NRDC: There's No Way In Hell The Keystone Pipeline Will Create 20,000 Jobs en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:40:12 -0400 Henry Blodget MattB Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:52:29 -0500 20,000 jobs does not include the jobs directly associated with the installtion of the pipeline... it includes the jobs related to manufacturing, parts and supplies, food & dining, room & board, etc. Places such as hotels, restaurants, home depots and hardware stores, fueling stations/truck stops, etc. will need to hire additional help (yes, temporarily, but they are jobs) to meet the needs to support those actually digging and installing the pipeline. Additionally there will be thousands of jobs created for ongoing support, increase in refinery activity, trucking additional fuel, manufacturing that will move closer to the fuel supply, etc. Jimbo Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:31:57 -0500 There's no way in hell the Keystone Pipline will creat zero jobs! It will certainly create more jobs than our investment in Solyndra!!! chad gilbert Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:14:32 -0500 By debating the jobs number I guess we all agree whether 2,000 or 200,000 this project creates jobs. If you are 1 of the lets say 2000 families that are out of a job it does not hurt no less. A Job be 1 or be it 200000 in this time is good not to mention the reduction of un ethical oil from the middle east. I guess the movie stars like buying there gas from people who treat women very strictly. 7mada Mon, 14 Nov 2011 10:32:18 -0500 hehehehe less dependent on the oil from the middle east? they can't live without the oil from the middle. Actually sooner the exports of oil from the middle will decrease greatly so prepare yourself for a hard time or learn how to use less oil and still can survive... Cheers, <a href="" target="_blank"></a> <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Meh... Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:30:09 -0500 Meh...there's a chance no jobs will go to the US will be created within Canada building a pipeline to BC, then shipping the crude to China (if TPP membership is ratified). No worries for the USA World markets exist. If the US isn't interested in Canadian oil, Asia is. jimmy mactheknife Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:51:00 -0500 You can make the choice to do that if you wish but there is no infrastructure to support that effot economically. Right now you could end up payingabout twice for fuel plus a federal and state tax of fifty cents toa dollar. Green fuels will not lower pollution out of the exhaust tip. For that you need to move to more efficient engines with direct injection. Let's face it, our air is much cleaner than it was even twenty years ago by almost every measure due to the strides in technology. Low sulfur no lead lower nitrous oxides etc etc. We have the chance to reduce the potential for war by dealing with our neighbor to the north instaed of some third world dictator. I can make up a number as well and say that the oil companies pay over ten trillion in state, local ,FICA and federal taxes as well as emply hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. Better yet if you like clean burning natural gas we have about a hundred year supply right here at home. AND you can run any vehicle on natural gas. Reginald Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:48:00 -0500 Can someone tell me who pays these "scientists and researchers"? XFunc_CaRteR Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:26:59 -0500 You arrogant Americans. Do you really think that if you don't approve the Keystone XL pipeline that Canada won't sell this oil? We aren't part of America, sorry. eightyears Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:56:54 -0500 8 years left, just 8 years left <a href="" target="_blank"></a> youstupids Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:45:17 -0500 Like I said, oil lovers have absolutely no sense of self preservation. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> When the destruction and deaths come, they are going to end us saying, "Oops. Wish I had known better." The Republican ideologies never made any sense. Heck, they even got religion all wrong. And our brothers are also warning us about global warming: It's all Conservatives' fault. They like to talk about religion, but they're studying it all wrong. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> stylist Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:23:59 -0500 It's all Conservatives' fault. They like to talk about religion, but they're studying it all wrong. