Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (828848)	1/9/2015 1:43:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575244

>> I have already pointed out that the existing Keystone pipeline has had 30 spills since it was built. You seem to be trying to argue that transporting oil by other means is safer, yet we know, with 100% certainty, it isn't. If you have to transport oil over land there is no safer method of doing it than with a pipeline. Straw man. Never said that. Furthermore, THE EXPERT on that aquifer has said there it is a physical impossibility to significantly damage the aquifer with an oil spill. So, your argument is entirely moot. And I showed you a map that shows the line going right over the main part of the aquifer. Your so called winger EXPERT speaks with forked tongue. So sorry. >> Why should we risk spills over the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of water in the US? That makes no sense. Except we know that a spill would not damage the aquifer and therefore there is NO RISK. No we don't know that. You don't know that nor does your winger EXPERT. Its funny how you ridicule profs and scientists until you find one that shares your POV. And why are you so anxious to help the Canadian oil industry?