Skyhook79;1060906 wrote:I don't think they mind too much since they are a few other pipelines.

jmog;1060245 wrote:So what left wing environmental nut job website did you copy/paste this from?

Having physically been to the oil sands sites in Canada and worked on fuel delivery systems as a chemical combustion research engineer, I can tell yout hat you are wrong. So wrong that is itsn't even funny.

Is it hotter and pumped at a higher pressure? Yes.
Is it so much hotter and higher pressure that current standards for piping won't work? No.

Heck, we already do this in California, the same type of oil is in the San Juaquin valley, the same type of extraction (high pressure steam pumped into the ground to loosen up/heat up the oil to make it pumpable).

How did we EVER manage to get the oil out of california?

This is the kind of crap that pisses me off, as someone who has worked in combustion/fuel research for about a decade to watch some blog site that has no basis in science or reality be quoted as fact.

KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

KnightRyder;1060290 wrote:i too work in the oil industry, and no i'm not a chemical combustion research engineer. i'm the guy that has to clean up the mess that chemical combustion research engineers create with their stupid decisions that only work on paper or in some lab. get out in the real world and get your hands dirty. then maybe you could see what works and what doesnt. till then bag it.

KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

jmog;1061010 wrote:You don't know crap about me.

I typically am in the field doing actual field engineering 20-30% of every year. I have got "my hands dirty" quite a few times.

I take my projects from theory to execution to commissioning in the field.

If this type of oil is so freaking hard to pipe, please explain how we are ALREADY piping it out of the San Juaquin valley in California already? I have been to that desert a few times working on the steam generators that pump steam down in the ground. There are literally 100s of them stretched from Bakersfield to Fresno. Somehow they manage to get that same type of oil out of California every day without creating global catastrophes.

So, since you are so well knowing, tell me how it works just fine in California (a highly liberal/EPA controlled state) but we can't pump the stuff from Canada?

It's political bull**** is what it is.

KnightRyder;1061058 wrote:yea it works so well it leaks. maybe because of shoddy design. i imagine that could be possible. furthermore i doubt you are involved in anything in the oil industry. you dont even know how to spell the name of the pipeline in question. . its San Joaquin valley not San Juaquin valley. That shows me a little on your knowledge of the industry. the first time the supposed keystone pipeline sprang a leak . i could see you and all the other conservative douche bags criticizing obama for that decision. he made the right call , like it or not.

KnightRyder;1061058 wrote:yea it works so well it leaks. maybe because of shoddy design. i imagine that could be possible. furthermore i doubt you are involved in anything in the oil industry. you dont even know how to spell the name of the pipeline in question. . its San Joaquin valley not San Juaquin valley. That shows me a little on your knowledge of the industry. the first time the supposed keystone pipeline sprang a leak . i could see you and all the other conservative douche bags criticizing obama for that decision. he made the right call , like it or not.

HitsRus;1060890 wrote:This is an irrelevant question since this has not been really fast tracked. The permit was applied for in 2008 and due diligence has been done. The State department has itself stated in a brief on 8/26/2011 that the determination would be done by the end of the year 2011. What has happened is that the Obama administration has DELAYED AND STALLED and tried to push back the decision until after THE ELECTION...a strictly political move so as not to piss off his base which includes the anti oil crowd...environmental extremists...man made climate change people etc. I believe Obama will approve it (if re-elected)...he just doesn't want to do it now.
The Republicans are , of course, holding his feet to the fire...certainly political....but they are right to do it, as to delay its construction 'is not in the country's interest', no matter what the administration says.

The country is struggling to get the economy going, and this huge construction project will provide jobs. Whether it is as many as oil industry analysts say, or as paltry as pipeline opponents say is irrelevant also, because by anybody's estimate it will create several thousand jobs, as well as several thousand more 'spinoff' jobs...all of which America's needs to get the ball rolling again so to speak. The claim by opponents that these jobs are 'temporary' is is political spin also, as ALL construction jobs are temporary. That does not mean they are less desirable. The project is a large investment($7 billion) in permanent infrastructure...a very nice injection into our economy when you consider the multiplier effect.




This is not about energy independence as much as it is about energy security. This is oil that will be sent to and refined here in this country(permanently)...from a friendly and stable source. In the event of an oil disruption in the middle east...the oil necessary to keep us running is here, in American markets, as opposed to having to go to Asia to bring it back. Moreover, the timing of this is important too. Canada is not going to sit on this oil waiting for us to act on the if/come. They have money invested and they are going to move the stuff. Make no mistake, China, India and other Asian players are moving quickly to secure their sources of oil for their burgeoning economies. While there is still plenty of oil, there is no question that the gap between demand and available supply will diminish considerably over the next 20 years, and being proactive in this regard is crucial as we attempt to transition to other sources.

I am not an Obama guy to begin with, but this is one reason that he must be defeated . Everybody plays politics, but to do so against the national interest is a cardinal sin and should not be tolerated. This is a 'shovel ready' project if there ever was one...and it won't cost Treasury a dime. The administration needs to stop shoveling on this one.

stlouiedipalma;1061164 wrote:But how much of this stuff, once refined, will stay in the USA? Will any of it stay, or is it designated for shipment overseas?

. Regardless of how long this has taken, how much money has found its way to their coffers from oil and oil-related businesses?

But how much of this stuff, once refined, will stay in the USA? Will any of it stay, or is it designated for shipment overseas?

jmog;1061083 wrote:I have physically been in that desert half a dozen times, a typo doesn't make one retarded. Chevron, being one of the big players out there, has almost 200 steam generators (I think final count was 162 maybe?) all with North American Mfg Ultra-Low NOx Magna-Flame GLE burners on them.

And no, that wasn't a typo, if you google that burner you will not see the GLE version in the literature, only the LE and LEx versions (there is also an LEr and GLZ version in research). I worked in the research and development of that sub 12 ppm NOx burner technology and since had worked on a sub 8 ppm version as well.

So, want to keep on talking? I have also worked on many research projects for refineries, one in particular was Tesoro in Mandan, North Dakota. I was also in Fort McMurray Canada where a ton of this type of oil is coming from.

fan_from_texas;1061172 wrote:It's unclear, and there's no way to know. Oil is a global commodity, so I'm not sure that it matters much.

believer;1061235 wrote:It doesn't. It only means more American jobs and access to a friendly source of foreign oil.

That being said this should have been an easy economic no-brainer for the Appointed One. But since when has he demonstrated any common sense since taking office?

KnightRyder;1060969 wrote:why didnt mention the San Joaquin pipe line ruptured in 1993 spilling 6200 barrels of crude into a freshwater stream?

KnightRyder;1061523 wrote:and more jobs to clean up the mess when it ruptures

HitsRus;1061652 wrote:...and they should continue to hammer home runs. John Boehner has stated that all options are on the table with Keystone, and if necessary, they will attach its approval to the payroll tax cut extension.

KnightRyder;1061227 wrote:then you would know that running a pipeline thru the largest aquifer in the U.S. is a bad idea . like you said they all leak. and you would also know that it would be built of of material that would be below specs.

j_crazy;1061526 wrote:Care to look up the daily throughput of that pipeline? 6200 bbls seems like a leak that lasted 4 hrs. Meaning that line probably transports 20000 bbls per day.

ccrunner609;1062375 wrote:Pubs are going to tie future payroll tax cuts to the pipeline to try to force Obamas hand since the only way he has a chance to get re-elected is to buy them with a payroll tax cut.