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> We need to stop the oil pipeline now! savetheplanet Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:21:42 -0500 We need to move into green energy right now while we still have time. Our brothers are telling us this, right before our very eyes: <a href="" target="_blank"></a> theyarecomingback Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:19:08 -0500 There are reasons why we're seeing more of it: <a href="" target="_blank"></a> hhhh Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:00:58 -0500 Arsenic is natural and organic, too. I suggest advantageously adding some to your salad dressing tonight, Naomi. ggm Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:53:55 -0500 Which is probably partly why Canada doesn't want to build the refineries, but would rather just send the tar south and let the USA and Texas deal with the maintenance and environmental problems. The oil will still end up on the international market either way. The average American will get absolutely no benefit from this pipeline, but they will be saddled with the cleanup costs from the inevitable failures. john stryker Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:35:40 -0500 henry, my ignorant, obvious libtard suppoed journalistic aint just about jobs, its about energy independence.without cheap energy, as u kno, our economy grinds to a halt. duh. jobs are nice, but without this oil we dont get gas 2 run the combines in the fields, no diesel for truck haulin goods, no gas for commuters goin 2 work. dont insult my intelligence hanky...its annoying john stryker Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:32:14 -0500 Add a comment... imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:18:04 -0500 And btw, this pipeline is going to get built no matter what. It just may go from Alberta westward to the pacific so the oil can be sent to china instead. Naomi Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:17:36 -0500 You talk like a typical provincial American. The oil industry would go broke? You might be talking about the American oil companies going broke without your country's subsidies to it. But the rest of the world also uses oil and has an oil industry as well. You do know that Saudi Aramco is the largest oil company in the world by far, right? And that it doesn't take subsidies from your American government? It will not go broke without these subsidies because it does not take them. When you say they will go broke if they had to pay for "carbon emissions, pollutions, healthcare costs, wars" you look at only one side of this issue. Wars happen over other natural resources besides oil, so they will not pay for that. Pollution happens even more from previous use of coal than oil, so oil was an improvement, and gets cleaner burning every year. Healthcare costs from oil accidents? From the pollution? More Americans have healthcare problems due to McDonald's than from oil. So they will not pay for that. And carbon emissions? How can someone pay for an emission of carbon? Pay what to whom? If you are referring to the EU ETS scheme, that is up to individual governments and ability to convince their peoples to pay or not. You also need to include the benefits people get from oil. The world has an entire infrastructure that is already bought and paid for to support energy through oil. Drilling, refining, transporting, retailing, all the way down to the local gas station or oil delivery company. It will take a lot of time, money and work to convert it all. A lot more than eight years. So the scientists better start thinking of ways we can live with global warming because we aren't going to make, according to you, this deadline of eight years. Reginald Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:54:05 -0500 We couldn't stop the Earth from warming up if we used every ounce of power available to us. The planet has warmed up and cooled off before, and it will do it again. There were no humans on the planet in the past as these cooling and warming cycles took place. We sure aren't going to change 4 billion years of history with our 150 years of oil and coal burning existence. That said, I do think we should increase our nuclear energy efforts, not just because it has zero greenhouse gas emissions and is good for the atmosphere, but because it is cheaper than fossil fuels and decreases our need to depend on others for our energy. imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:50:15 -0500 Are you sure it's 8 years and not 7? Some people say 10 years. Or it could be less than that. Or maybe more. Or maybe it is 8 years exactly on the dot. whattheheck Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:17:59 -0500 It's been said already, above: "We only have 8 more years before global warming is irreversible. Oil lovers have no sense of human preservation. The oil lovers defend oil because their families or friends work in the industry. Yet, oil is no longer the most efficient compared to electric powertrains. Oil industry is the most highly subsidized fuel on the planet. Without govt subsidies (if they had to pay for carbon emissions, pollutions, healthcare costs, wars) the industry would have gone broke many times over." imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:17:49 -0500 I own some Chesapeake who has about 100k acres in bakken. And I've actually been looking at statoil as well (I tend to look at larger cap, dividend players so I don't think Kodiak would be right for me) youstupid Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:16:00 -0500 Sure, so is Mars. We only have 8 more years before global warming is irreversible. Oil lovers have no sense of human preservation. The oil lovers defend oil because their families or friends work in the industry. Yet, oil is no longer the most efficient compared to electric powertrains. Oil industry is the most highly subsidized fuel on the planet. Without govt subsidies (if they had to pay for carbon emissions, pollutions, healthcare costs, wars) the industry would have gone broke many times over. yousiraremixalot Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:10:23 -0500 Actually, we have been paying about $2 trillion