TransCanada\Keystone Pipeline.....Sell US ROW or We Wll SUE YOU

naturelover · #**101** 10/23/11, 01:41 AM

Probably not. But I do agree with Erin and Bruce that the sandhills area should be bypassed.

.

Bearfootfarm · #**102** 10/23/11, 01:44 AM

Quote:

But I do agree with Erin and Bruce that the sandhills area should be bypassed.

I think they should run it beside an existing line whereever possible, but that makes too much sense

Sanza · #**103** 10/23/11, 02:20 AM

Good thing those pipelines are buried so we still have ground to walk on around my neck of the woods.....lol.

Tinknal maybe I'm naive too but how does the oil get to it's destination if not through a pipeline?

That's not exactly reassuring when they're trying to convince people that the new route, through a fragile ecosystem, is going to be perfectly safe...

Erin who exactly is "they"? You know all these jobs are bid on and the companies that get the contracts are basically just hired help. So how safe it ends up being is all depending on how good the workers are, not what some bigwig oil company thinks it will be. I'll agree with you on the fact that it should be the safest route rather then the shortest....in spite of you using the "f word" for farmers

NEMarvin · #**104** 10/23/11, 08:59 AM

Count me in with Erin and Bruce2288. The only ones making money right now are the TV stations and the advertising agency for Transcanada. Our airwaves are being flooded with ads telling us "it's no big deal." Of course when we've heard others such as Exxon, BP, etal., telling us how safe it is, it creates suspicion.

The majority of Nebraskans, including Erin and Bruce are not saying NIMBY. I don't live in the Sandhills. I don't own anything in the Sandhills. But the Sandhills is an incredibly fragile ecosystem that MANY people are dependent on. Route it east of there and it will go through lickity-split.

tinknal · #**105** 10/23/11, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanza

Tinknal maybe I'm naive too but how does the oil get to it's destination if not through a pipeline?

You miss my point. The routes of the pipelines pass through low density areas. The destinations of the pipelines are high population areas (because that's where the refinerys and consumers are).

plowjockey · #**106** 10/23/11, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plowjockey;5469127[url
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/11/us-enbridge-leak-idUSTRE6893UN20100911[/url]

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian knight

And that article was over a year old. So it is not up to date as to what is happening now at all.

My mistake.

I thought this discussion, was about the need for a crude oil pipeline, from the oil sands, to U.S. refineries, which we already have and about concerns over oil pipeline leaks, in populated or sensitive areas, which we also aready have.

farminghandyman · #**107** 10/23/11, 08:58 PM

my guess is it would be actually cheaper and easer to by bass the sand hills, that is some rugged ground in them hills, and a lot of equipment would be stuck in the sand.

fordy · #**108** 10/23/11, 09:21 PM

.......................WHY , can't Trans Canada build refineries closeby the sources of the shale extraction sites and just ship the refined fuel products through the pipeline ! Answer , because the BY products left over after refining require large investments in disposal costs ! , fordy

mamagoose · #**109** 10/23/11, 09:29 PM

What's even worse than the "power" of eminent domain, is that they threaten you with it in order to get you to take lesser value than you would receive in court, but then some states don't allow you any attorney fees and other states, only a fraction. And don't think they will abide by the eminent domain statutes of your state, either. They won't and they will get by without the court granting you sanctions. My husband and are victims. You are entitled to the diminutive value to the rest of your land, no matter what they try and tell you.

plowjockey · #**110** 10/23/11, 09:40 PM

It appears that while this make-work project will "create" American jobs, some Canadians, will be missing out on the largess.

Quote:

Major labour unions representing oil workers told federal politicians they were opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline project that would link Alberta's bitumen deposits to the Gulf coast of Texas.

They are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government to focus on pipelines and electric grids that secure Canadian energy from east to west instead of shipping tens of thousands of jobs to refineries down south

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/busin...#ixzz1bevh4u5m

naturelover · #**111** 10/23/11, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordy

.......................WHY , can't Trans Canada build refineries closeby the sources of the shale extraction sites and just ship the refined fuel products through the pipeline ! Answer , because the BY products left over after refining require large investments in disposal costs ! , fordy

That's not the reason but there are 2 other reasons. One is because it would cost America a lot more money to buy refined oil from Canada. America already has the refineries for upgrading bitumen. Why should TransCanada build refineries to refine oil from bitumen for other people when the other people already have their own bitumen refineries and can do it themselves for a lot cheaper?

The 2nd reason is Canada doesn't have anywhere near the industrial capacity that America does. Canada only has 18 refineries in total, 8 of them are in Alberta and only 1 refinery in Canada is set up to upgrade bitumen.

America already has a total of 148 oil refineries of which 42 of those are in Texas and Louisiana. Then there's 21 in California and all the rest of them are scattered about the rest of the States. There's even 2 oil refineries in Hawaii.

A large percentage of the domestic oil that Canada produces gets piped to refineries in America to be refined and then the refined oil gets piped back to Canada for Canada's own domestic use. Canada pays America a lot of extra money to refine that domestic oil for Canada.

However, I do think you're right with your suggestion and it would be very good for Canada's economy if it could develop more refineries that are capable of refining bitumen. It would create a great deal more employment and industry for Canadian workers and then Canada could charge other countries a lot more money for the refined bitumen that it exports to them.

