honda0105
Champion Author
Tallahassee
Posts:15,978
Points:1,248,125
Joined:Nov 2008
|
Message Posted: Feb 10, 2012 5:06:07 AM
The whole Keystone XL is a bad project, was from the start, hasn't improved so far. Time to send it to the scrap pile, complete with the waste of money from the rusting pipes already done overseas by people making about $0.20 / hour.
|
NHLiveFree
Champion Author
New Hampshire
Posts:8,046
Points:1,273,250
Joined:Jun 2008
|
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2012 1:15:37 AM
Thanks for presenting so much factual information for all on GB to ponder and digest. It makes much more sense to send the Alberta crude directly east for use by Ontario, Quebec and all the Maritimes. Aren't all Canadians fed up with 1.20/litre and beyond??? Stand up and let your voices be heard by Harper, with his lifetime contract w Shell, and all Harper's cohorts. Demand what is best for Canaada, not some foreign global mega corporation.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 10:04:17 PM
For those curious about my last few replies below, simply reference the reply posted here yesterday (Feb 07, 2012) by VomVom at 9:14:54 PM - it's on page 2, roughly half-way down the page.
[Edited by: Martinman at 2/8/2012 11:06:44 PM EST]
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 9:43:46 PM
"ding! ding!"
Round Two...
Let's see, what was that about the aquifer...?
I'll keep this one simple. Taken from page 3.3-9 of the EIS:
"Nebraska
Key Aquifers
The proposed route in Nebraska also overlies the NHPAQ system. The NHPAQ system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska (Emmons and Bowman 1999). Many commenters on the draft EIS requested additional information on portions of the NHPAQ system that could be impacted by the proposed Project.
In Nebraska, the NHPAQ system includes five main hydrogeologic units, including the Brule and Arikaree Formation, the Eastern Nebraska Unit, the Ogallala Formation, the Platte River Valley Unit, and the Sand Hills Unit (see Figure 3.3.1-6). These units occur over approximately 64,400 square miles in Nebraska. The proposed Project ROW would extend 247 linear miles through areas underlain by the NHPAQ system. The pipeline would IMMEDIATELY OVERLIE 81 miles of the Eastern Nebraska Unit, 62 MILES OF THE OGALLALA FORMATION, 12 miles of the Platte River Valley Unit, and 92 miles of the Sand Hills Unit."
From page 3.3-11 of the EIS:
"The well locations where estimated groundwater depth falls within Categories A and C can be used to estimate the distance along the proposed pipeline corridor in Nebraska where water depths less than or equal to 10 feet bgs could be encountered. These data suggest that APPROXIMATELY 65 MILES OF THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR IN NEBRASKA COULD ENCOUNTER GROUNDWATER AT A DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 10 FEET (see Figure 3.3.1-3). THE MAJORITY OF THESE AREAS ARE PRESENT IN THE SAND HILLS UNIT and the Platte River Valley Unit AND OVERLIE THE DEEPER OGALLALA FORMATION."
Emphasis mine - I thought I would make it easier, so you don't miss it this time.
Oh, and even if the proposed pipeline corridor did not directly overlie the aquifer, this might give just a little bit of concern:
From page ES-9 of the Executive Summary, section titled "Maximum pill Volume":
"Keystone conducted an assessment of the maximum
potential pipeline spill volume from a complete
pipeline structural failure. Keystone estimated that
the maximum spill volume would be approximately
2.8 million gallons, which would be possible along
less than 1.7 miles of the proposed pipeline route due
to topographic conditions. For approximately 50
percent of the proposed pipeline route (approximately
842 miles), the maximum spill volume would be
approximately 672,000 gallons."
Page ES-8 (the page prior) contains the following text:
"Based on those data, DOS calculated that there could
be from 1.18 to 1.83 spills greater than 2,100 gallons
PER YEAR FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. The estimated
frequency of spills of any size ranged from 1.78 to
2.51 spills PER YEAR."
The text immediately following that, also states:
"The existing Keystone Oil Pipeline System has
experienced 14 spills since it began operation in June
2010. The spills occurred at fittings and seals at
pump or valve stations and did not involve the actual
pipeline. Twelve of the spills remained entirely within
the confines of the pump and valve stations. Of
those spills, 7 were 10 gallons or less, 4 were 100
gallons or less, 2 were between 400 and 500 gallons,
and 1 was 21,000 gallons."
Funny, they forgot all about the awesome "drip pans".
.
Now, what was that you were saying about "... Man from Mars [lying] through his teeth..." ?
Help me out here, remember, you said my memory wasn't very good...