a year for the recklessness of the oil industry. We pay for wars, we pay for environmental damage, we pay healthcare costs due to pollutions. On top of that, the industry gets layers and layers of government subsidies via tax credits and whatnot nonsense. $2 trillion can go a very long way if we divert that money to green fuels. Nobody gets more subsidized than the oil industry. That's why America is now broke to infinity. And your children will be paying for it. yousiraremixalot Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:08:05 -0500 Actually, we have paying about $2 trillion a year for the recklessness of the oil industry. We pay for wars, we pay for environmental damage, we pay healthcare costs due to pollutions. On top of that, the industry gets layers and layers of government subsidies via tax credits and whatnot nonsense. $2 trillion can go a very long way if we divert that money to green fuels. toofunny Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:42:22 -0500 BS learn to add or buy a calculator $400 billion subsidies GLOBALLY given by ALL governments to the coal, oil, and natural gas industries toofunny Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:20:28 -0500 Oil pays my bills and this oil is as dirty as it gets Canada is an ethical partner but Fort Mac is an environmental headache like sending bitumen to the hurricane belt refinery I have no clue how many jobs this would create but it appears Environmental Protection Agency has a lot of taxes to collect 2000 miles of pipe watching after building which is temporary jobs 500 000 refining barrels per day 20 000 000 cubic meters per day of water to tax 7 000 000 000 cube feet nat gas to upgrade to bitumen to tax 200 000cubic feet of low viscosity petroleum to move thru the pipe to tax ____________________ feet nat gas convert this bitumen crude export tax consumer tax end product tax This American also has an office in Calgary and thinks Alberta is the bigger loser when they send the raw bitumen down the pipeline to refine in Texas Naomi Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:09:58 -0500 Oil is natural and organic, it comes right out of the Earth. Mankind is simply using it to our advantage. Reginald Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:08:24 -0500 I'll listen to them because my car needs gasoline every week or I can't get to work and take my kids to school. Stop worrying so much about the Earth, it's a lot more resilient that you think. Besides, this is simply a pipe. There are pipes everywhere in the world, in your walls, under your feet, over your head. We've pretty much mastered piping. It's not in the oil industry's interest for the oil to leak out of it before it reaches its destination, so they'll probably seal it up tightly. Disasters can always happen, but they're far and few between. xnay Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:55:59 -0500 Most of the oil sands is american owned companies that have invested billions. Now in a few years they won't be able to ship their oil to american markets. How funny is that? jimmy mactheknife Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:22:05 -0500 If you are referring to oil depletion subsidies that are allowed since an oil well has a calculable life just like depreciation is taken by every other company out there on buildings, equipment autos etc then I do not see your point. If you are referring to subsidies on reasearch and development then they are a small fraction of the pharmaceutical industry. Once again, what is the point as long as they are compliant with the tax code? You may want to think about the property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, fees and expenses they pay to local state and federal entities before you excoriate them. jimmy mactheknife Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:17:43 -0500 Tesla is a consumer of energy not a producer of it. For clean production, solar is at the tipping point for efficiency and should become a part of green building for every new home south of say Tennessee. Another option would be geothermal which remains productive day and night year round. Nuclear while not green produces no greenhouse gasses and the newer designs are inherently safe. Those three options would ween us off of middle eastern and african oil in five to ten years if pursued as a kind of Manhattan project. Reginald Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:39:18 -0500 I haven't read anything about the oil sands destroying the earth. The Canadians are happy to go about extracting this oil that we need. People like you have some other agenda at hand here, and you hide behind this ambiguous "saving the earth" mantra rather than disclose the true reasons you are against the pipeline and the oil sands extraction. Perhaps you work in the current, Middle-East centric oil industry? mad scientist Sun, 13 Nov 2011 15:10:32 -0500 Well one thing is for certain, it would create more jobs than the NRDC creates! The sad truth is that organizations such as the NRDC take jobs away from people, and fail to offer any value! imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:41:50 -0500 <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Btw, he's a list of some (but certainly not all) products that you'll be giving up imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:39:42 -0500 Cool. So I'm to assume you don't drive or fly anywhere, right? Do you eat any foods that are flown in from overseas? Heck, do you eat food? Do you think you'd be able to afford food if not for mechanized farming producing the yields it does? Seeing as you hate oil so much I think you should lead the way by not using any products that have any petroleum in them. I guarantee that you're in the upper 1% of per capita oil usage worldwide. If you want to live a low carbon footprint lifestyle then take a look at how someone in the Congo lives and then get back to me. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:23:40 -0500 You might be interested in looking at some of the oil companies in the bakken, I bought some shares in kodiak oil and gas KOG and am in at an average of 5.50 and so far so good, brigham got bought our by stat oil ie sto, so there are a opportunities there. joesmith Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:09:50 -0500 The oil lovers are like cancers; no sense of self preservation. tomfoolery Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:05:49 -0500 The oil people have lied to us long enough, man. $400 billion in govt subsidies per year and now they want to destroy our planet. toomuchsubsidies Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:04:36 -0500 The oil industry already gets over $400 billion in govt subsidies. It is why America is so broke. gopher Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:01:54 -0500 Actually Jimmy, the oil industry gets at least $400 billion dollars (up to $2 trillion depending on whose calculations) a year in subsidies. jobsmyass Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:59:12 -0500 The only solution is green energy. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:53:00 -0500 Nothing wrong with that at all- shit, we need to start selling things to china just like they sell to us... If it happens to be coal and nat gas that we sell to them then that's great... It'll help create jobs here in the US as well as you can't outsource it- if you've got a mine in Colorado you kind of need to hire people in colorado to do the extracting jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:44:22 -0500 correction, the books title is ,,,,, the hunt for zero point by nick cook. jimmy mactheknife Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:34:17 -0500 Credentialling is so passe' doncha know. I note with some degree of disdain that you refrain from providing yours in some sort of "let's play Dr" or I"'ll show you mine if you show me yours" sort of byplay. Let's just say that the country is crisscrossed with thousands of miles of pipelinews with very very few spills and that none of the operators wish to harm the environment as it seems the detractors want you to believe. Gault Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:31:59 -0500 Darn, I left out the jobs created or saved in manufacturing the construction and transportation equipment to support the project. Gault Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:29:37 -0500 If Henry werre around back in the 1930's, he would be challenging the jobs figures for construction of the Hoover dam, since they were all temporary jobs . . . . jimmy mactheknife Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:27:55 -0500 What an apt nom de plume! I am awake and alert to the misrepresentations of those on the left who lie, obfuscate and exempt themselves from insider trading laws. If you wish to expand the discussion to created OR saved,the same guarantee applies. If you wish to say that by advocating a different path and not run lemming like to my demise or remove myself from the groupthink so popular with the leftist elitists that I am part of the problem. Then, under those circumstances, you might consider me a problem. So what? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PERSONALLY DO TO DISSUADE ME FROM THAT NOBLE COURSE? jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:27:44 -0500 I was wrong on the book , the title is ,,, the hunt for zero point and is by nick cook, who was in the british defense dept, it has been years since I read so got the name and author wrong, but it is available on amazon and goes into anti gravity etc. , a great book. Tom Greene Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:25:28 -0500 WOW!! The NRDC!!! Now there's an unbiased source of information to use on these hallowed pages. Hey Henry, why don't you ask the KKK about the value african-americans have added to the american culture? Same thing as asking the NRDC about anything to do with energy that doesn't directly funnel tax money into a DNC donor's pocket. Even as propagandists you guys are a complete joke. Almost good for a laugh except I am beginning to think mental midgets such as Joe and Henry actually believe the left wing extremist such as the NRDC. Funny in a sad kind of way. