Well, of course!
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL

Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs
bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean
cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down
two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues.

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have
prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was
killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would
have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was
killed by a 53 to 46 vote.

Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require
that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no."

(Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.)


Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice,
let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the
manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the
Republicans!

Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here.

And you brought up republicans supporting China steel/manufacturing.

Well, of course!
 

On 1/20/2015 11:43 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL

Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs
bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean
cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down
two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues.

Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have
prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was
killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would
have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was
killed by a 53 to 46 vote.

Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require
that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no."

(Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.)


Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice,
let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the
manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the
Republicans!

Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here.

And you brought up republicans supporting China steel/manufacturing.

It's not about the keystone pipeline. It's about dissing republicans.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Well, of course!
 

On 1/21/2015 11:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

disaster, a ticking time bomb. Let the Canadians export it from their
ports.

That's mighty neighborly of you.

I wonder if O'Bama's mind changing is causing Harry's head to spin?

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Well, of course!
 

In article ,
says...


Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills
come from the pipeline, and how big they are.
BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed.
That should go over real good. I can see the headlines.
"Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to-
court-to.html

If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest.

Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this.
http://tinyurl.com/old9pph

"The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines
have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads
spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved,
compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline
network."

Well, of course!
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills
come from the pipeline, and how big they are.
BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed.
That should go over real good. I can see the headlines.
"Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to-
court-to.html

If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest.

Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this.
http://tinyurl.com/old9pph

"The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines
have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads
spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved,
compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline
network."

===

Quoted from the article:

-------------
Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is
to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the
advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail
freight is better).

Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil
and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a
serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much
higher.
--------------

Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you
take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and
delays.

Well, of course!
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills
come from the pipeline, and how big they are.
BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed.
That should go over real good. I can see the headlines.
"Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to-
court-to.html

If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest.

Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this.
http://tinyurl.com/old9pph

"The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines
have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads
spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved,
compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline
network."

===

Quoted from the article:

-------------
Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is
to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the
advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail
freight is better).

Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil
and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a
serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much
higher.
--------------

Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you
take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and
delays.

Rail tracks run along rivers, etc. easiest route. Leads to disasters such
as we had at Dunsmuir.
http://www.redding.com/news/legacy-of-a-disaster
Also they run through towns. How many derailments have we had in the last
50 years in housing areas?

Well, of course!
 

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills
come from the pipeline, and how big they are.
BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed.
That should go over real good. I can see the headlines.
"Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to-
court-to.html

If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest.

Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this.
http://tinyurl.com/old9pph

"The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines
have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads
spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved,
compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline
network."

===

Quoted from the article:

-------------
Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is
to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the
advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail
freight is better).

Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil
and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a
serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much
higher.
--------------

Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you
take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and
delays.

Rail tracks run along rivers, etc. easiest route. Leads to disasters such
as we had at Dunsmuir.
http://www.redding.com/news/legacy-of-a-disaster
Also they run through towns. How many derailments have we had in the last
50 years in housing areas?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graniteville,_South_Carolina,_train_crash

Had to evacuate most of the town for a period of time. Chlorine gas is some nasty stuff.