.
[Edited by: Martinman at 2/8/2012 10:44:42 PM EST]
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 9:23:26 PM
No show,... huh?
Okay, let’s look at those 14 [supposed] "drip pan" spills:
21 May 10 – 5 gallons (failure of a 1-1/2" below ground fitting connected to a mainline isolation valve)
Wow. TransCanada even went so far as to install “below ground” drip pans? Impressive!
23 Jun 10 - ~100 gallons (leak occurred at PS site during maintenance from a small fitting attached to the sump pump)
Wow. Again impressive. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “100-gallon” drip pan…
10 Aug 10 - ~2 gallons (Failure of a 1" fitting attached to a pig trap receiver)
19 Aug 10 – 10 gallons (failure of a 1/2" above ground fitting)
Sweet! Another great catch by those “drip pans”...
05 Jan 11 - <2 gallons (leak occurred when a station pump seal bearing started seeping oil)
08 Jan 11 - <3 gallons (source of the leak was a seal (packing) on a 6" valve)
A 6" valve ? That would have been impressive, if not immediately caught.
31 Jan 11 - <10 gallons (source of the leak was a seal failure on Pump #2)
03 Feb 11 - <15 gallons (source of release was a temporary vent gas separator)
Hmm,... see a trend here...?
11 Feb 11 - <100 gallons (source of release was seal failure during maintenance activity on pump seal))
23 Feb 11 – 10 gallons (source of the leak was a valve seal on a drain line of a pump suction line)
08 Mar 11 - <5 gallons (source of the leak was a pump unit bearing housing)
16 Mar 11 - 12 barrels [500+ gallons] (source of the leak was a pump seal failure)
07 May 11 – 500 barrels [21,000 gallons] (source of the leak was a 3/4" diameter pipe nipple failure)
Woo hoo! We have a “crowd pleaser” folks.
The NRC report states that 5 barrels were “sprayed off-site impacting neighboring properties [*plural*] to the south…”
29 May 11 - <10 barrels [<420 gallons] (source of the leak was a 1/2" nipple located on a pressure transmitter)
That was the last spill or leak reported at the time the EIS data were compiled.
A couple of disturbing trends emerged in reviewing these data.
1. Most of the larger spills were grossly under-reported, and then later “revised”.
2. One spill involved property outside of the pipeline easement, and several required removal of contaminated soil/ground from the impacted areas.
3. Witnesses of the 21,000 gallon leak, reported a “six-story geyser”
Told ya' it was a "crowd pleaser"...
Ready for round two?
.
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 8:32:10 PM
And you didn't really think I'd let your little distortion of the prior spills go to rest...
... now did you?
So...
... does 21,000 ring a bell?
Hmm....?
ding! ding!
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 7:17:57 PM
Sung to a popular tune, we all know and love...
"Where, oh where has little Vom gone;
Oh where, oh where can he be?
With his memory so short;
and list of BS so long.
Oh where, oh where can he be?"
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 11:48:09 AM
The interests of Canadians and Americans would be better served by the actions as proposed by Gravelle (build and refine within, export what remains).
You Canadians have been paying through the nose for fuel, for decades. Now once you have an opportunity to achieve true energy independence and reduce the blood-letting at the pump, the Conservatives want to circumvent that solely to support corporate interests.
Canada has refineries that cannot process it's own crude oil, and in one instance chose to DISASSEMBLE a Canadian refinery, versus upgrading it. Why is it that both foreign-owned and American-owned refineries in the U.S. can afford to upgraded their refineries to process Canadian heavy crude oil, but Canada cannot? Why Canadian pipeline corporations can propose nearly 5,000 miles of pipelines by which to export, but not even 3,000 miles to utilize it's own refineries for the benefit of it's own citizens.
Why is that?
The conservatives cry how others are trying to socialize their countries, but these actions only go to further "globalization", the truest form of socialization.
They claim their intentions are being done to benefit both countries long-term, but their actions show what they're attempting to do is solely for short-term profits - at the expense of their citizens. And this continues to be reinforced, by Harper's increasingly desperate actions and statements; by his efforts to manipulate public opinion, of the citizens of both.
[Edited by: Martinman at 2/8/2012 12:52:15 PM EST]
|
tomok
Champion Author
Portland
Posts:26,080
Points:1,984,435
Joined:Aug 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 2:09:29 AM
Canada Natural Resources Vice Chairman Opposes Keystone Pipeline. Maybe Canada should ‘mine’ their tar sands oil, build their own refineries, refine their oil into fuel and build their own pipeline to each coast. They can sell it to whomever will buy it and the US will never get involved in their production or distribution. Canada can employ their own workers and affect their oil lands for the good or bad. It will Not be a carbon neutral process or endeavor.