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:08:46 -0500 I own some shares in arch coal and cloud peak, might as well try to make some money on the situation. I hear you on asia using the oil sands, but it is a shame to see what is taking place in alberta, the pictures of this oil sands area look like an enviromental nightmare. Charlie Brown Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:05:34 -0500 NRDC...OMG. Every time I think you've intellectually bottomed out... jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:04:39 -0500 Understood,, I was born on a farm and ranch here in montana and have family in the farming and ranching business and even now the fuel costs are just about to put the family farms and ranches out of business , the price of diesel and gasoline always out runs the price of cattle, corn, wheat , hay etc. and as I mentioned the grain and coal trains going to asia through this valley almost have to be seen to appreciate the situation, all of this drives up the costs to not only farmers but many businesses and super markets. Reports are that for every 3 farmers retiring in the u.s. only 1 farmer is taking their place and I am seeing this with my brothers familys in the farm and ranching business their kids are not taking over and so as jim rogers has pointed out the food crisis will be coming as these present farmers age, and as I said am seeing this in my own family , the kids are not interested in working long hours and just being barely able to make ends meet. So as jim rogers has been saying and as you said , there is going to be a food supply crisis. imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:00:51 -0500 I agree- coal to liquids is probably going to be part of the solution (I own shares of Peabody so I'm betting on it myself). But it's only going to be part of the solution- I don't think people realize how much energy we will need to produce should India and china's citizens energy usage rise to even a tenth of what the average American uses. Plus, if we don't use that tar sands oil then china and India will. Some poor (and really poor... Not American 2 tvs and air conditioning poor, but third world, mud hut poor) person in India doesn't give a shit about the environmental degradation in Canada if it means that they might get to eat something beside rice 20 times a week. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:51:09 -0500 During world war two the germans ran most of their army and airforce on fuel produced by turning coal into gasoline and diesel fuel by a high pressure process with hydrogen that converted coal into liquid crude and then was refined. Here in montana I live close to the burlington northern railroad and coal trains come through this yellowstone river valley around the clock every day headed for seattle and on to asia mainly japan and china, these are mile long trains , and this has been going on for years, this coal should be converted into crude right here in the u.s. and not shipped to china. Back in 1980 there was a movie out called ,,,, the formula ,, and it starred george c. scott and marlon brando and it was all about the germans process to convert coal to oil and how the oil industry and the u.s. government was keeping this process from the american people, this movie was only out a few months and it disappeared, there were rumors at the time that it disappeared that the powers that be had is deep sixed. I live about 100 miles from the coal fields in montana , over in the southeast section of the state where arch coal and cloud peak energy etc. own the mines, and there are huge amounts of coal in this area that could be converted to oil using the german process. It is a damn shame to see all this coal going to asia, and it is not just coal , grain trains a mile long go through this valley every day on to seattle and japan and china every day just like the coal trains, our resources are being sent to asia along with the jobs. imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:44:30 -0500 And a lot of these have their own issues. Nat gas is volatile- not easy to transport and costly to build tanks for cars for it as you need to create pressure equivalent to being 1000 feet under the sea to store it safely. Lithium batteries for cars are dangerous as we've just seen w/the volt setting on fire and w/a lithium fire water causes the fire to grow. Basically, there's no easy answer. We can try it your way but then ask yourself what you're willing to give up. The car? Flying more than once a year? No fruits flown in from 6000 miles away like bananas and pineapples? Not sure I'd want to be the politician trying to sell that plan. imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:39:33 -0500 I get that. The problem is that carbon based fuel sources are not going away anytime soon as we're not going to be able to feed 7 billion people using wind energy. Coal, nat gas, oil, oil sands, solar- they all need to be part of the solution. What do you think happens when oil goes to $500/bbl and 95% of the country is taking a huge haircut in living standard and someone in DC is telling them that we can't accept tar sands oil because of the environment? Like it or not, Americans like their vacations and cars and food imported from all over the world and gadgets and everything else that goes with the highest standards of living in the world a lot more than they care about the environment. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:38:19 -0500 Understood, there is an excellent book on alternative sources of energy by nick pope, the book is ,,, zero point,,, and can be had on, nick pope was in the british defense dept. and this book goes into research that nazi germany had done and it is documented , this is an underground type of book, but it is worth reading and is totally devoted to energy. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:33:21 -0500 I usually agree with your comments however on this issue, if you research how this is produced , with water having to be heated to steam and injected to turn the oil tar sands into a fluid state to pump it and if you have seen pictures of the area where this oil sands operation is taking place it looks like a black hell , makes coal strip mining pale in comparison. imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:29:17 -0500 Your points are well taken. But, what happens in a world where all the easy to get to oil is disappearing? Cantarell is declining, ghawar is most likely declining (the Saudis are obviously opaque on this), any fields of size being discovered are offshore ones like Tupi where the costs to extract are high (and there's environmental risks there as well given that if you make a mistake you're spilling right into the ocean). Combine that with 3 billion Asians using more and more oil every year and I don't think we really have the choice on being picky about what type of oil we're using. Unicorn farts and hope and change are not going to feed the world or fly our airplanes. Gault Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:26:22 -0500 Actually, Henry, the 20,000 jobs figure is probably too low, and in my estimation, the number of jobs created or SAVED will be many times 20,000 if the pipeline is built First, there are the actual construction jobs, which will be between 5,000-6,000, all temporary but all construction jobs are. Then there are the jobs in manufacturing the 2,200 miles of pipe, pumping equipment, monitoring equipment and control systems, and transporting the materials to the job sites. Then these construction workers need places to stay, food to eat, entertainment, etc., so supporting jobs are probably 3-4 times the number of construction jobs. Then there are the refinery jobs that will be saved, given the Canadian oil is intended to replace dwindling supplies of Mexican and Venezulean heavy oils, and the light crude produced by fracking can't be run through these refineries that have been built to refine heavy crude. This does not even consider the job savings by reducing our reliance on conflict oil from the Middle East - given Obummer's policies have increased the chances of regional wars in the area and disruption of oil supplies, as well as placing oil supplies in the control of less than friendly governments. imdwightgooden Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:24:24 -0500 It's not more expensive (suncor is producing for around $50 a bbl). Moreover, you're looking at it against where prices are now- not only is it profitable at $100/bbl but even more so as oil continues to rise in price. In addition, it's piling up at Cushing because the American economy is in the shitter and our oil usage is flat to moderately declining. China will gladly take tar sands oil and that's where it is eventually going to go while a low brow turd like you is sitting there scratching his head wondering why gas in CA soars over $8/gallon. Thank god there's sheep like you in this world. This way, wolves like me get to eat lamb chops. KarmaPolice Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:20:16 -0500 You are correct Sir/Madame. Refiners don't even want that crap because the maintenance costs of cracking it are painful. We'll see what Joe Sixer driving around in his F-250 says about 7 dollar gasoline all because the source is "secure". People are such suckers. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:11:29 -0500 Exactly, this oil sands crude is full of sulfur compounds and even traces of sand and is the most corrosive crude on earth, and I speak from experience having retired from a 42 year career in the oil refining industry where oil sands crude was refined in the last years of my career at a major oil company. When oil sands crude was ran in the refinery, neutralizers had to be injected continuously in the charge lines and in the crude fractionator towere to try and control corrossion and even this did not stop the rapid corrosion of towers, and trays and lines, this crude is the most corrosive oil on earth. KarmaPolice Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:04:35 -0500 Were u go skool? U seam lyk un Texas Bored of Edjumacation gradueat. KarmaPolice Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:02:10 -0500 Hey Canada. Tar sand-based oil is more expensive to produce than it's worth. Secondly, its filthy oil that no one wants and that's why the shit is piling up at Cushings. jett Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:00:58 -0500 The main reason this pipeline should be opposed is where the oil is going to come from, the oil sands extraction process is going to destroy the eco system in alberta, if anyone thinks coal stripping mining was bad , they need to do some research on oil sands extraction, this worse and beyond comprehension that the canadian government would allow this to be done. Oil sands extraction is like burning down your house to keep warm, the net effect is going to be and is a nightmare of eco destruction. We need to focus on the bakken oil formation which reports are that the bakken in north dakota , montana and canada has more oil reserves than saudi arabia. Wake up Sun, 13 Nov 2011 12:00:48 -0500 You are part of the problem. jimmy mactheknife Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:58:15 -0500 Well, I guarantee it will create more jobs at less cost to the American taxpayer than the trillions laid out by B Hussein and the prior Democratic controlled CONgress under Hairy Reid and Nancy Peeloosely.