.

plowjockey · #**112** 10/23/11, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturelover

However, I do think you're right with your suggestion and it would be very good for Canada's economy if it could develop more refineries that are capable of refining bitumen. It would create a great deal more employment and industry for Canadian workers and then Canada could charge other countries a lot more money for the refined bitumen that it exports to them.

They will build a new oil refinery in Canada, when they build a new oil refinery in the U.S. ,which will be never.

This article is from 2006, but no refineries have been built in either country, since then.

When a new refinery project is "planned", lawyers are the only one's, who ever see a penny, out of the entire deal. No one ever sees a drop of gasoline or diesel.

http://www.npnweb.com/ME2/dirmod.asp...695009DB2F9C8C

tinknal · #**113** 10/24/11, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fordy

.......................WHY , can't Trans Canada build refineries closeby the sources of the shale extraction sites and just ship the refined fuel products through the pipeline ! Answer , because the BY products left over after refining require large investments in disposal costs ! , fordy

Ummmmmm, a refinery converts oil into dozens of different products. Instead of one pipeline they would need dozens......

emdeengee · #**114** 10/24/11, 12:57 PM

Two new refineries are being built in Alberta. This is old news since it was announced in Feb 2011.

ErinP · #**115** 10/24/11, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, those lakes also explain a great deal about why there is so much surface evaporation happening in Nebraska and causing so much extra depletion of the aquifer. The water is just welling up and evaporating away from the lakes.

No, that really has nothing to do with the aquifer depletion.
It's irrigation, pure and simple. All those center pivot systems you see from Nebraska down to Texas. They're draining the Ogallala and we've known that for a couple of decades, at least.

(But of course this is a whole other soapbox.

)

Quote:

It seems pretty clear from above that the dunes themselves have been created in waves in the distant past from the upwelling of the artesians when the aquifer had full pressure and was bubbling up both sand and water.

Nope.
It's wind.
On the ranch we lived on when we first got married, the boss had four pictures of the barn. All taken from the front porch of the original house. The first was around 1900, the second was in the 30s, the third in the 50s and the fourth in the 90s.
You could literally see the hills moving behind the barn as they blew and reformed.

The Sandhills of Nebraska are a very unique area.

ErinP · #**116** 10/24/11, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce2288

Erin seems we are a 2 man crew reguarding the sandhills. Excellant link.

When I was a new bride at 22 years old, my cowboy-husband moved us to a Sandhills ranch in Sheridan co (the BIG hills). I've been in love with them ever since.
I'm pretty sure that when I get to heaven, the Lord is just going to give me my own ranch in the Sandhills. I can't imagine anything better.

But consequently, that's why the very idea of a pipeline through there just ties up my stomach in knots.

fordy · #**117** 10/24/11, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

Ummmmmm, a refinery converts oil into dozens of different products. Instead of one pipeline they would need dozens......

...................A pipeline can move a multiplicity of petroleum products as they have ways of purging the inside of the pipe before initiating a run of a different item . , fordy

Paumon · #**118** 10/24/11, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinP

It's wind.
On the ranch we lived on when we first got married, the boss had four pictures of the barn. All taken from the front porch of the original house. The first was around 1900, the second was in the 30s, the third in the 50s and the fourth in the 90s.
You could literally see the hills moving behind the barn as they blew and reformed.

The Sandhills of Nebraska are a very unique area.

That sounds like the Great Sand Dunes National Park of Colorado and the Oregon Dunes National Recreation area. They were all born out of the water that created them and first put them there in the past and then are continually growing and moving via the wind that increases them. Your Sandhills area will be the same, born out of water that put them there in the past and then built up by the wind.

I guess some of those lakes must get filled in from time to time as the dunes reform over top of the lakes.

Here is an idea for you then if you want to save your Sandhills from future incursions by industry. Since the Sandhills are so unique and fragile the state of Nebraska could petition to have the Sandhills declared a national treasure and recreational park. Then no industries can go through them.

ErinP · #**119** 10/24/11, 04:27 PM

Of course like most of the Plains, the great inland ocean formed this region, too. But it wasn't the aquifer. Nor does the aquifer really form anything now. It's wind.

So far as a national treasure/park, the Sandhills comprise about a third of the state...Almost all of which is privately owned.
$TransCanada\Keystone Pipeline.....Sell US ROW or We Wll SUE YOU - Homesteading Questions$
Something like 20-25,000 square MILES.
The parks you mentioned are measured in acres...

So far as the region's value:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Hills_%28Nebraska%29

Quote:

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) designated the Sand Hills as an ecoregion, distinct from other grasslands of the Great Plains. According to their assessment, as much as 85% of the Sand Hills ecoregion is intact natural habitat, the highest level in the Great Plains. This is chiefly due to the lack of crop production: most of the Sand Hills land has never been plowed.

Also:

Quote:

As the largest and most intricate wetland ecosystem in the United States, the Sand Hills contain a large array of plant and animal life.

The current system (that of those who love it care for it) seems to be working pretty well.

So long as it's allowed to, that is.

plowjockey · #**120** 10/24/11, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emdeengee

Two new refineries are being built in Alberta. This is old news since it was announced in Feb 2011.

Please post a link to where information on construction, is underway, if this is "old news".