Posted by rview_ on March 08, 2015 at 05:42:29 from (199.47.65.60):
In Reply to: oil train update posted by greg oliver on March 07, 2015 at 19:40:51:
I will again post my links below. I am not against the pipeline, I am against where it is going. I don't speak about political stuff in public unless it's brought up, but I haven't heard anyone that is for this pipeline here. It does not need to go over a shallow area of our water supply, it can go around it easily over by the others, at least to an area that is much deeper. The say "it almost never leaks" so that is supposed to be good enough, that's what people seem to think that don't live here. Well, there are always leaks at some point. The first Keystone leaked more than they predicted. And the stuff is certainly a different animal than regular oil. For some reason people put blinders on when it comes to this pipeline, all they see is $$ signs, calling people that oppose it names. People here that they tried to seize land from do not, nor the Rosebud Sioux who declared it was an act of war. So they say it's safe, well, which is better? Going 20 ft from a city reservoir, or 200 as an example? Doesn't seem like it takes much common sense to MINIMIZE risk when possible. This area is vulnerable and unique. And there is no risk and no tar sands pipelines here at all now. So, they keep advertising on the radio and telling us we should be ok with taking risk when there is none. They say they are going to bury the line several feet, well, water level isn't that far away, ground water is already there. It took and is taking them YEARS to clean out a river, a surface spill, not done yet really. How long would it take to clean out an underground leak, with chemical contamination from the chemicals they dissolve in it to make it flow? Actually, it could be impossible, if it involves an amount as some previous spills from pipelines. This pipeline only needs built because they are shipping the oil anyway. They could wait to ship it until the safer method was in place, but they won't do that. Plus people keep saying so and so gets so much money while it's shipping by trains. Well, he supports the pipeline. Plus, if the line is built, some other so and so will get more money, I don't see much difference on which so and so gets the money, plus, no doubt they are also buddy buddy with the powerful political supporters too. Everyone acts like it's "our" oil, and it will only help us, and lower prices, etc. But they never seem to look at the truth about it. Build it, be safe, but go around here. Simple. It needs built to be safer, that's all. I'm not going into the environmental impact of this, on how much more goes into each gallon of fuel that comes out compared to regular oil, because it doesn't matter, it will go through anyway, because it needs to be built somewhere, regardless of what it's doing and what it takes.
I count and I have 3 submersible and 4 windmills on my place. Any one of them I can take a drink out of and have clean, pure, no need to filter or purify, water. Flowing wells bordering my property too. I like being able to do that. There's a chance that there would never be a leak in this area, but to me, protecting what a person has, is worth far more money than oil that doesn't even really help us out in any noticeable/perceivable/minuscule if any, fashion compared to what we already have access to. One leak could cost irreparable damage, and if it would hit by any of the farms/ranches, there is no way to haul in enough water to replace what was damaged. To me, even if enthusiastically there is a 0.0001% risk, that's too big. Because spills do happen, and no one can predict where.
Here's a report on the reality of what it will do. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/sites/ilr.cornell.edu/files/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
Article on how "effective" the leak detection will be. I forget when they changed to the current route, this may have been written about the first route, which was absolutely stupid.
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]
Today's Featured Article - Listening to Your Tractor - by Curtis Von Fange. Years ago there was a TV show about a talking car. Unless you are from another planet, physically or otherwise, I don’t think our internal combustion buddies will talk and tell us their problems. But, on the other hand, there is a secret language that our mechanical companions readily do speak. It is an interesting form of communication that involves all the senses of the listener. In this series we are going to investigate and learn the basic rudimentary skills of understanding this lingo.
... [Read Article]
Latest Ad:
Sell 1958 Hi-Altitude Massey Fergerson tractor, original condition. three point hitch pto engine, Runs well, photos available upon request
[More Ads]
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy
TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