So What’s Cheaper? The difference in cost between building new sections of oil pipeline, connecting to existing pipeline sections in the US for delivery to the Gulf Coast refineries. OR build new refineries and oil pipeline within Canada for fuel production And the additional income taxes paid by Canadian workers.
The price of fuel at the pump is too high!
12/22/2012!
|
Krykson
All-Star Author
Chicago
Posts:840
Points:247,185
Joined:Jul 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 1:36:32 AM
Interesting
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2012 12:09:36 AM
Hey VomVom, I have something for you...
Would you like the page numbers, or the word-for-word text posted here?
Your call!
[ suddenly hears the sound of a resounding "SPLAT !" ]
[Edited by: Martinman at 2/8/2012 1:10:29 AM EST]
|
Dodge_Me
Champion Author
Atlanta
Posts:1,111
Points:237,250
Joined:Mar 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:59:21 PM
Ha, Someone else that has some common sense about this pipeline
Quote from article:
Q: The U.S. has a bigger jobless problem than Canada right now and Republicans in the U.S. are pushing Obama to allow the pipeline to be constructed because it would create jobs in the U.S. and reduce reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Do you think it will create jobs in the U.S.?
A: It's the same situation as in Canada. Once the American pipeline is built there are no more jobs.
:Enough said!
|
TBRR
Champion Author
Jacksonville
Posts:2,515
Points:415,005
Joined:Dec 2007
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:30:46 PM
spoken like a true socialist buddy of obummers.
|
Quick68
Champion Author
Columbus
Posts:5,560
Points:864,725
Joined:Dec 2009
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:28:41 PM
Offer his more money he will come over.
|
heartbroken2010
Champion Author
Ottawa
Posts:2,517
Points:536,480
Joined:Aug 2010
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:26:58 PM
just might get some people upset here for sure.
|
Buddy2264
Champion Author
Tampa
Posts:9,802
Points:1,999,040
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:24:36 PM
Have to agree with him....
|
tedjm1
Champion Author
New York
Posts:4,075
Points:495,490
Joined:Dec 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:24:27 PM
Glad people are strting to think for themselves.
|
rawdog1313
Champion Author
Lexington
Posts:1,505
Points:1,282,510
Joined:May 2008
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:24:26 PM
People better open their eyes about this before the GOP pushes the damn thing through!
|
Zonk
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:4,657
Points:1,743,700
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:23:19 PM
Claude Gravelle makes some very interesting and valid points.
|
Double_Golden
All-Star Author
San Francisco
Posts:745
Points:244,780
Joined:Aug 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:23:03 PM
oh, men, what's next?
|
tampacrvdriver
Champion Author
Tampa
Posts:1,721
Points:361,150
Joined:May 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:20:42 PM
I don't see why.
|
jrsva
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:7,777
Points:1,251,925
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:16:34 PM
Ah, a fresh voice of reason in Canada. This is why I have been in favor of delaying XL as much as possible — hoping that the Canadians would come to their senses and see what a disaster this would probably become. And it offers nothing to the US beyond a few temporary construction jobs, with almost endless downside risk. Come on GB folks; take the blinders off and see what is going on.
|
Blue_Cruzer
Champion Author
Lexington
Posts:5,692
Points:1,308,530
Joined:Mar 2007
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:14:42 PM
You can't have it both ways.
|
kcboy
Champion Author
Utah
Posts:2,880
Points:1,283,870
Joined:Jun 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:10:40 PM
If it is not one, it is another.
|
menagerie1013
Champion Author
San Diego
Posts:1,059
Points:349,250
Joined:Apr 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:09:42 PM
whatever
|
Beboper
Champion Author
Virginia
Posts:6,899
Points:1,802,715
Joined:Oct 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:09:36 PM
I guess you never know
|
joel27nc
Champion Author
Raleigh
Posts:8,701
Points:1,498,270
Joined:Mar 2008
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:08:59 PM
We always have disagreements, can't we just get along?
|
LCSTEELERBOB
Champion Author
Gary
Posts:2,249
Points:551,725
Joined:Oct 2008
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:07:39 PM
what now
|
52MPG
Champion Author
Dayton
Posts:5,445
Points:1,383,330
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:07:18 PM
A glass is half empty viewpoint.
|
NOGASMOOLA
Rookie Author
Illinois
Posts:61
Points:131,360
Joined:Apr 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:04:02 PM
Interesting...
