reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397575/so-we-pay-higher-prices-for-gas-because-oil-companies-are-exporting-excess-crude-overseas/20#post_3543988
Have you been reading Quills comments? I agree with you completely that it could potentially create some long-term jobs, and there are some benefits to pumping that crude down in a pipeline. But the reports also say that the crude being pumped here won't provide any significant help to reduce gas prices, and in the Midwest region of the country, it would actually cause the price to rise. The main roadblock is the environmental impact of the line. Yes, there is factual data to prove/disprove both sides of that argument, but the one's putting the hold on the building of the project are the people who would be most affected if a major leak or spill did occur. If you had some oil pipeline running over your only viable water source, and you had to rely on the assurances of the owner of that line that it could never contaminate your source of water, you may have the same hesitations about letting that thing run over your land.
The route was changed to deal with the aquifer issue in Nebraska. Even if it was never a problem. Have you ever seen a crude spill on the ground? It doesn't readily soak into the ground. Having a break drain into a lake or waterway is a much larger threat.
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397575/so-we-pay-higher-prices-for-gas-because-oil-companies-are-exporting-excess-crude-overseas/20#post_3543988
Have you been reading Quills comments? I agree with you completely that it could potentially create some long-term jobs, and there are some benefits to pumping that crude down in a pipeline. But the reports also say that the crude being pumped here won't provide any significant help to reduce gas prices, and in the Midwest region of the country, it would actually cause the price to rise. The main roadblock is the environmental impact of the line. Yes, there is factual data to prove/disprove both sides of that argument, but the one's putting the hold on the building of the project are the people who would be most affected if a major leak or spill did occur. If you had some oil pipeline running over your only viable water source, and you had to rely on the assurances of the owner of that line that it could never contaminate your source of water, you may have the same hesitations about letting that thing run over your land.
The route was changed to deal with the aquifer issue in Nebraska. Even if it was never a problem. Have you ever seen a crude spill on the ground? It doesn't readily soak into the ground. Having a break drain into a lake or waterway is a much larger threat.
