# Tar Sands Pipe Line & Protesters Arrested..



## Helena (May 10, 2002)

I haven't heard much on the Tar Sands Pipe line and the protesters that are getting arrested in Washington DC. It will come down from Canada to Texas refineries and will give off 2 to 3 times more greenhouse gases. There have been leaks already in the pipe line that has contaminated water and the EPA once was against this but now seem to have changed their minds..:hammer:..What gives there ?? I understand some say we should use our oils and not depend on foreign oils..but explain please ?? ALSO, I can't find out why the protesters are getting arrested in Washington, DC. Can someone explain this to me also..


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

People getting arrested in Washington isn't unusual. That typically happens when they don't comply with rules. For example: climbing the fence around the White House is a no-no. Blocking traffic will probably get you hauled off too. Ever since 9/11 and the actions of others termed enviro-terrorists, many places in Washington are off limits or subject to more regulations.

Most of the pipeline has been finished. The remaining leg runs from somewhere in the Midwest to the refineries located near the Gulf of Mexico. This topic has already been discussed recently on HT and maps or links to maps posted. The excuses for not finishing the pipeline are baseless.

I have to laugh at people upset at taking oil out of sand. The sand is cleaner afterwards. What's wrong with that?

Some of the money that goes for buying oil in countries overseas directly funds terrorist activities. The more oil sources we use from North America, the less chance that terrorists can make things go bang unexpectedly and kill us or our friends.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> People getting arrested in Washington isn't unusual. That typically happens when they don't comply with rules. For example: climbing the fence around the White House is a no-no. Blocking traffic will probably get you hauled off too. Ever since 9/11 and the actions of others termed enviro-terrorists, many places in Washington are off limits or subject to more regulations.
> 
> Most of the pipeline has been finished. The remaining leg runs from somewhere in the Midwest to the refineries located near the Gulf of Mexico. This topic has already been discussed recently on HT and maps or links to maps posted. The excuses for not finishing the pipeline are baseless.
> 
> ...


 Very good post and full of common sense. Thank you that deserves a POTD award.


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Hi,
Extracting oil from tar sands is far more energy intensive than conventional drilling and pumping, so it ends up generating far more carbon emissions that conventional oil.

Gary


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

SolarGary said:


> Hi,
> Extracting oil from tar sands is far more energy intensive than conventional drilling and pumping, so it ends up generating far more carbon emissions that conventional oil.
> 
> Gary


Why do you care about carbon emissions?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Carbon emissions? Whats that? And what about em?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Carbon emissions? Whats that? And what about em?


That's what I'm wondering.


----------



## SolarGary (Sep 8, 2005)

Darren said:


> Why do you care about carbon emissions?


Actually, I don't much care myself, but my grandkids will care a lot, so that's why I care.

If you actually want the science on climate change and carbon emissions:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Look at it this way -- if it were not a carbon emissions and climate change issue, then there would be no BuildItSolar.com -- then where would you go for free solar project plans 

Gary


----------



## fishhead (Jul 19, 2006)

We need to stop acting so selfishly and consider what we do to future generations.


----------



## lacy (Apr 15, 2006)

The problem with this pipeline is that it will pass over a very large aquifer in Nebraska. The aquifer extends thru nearly 75% of the state. The fear is contamination of this water resource.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

From what I have read, they are wanting to take the petroleum to New Orleans in order to refine and ship it overseas to the highest bidder... this has nothing to do with Americas energy security. This is about profit for the oil companies.

Why is a thread about tar sand petroleum in the 'Alternative Energy' forum?


----------



## Helena (May 10, 2002)

Sorry if it was posted incorrectly..but thought energy and oil was Ok to put here. Would it have been better suited in another forum..?? That's OK too. thanks for the info ..


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

greg I agree . . . . . . . .this thread should go to GC . . .. . . . .Ross ???

If you want to argue about the pros and cons of tar sand oil . . . .have at it else where.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

lacy said:


> The problem with this pipeline is that it will pass over a very large aquifer in Nebraska. The aquifer extends thru nearly 75% of the state. The fear is contamination of this water resource.


The aquifer lies at least 100' below the ground. Pipelines aren't buried anywhere near that deep. 

"The depth of the water below the surface of the land ranges from almost 400 feet (122 m) in parts of the north to between 100 to 200 feet (30 to 61 m) throughout much of the south. Present-day recharge of the aquifer with fresh water occurs at an exceedingly slow rate ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Yeah I typically move these quasi political threads to GC but I thought so long as everyone can stay civil I'd give it a chance to see where it goes. If the OP wants it moved I will.


----------

