, who is normally a great proponent of “infrastructure” projects, made his bizarre decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline project, I wondered if he might have been induced to create those thousands of American jobs if the oil could be moved by his beloved high-speed rail.

I was taken to task for posting an analysis of the Keystone pipeline from Cornell, so fair play suggests that I point out that's John Hayward, a wingnut blogger at "Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices."
 
John,

I wish you would stop being so shy and just tell people how you really feel ;).

I think if you entered politics the news would be worth watching.

Dave
 
Them 20,000 jobs are temporary. Water is more important than cheap oil(HA!) let em refine where its at,then we will move it. Only ones gonna get rich are a very very few.aint nobody gonna retire with bennies from that shit work.
Gw
 
When I started to vote, I voted Democrat because my parents did in my 20's I thought of myself as a independent voter and as I got older I switched to Republican. I think both parties in this country suck and are paid off by someone 99% of the time. I like a good exchange of ideas and have leaned a lot about oil the past week. I stated last week I sat next to a rough neck on an airplane who works in ND on oil wells, who was unemployed carpenter from Ohio and now is making over $2500.00 a week, and works only 2 weeks a month. I bet machine shops, motels, cafes, banks, grocery stores, etc in ND are booming selling to these drillers. 2 years ago they buried a 30" sanitary sewer pipe in our city. It went only 10 miles and the construction took several months (at least 6). Building the Keystone pipeline will take years and create lots of jobs we do not have now. That's the bottom line.
Here is a good read from PBS (need to wear the bifocals).

Extreme Oil . The Science | PBS
 








 
Back
Top