|
Vette1967
Champion Author
Albany
Posts:4,172
Points:919,380
Joined:Jun 2009
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:03:42 PM
Interesting.
|
sparkzz
Rookie Author
Ontario
Posts:2
Points:2,215
Joined:Aug 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 11:02:44 PM
It seems to me that if this ends up sitting with nothing happening it is a Lose-Lose situation and that benefits no one.
|
bonzoonfmb
All-Star Author
Florida
Posts:539
Points:357,575
Joined:Feb 2010
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:59:22 PM
Run it through their own country. Will not lower domestic gas pricy.
|
SparkieMi
Champion Author
Kalamazoo
Posts:1,463
Points:237,455
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:56:43 PM
Surprise, surprise....
|
carman11
Champion Author
North Carolina
Posts:1,465
Points:329,695
Joined:Jun 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:55:15 PM
OK
|
Martinman
Champion Author
Mississippi
Posts:12,517
Points:1,740,045
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:54:10 PM
The following is in reply to VomVom's post immediately below:
.
Did I ever state where or even how much each "spill" or "leak" was?
No.
Did I ever state that crude oil contaminated any ground-water, much less resulted in any environmental damage?
No.
Here's exactly what I posted - for others to see how you have deliberately attempted to distort my post:
"There have already been 12/14 spills (number differs depending on the source) with the portions of the Keystone XL pipeline that were completed little more than 1 year ago."
So, attempt to paint whatever distorted image you want, but I never stated anything as you have attempted to imply.
The larger issue is, that there were 12 or 14 (the actual number or even amount is irrelevent) spills/leaks/drips in a brand new pipeline system, that is running at a lower operational system pressure than the Keystone XL will when fully operational. The additional flow-rates that Keystone has proposed, will be achieved by increasing the pipeline pressure and reducing the distance between the number of pumping stations - thus increasing the likelihood of spills and/or leaks.
If Keystone is already having problems with a new pipeline system that is little more than ONE YEAR OLD, what can we expect FIVE YEARS FROM NOW? WHAT ABOUT TEN? What about when the pipeline is cranked-up to full pumping capacity?
What the State Department and/or EPA concluded, runs counter to what three seperate experts from the University of Nebraska, from two separate fields of expertise, have stated. These are experts on the hydrology of the sandhills region, and on risk assessments in the region, not government lab-scientists with no practice knowledge or experience in the sandhills region.
And this doesn't even begin to address that the Executive Summary, and the actual Environmental Impact Statements are DIFFERENT and SEPERATE DOCUMENTS.
Oh,... and did I mention that TransCanada was so gracious to even kindly contract the third party firm to "assist" the U.S. State Department in preparing the EIS? Sound kinda familiar? It's the same oil industry tactic the industry used in "assisting" Congress, that "helped" write the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that gave us ethanol subsidies and their initial mandates, as well as $18 billion on tax breaks to itself to "foster exploration and exploration related research".
While 14 alternative routes where offered by TransCanada, EIS (Environmental Impact Statements) were not conducted for each individual proposed routes. And for anyone that has been involved in the initial discovery for whether an EIS is required, an initial declaration that there is no significant environmental risk is sufficient to not require a full-blown EIS assessment.
The State Department, through it's own "assisted" reasoning within the permit decision process, made the route determiation on the basis that the shortest route, provided the smallest environmental risk based on total miles exposed, not that anyone one route was "safer" or posed less risk than another. This is why the Republican legislature and Republican governor of Nebraska, moved to stop the pipeline, when it felt the State Department white-washed the assessment and totally ignored the information provided by their own university researchers, who are experts on the region and it's hydrology.
And you are wrong about the proximity of the pipeline to the Ogallaga Aquifer - 65+ miles of the previously proposed pipeline go directly over the aquifer, and in that area where the aquifer is closest to the surface. This was repeatedly reported not only in the press, but came up repeatedly in testimony during hearings and public meetings. That's what happens when you source the wrong document, in a poorly prepared character-assassination attempt.
And as to the issue of Jobs - TransCanada CONTINUES to use the 20,000 jobs and $7 billion figures, fully knowing that those numbers included not only pipeline that has already been accomplished, but also for the Canadian portion of the pipeline IN CANADA. Furthermore, also knowing that many of the jobs in the U.S. will be accomplished by TransCanada employees and contractors with existing contracts to TransCanada. It has knowingly and willfully distorted the numbers in an effort to manipulate public opinion here in the U.S. And this is clearly pointed out by the hiring data for the Keystone XL phase I pipeline - where only 11% of the jobs in South Dakota, were extended to South Dakota residents.
