Talk-Polywell.org

This is how stupid The Democrats are when it comes to technical issues. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmxDouhA ... r_embedded#!
First of all tar sand is mostly sand which is mostly silica which if you now anything about densities you'll know is far denser than water. It's also rock, which means that is you sink tar sand in water it's not going to react with anything ver much. So Congressman Grijalva is trying to scare us with rock. Now you can't pump rocks down a pipeline, so I don't think that's the problem. Of course what the good congressman doesn't tell you is that the companies mining the tar sands exract the oil and put the cleaned out sand right back in the ground thereby cleaning the environment by removing that dirty messy bitumen making Alberta a nicer place for the caribou. Now that you have all that oil you have to refine it or transport it. Now they could refine it right on site, but that pollutes and it's better to refine where you have refineries already with people who know how to run them. Like Texas, where they have lots of refineries and chemical plants.
Unfortunately Texas is a long way from Alberta. So you need to transport the oil. Now you could use the existing pipelines that are all over the map, but they are already being used and are probably not flexible enough to handle the added capacity. So Keystone, which wants to serve it's customers, us, thinks they should, at great expense and creating demand for pumps, compressors, other heavy equipmenand lots and lots of steel pipe, most of which will be manufactured right here in the US by companies that will need to hire additional people to meet the needs of the added business. Which is where the Chamber of Commerce came up with the 200,000 added jobs that the Congressman sneers at.
Of course the NRCC had fun with this piece of idiocy:
http://www.nrcc.org/2013/05/31/this-key ... y-awkward/

I don't get why Able Assistant needs safety glasses.

One thing I did get from a Greg Palast inteview, that if you removed the war, politics, religion and cartels from the middle east and stuck to free market economics without manipulation, oil would be at $18.00 a barrel, which would put the tar sands out of business since it requires minumum $25.00 per barrel viability.

Mainly he claimed that the whole business of the Iraq invasion was to keep that country from exporting light sweet crude at a rate of 6 million barrels per day, post invasion they would be at only 2 million via OPEC. But in addition to what he was saying, if the revolution in Iran never happened and the oil industry had stayed up to date then even more would be in the market place.

choff wrote:I don't get why Able Assistant needs safety glasses.

I do.

If you look closely at the whiteboard behind them, you will see that they have Progressively changed the formula for the volume of a sphere,
from 4/3 pi r^3 to 4/3 r^2.

Stealing the pi and losing a dimension like that sets up dangerous amounts of strain in spacetime.

He has just wisely prepared for the inevitable spacetime rip.

This thread starts with a viewpoint without really considering the facts. Canadian tar sands are a large source of petroleum products and may have high future value. But several pertinate points not stated clearly apply. While it is North American oil, it is not US oil, It is Canadian, a forign country. It is no different than importing from say the mid east. It is a different source though and may have economic and political consequences worth much.
The video is quaint to say the least and somewhat silly, but their single point that tar sands sink in water is pertinent. See the first link. Tar sands are ...well... tar. It is thick and mostly solid at room temperature. When it is mined, the sands are heated and solvents added to make the product transportable in a pipeline as a heated thinned mixture. Once it cools and some of the solvents evaporate, the remainder is again a heavy solid tar and presents more difficulty in cleanup of spills. It is worse than crude oil in a spill. The sands are presumably well filtered out once the tar is made liquid, but that is the extent of the processing at the mine. This is not light or heavy liquid crude oil, it is tar heated and diluted with organic solvents. Comparing it to asphalt without the gravel added or roofing tar may be illustrative.

The pipeline construction is worth some thousands of temporary construction jobs and perhaps hundreds of refinery jobs in Texas. The economic significance of this pipe line and a few others like it are modest at best. Just compare it to the Alaska pipeline for quantitative comparison. Eventually, if the Canadian tar sands are mined at much greater rates many pipelines might transport enough of this nasty mix to feed a large petrol market. Alternately, if Canada chooses to refine this tar and sale the refined oil on the world market it is good for them- but the processing and refining produces their own problems.
The down side is two fold- as mentioned it is foreign oil, and it is environmentally more dangerous than typical crude. Demand may drive this oil source, but unless it is sold at a discount (from Canada) it has no real advantage for the US, except for arguments of the world oil supply being outstripped by demand and no other competitively priced oil being available. If that is the case then US oil shale supply becomes more attractive. It would provide for very many US jobs, and domestic oil produced with reduced foreign trade deficits . Of coarse there are also down sides to this source.

The boom in Natural Gas production complicates the need picture further. And consider- the tar sands are possibly closer to coal in nature than liquid crude oil (in terms of mining and distributing). Coal slurry pipelines have been considered in the past but rejected for economic and environmental reasons-with the railroads playing no small part.

This pipeline is significant for the parties involved, but claiming it is essential for the well being of the US in general is a spin that is mostly fantasy. It is a political game as much as anything.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/6_thing ... l_partner/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 632AALHGDP

Dan Tibbets

One fun story from the Keystone debate has been that Warren Buffett has been buying up railroad oil transportation stock while funding the pipeline protest. The pipeline gets stopped and the oil can only be moved on his railroad, he cleans up as it were, unless his railroad has an oil spill.

This pipeline is significant for the parties involved, but claiming it is essential for the well being of the US in general is a spin that is mostly fantasy.

The purpose of preventing Keystone? So the railroad Warren Buffet has stock in continues to transport the bitumen.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-pup ... -rejection

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-2 ... eline.html

I'm shocked.

Warren Buffet is a hypocrite, yet he is skillfully marketed as a hero of compassionate capitalism. Is it any wonder he strongly supports politicians that in turn line his pockets using favoritism? Crony capitalism in action... Bleah! Propaganda works on fools and weak minds.