You have repeatedly attempted to distort what others have posted on this forum, twisting what has been posted in an effort to discredit others.
Hell, you can't even keep straight a simple comment like where I stated I am currently working/living, let alone the EIS statements.
You want to debate the issue - fine.
But attempt to deliberately misrepresent what I post - I won't just raise the BS flag, I'll wipe it in your face. Hope you have plenty of handi-wipes...
[Edited by: Martinman at 2/7/2012 11:58:23 PM EST]
|
skyking19
Champion Author
Little Rock
Posts:1,579
Points:1,422,695
Joined:Jan 2007
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:48:54 PM
Politics keep playing out on this deal.
|
OGW
Champion Author
London
Posts:3,747
Points:1,201,985
Joined:Sep 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:35:52 PM
Keystone is good for the US and good for Canada.
|
confetti
Veteran Author
Tampa
Posts:317
Points:236,590
Joined:Jan 2006
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:34:10 PM
Gee, so Canada has their own anti-business kooks, too.
|
TopGunn
Champion Author
Baltimore
Posts:7,359
Points:2,256,180
Joined:Aug 2004
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:26:57 PM
Politics vs logic - always a quandry.
|
davenles
Champion Author
Texas
Posts:1,386
Points:358,285
Joined:May 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:26:16 PM
Sounds like they have the same subsidies issues we do.
|
orphancarguyPE
Champion Author
PEI
Posts:2,187
Points:421,455
Joined:Jan 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:26:11 PM
Of course it would be in Canada's best interest to refine it here and ship out finished product for sale at retail prices--but the US Gulf area refineries are the ones needing crude oil, which is imported largely from Venezuela, Nigeria, and the Middle-East.
Canada had a similar type of problem with its national supply--western oil is simply not available to 'most' of Ontario, Quebec and all 4 Atlantic provinces.
We can and do export Western oil to the USA, and even though the Atlantic provinces are now producing oil and natural gas, the 3 refineries aren't set up to refine it currently, and so (irony!) Newfoundland's refinery can't process Newfoundland oil, and it in fact gets its supplies of refined fuel from elsewhere as great expense--so an oil 'have' has pricing of a 'have-not'. The Eastern refineries were set up to use imported crude which at one time was way cheaper than Western Canadian crude, even before the mind-boggling pipeline cost.
It would be cheaper--and quicker to resolve too--to ship crude via "relatively small" additions (as in Keystone) to the existing US pipeline structures and networks or to build the Northern Gateway to export it to Asia, than it would be build appropriate pipeline capacity from West to East in Canada.
Prime Minister Harper as an Albertan sees the situation with Western eyes: export now for the cheapest bang for the buck, and then the East can import from elsewhere what it needs. Gravelle has a different point of view from a different perspective (including that of jobs and energy security on a national level)--but doing so while good in the long run for us would cost more in the short term.
|
Rockwoodband
Veteran Author
Flint
Posts:432
Points:205,495
Joined:Oct 2009
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:25:30 PM
Who asked for his opinion?
|
Petrothirst
Champion Author
Los Angeles
Posts:2,197
Points:401,135
Joined:Nov 2005
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:24:35 PM
This coincides with a question recently asked about why Canada build their own refinery and process the oil themselves. Apparently there are those Canadians who think they should.
|
GigHarborHound
All-Star Author
Tacoma
Posts:940
Points:167,310
Joined:Sep 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:22:37 PM
B.O. Stinks!
|
BeachPatriot
Rookie Author
Maine
Posts:37
Points:117,440
Joined:Oct 2011
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:21:29 PM
The actions of the Obamanation have put at risk our special relationship with our friends to the north.
|
Prodaddy
Champion Author
Houston
Posts:6,580
Points:1,534,795
Joined:May 2007
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:20:19 PM
Suprise Suprise
|
KhelbenArunson
Champion Author
Michigan
Posts:2,667
Points:358,940
Joined:Apr 2008
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:15:47 PM
Unless it it rerouted I don't think we should allow it.
|
bby
Champion Author
Twin Cities
Posts:4,074
Points:699,495
Joined:Nov 2009
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:15:36 PM
ok
|
woburnspotter2
Veteran Author
Boston
Posts:480
Points:167,755
Joined:Apr 2007
|
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2012 10:15:30 PM
Funny how politicians bend reality. . . The Canadian economy has never been better, and everyone says it is because of the oil. Unemployment is down. . . Even the Canadian dollar has come on par with the American dollar. . . At least in the exchange rate.
Yes, they need to protect from spills. . . . But the logic just isn't there that this will cost Canadians jobs.
|