Who else but Democrats would stop the flow of oil from Canada and then complain about the cost of gasoline here and how the oil companies are getting rich off of their backs'

Who else but the same mindless morons would complain about pollution caused from mining process that could not possibly have been improved before we had the ability to perform the science to improve them using instruments that could only be made possible by using products of those older mining technologies?

This is a demonstration of the mental capacities of people like Flunkmaster and Frank. This group understand NOTHING about the world and how we got where we are. Imagine using a computer that needs copper and aluminum and silicon and uses acids to etch circuit boards and then complains that older methods of mining in the 1950's caused pollution?

Imagine John living in a country where slavery is legal and commenting about slavery in the US which ended 150 years ago?

Imagine that Jay doesn't even realize the long term effects of his attempt to ski under poor conditions will do to him? Accidents happen? Sure, but don't pretend that this won't have any effects on you. Broken bones in particular in the feet leave permanent effects.

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:44:07 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Who else but Democrats would stop the flow of oil from Canada and then complain about the cost of gasoline here and how the oil companies are getting rich off of their backs'
>
> Who else but the same mindless morons would complain about pollution caused from mining process that could not possibly have been improved before we had the ability to perform the science to improve them using instruments that could only be made possible by using products of those older mining technologies?
>
> This is a demonstration of the mental capacities of people like Flunkmaster and Frank. This group understand NOTHING about the world and how we got where we are. Imagine using a computer that needs copper and aluminum and silicon and uses acids to etch circuit boards and then complains that older methods of mining in the 1950's caused pollution?
>
> Imagine John living in a country where slavery is legal and commenting about slavery in the US which ended 150 years ago?
>
> Imagine that Jay doesn't even realize the long term effects of his attempt to ski under poor conditions will do to him? Accidents happen? Sure, but don't pretend that this won't have any effects on you. Broken bones in particular in the feet leave permanent effects.

The thing about the self-destructive is that they are so absolutely convinced that they are right, they can do no other than rush headlong to destruction, like monks flagellating themselves into religious ecstasies not even seeing their own blood flow. -- AJ

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:44:07 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Who else but Democrats would stop the flow of oil from Canada and then complain about the cost of gasoline here and how the oil companies are getting rich off of their backs'
> >
> > Who else but the same mindless morons would complain about pollution caused from mining process that could not possibly have been improved before we had the ability to perform the science to improve them using instruments that could only be made possible by using products of those older mining technologies?
> >
> > This is a demonstration of the mental capacities of people like Flunkmaster and Frank. This group understand NOTHING about the world and how we got where we are. Imagine using a computer that needs copper and aluminum and silicon and uses acids to etch circuit boards and then complains that older methods of mining in the 1950's caused pollution?
> >
> > Imagine John living in a country where slavery is legal and commenting about slavery in the US which ended 150 years ago?
> >
> > Imagine that Jay doesn't even realize the long term effects of his attempt to ski under poor conditions will do to him? Accidents happen? Sure, but don't pretend that this won't have any effects on you. Broken bones in particular in the feet leave permanent effects.
> The thing about the self-destructive is that they are so absolutely convinced that they are right, they can do no other than rush headlong to destruction, like monks flagellating themselves into religious ecstasies not even seeing their own blood flow. -- AJ

Most of them don't even ride bicycles. So what in the hell do you suppose they are on this group for?

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:29:02 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:44:07 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Who else but Democrats would stop the flow of oil from Canada and then complain about the cost of gasoline here and how the oil companies are getting rich off of their backs'
>> >
>> > Who else but the same mindless morons would complain about pollution caused from mining process that could not possibly have been improved before we had the ability to perform the science to improve them using instruments that could only be made possible by using products of those older mining technologies?
>> >
>> > This is a demonstration of the mental capacities of people like Flunkmaster and Frank. This group understand NOTHING about the world and how we got where we are. Imagine using a computer that needs copper and aluminum and silicon and uses acids to etch circuit boards and then complains that older methods of mining in the 1950's caused pollution?
>> >
>> > Imagine John living in a country where slavery is legal and commenting about slavery in the US which ended 150 years ago?
>> >
>> > Imagine that Jay doesn't even realize the long term effects of his attempt to ski under poor conditions will do to him? Accidents happen? Sure, but don't pretend that this won't have any effects on you. Broken bones in particular in the feet leave permanent effects.
>> The thing about the self-destructive is that they are so absolutely convinced that they are right, they can do no other than rush headlong to destruction, like monks flagellating themselves into religious ecstasies not even seeing their own blood flow. -- AJ
>
>Most of them don't even ride bicycles. So what in the hell do you suppose they are on this group for?

Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.

Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
drilling permits on public land than Trump
<https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.

However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
global market.

Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>
>Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>drilling permits on public land than Trump
><https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>
>However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>global market.
>
>Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.

You over simplify.
There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
join an existing pipeline.

As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
importing heavy crude from Venezuela.

Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 08 Dec 2021 11:01:42 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>>
>>Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>>environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>>drilling permits on public land than Trump
>><https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>>
>>However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>>Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>>global market.
>>
>>Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>>pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>>east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>>U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>>crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
>
>You over simplify.
>There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
>first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
>Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
>cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
>join an existing pipeline.

As a clarification of the above. the first section of the cancelled
portion of the system was to be from Alberta to Nebraska where it
joined an existing pipeline and then from that pipeline, in Oklahoma,
to the, Texas I think, gulf coast.

>
>As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
>to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
>might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
>importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
>
>Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
>there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
>under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
>U.S.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 1:29:04 AM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:44:07 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Who else but Democrats would stop the flow of oil from Canada and then complain about the cost of gasoline here and how the oil companies are getting rich off of their backs'
> > >
> > > Who else but the same mindless morons would complain about pollution caused from mining process that could not possibly have been improved before we had the ability to perform the science to improve them using instruments that could only be made possible by using products of those older mining technologies?
> > >
> > > This is a demonstration of the mental capacities of people like Flunkmaster and Frank. This group understand NOTHING about the world and how we got where we are. Imagine using a computer that needs copper and aluminum and silicon and uses acids to etch circuit boards and then complains that older methods of mining in the 1950's caused pollution?
> > >
> > > Imagine John living in a country where slavery is legal and commenting about slavery in the US which ended 150 years ago?
> > >
> > > Imagine that Jay doesn't even realize the long term effects of his attempt to ski under poor conditions will do to him? Accidents happen? Sure, but don't pretend that this won't have any effects on you. Broken bones in particular in the feet leave permanent effects.
> > The thing about the self-destructive is that they are so absolutely convinced that they are right, they can do no other than rush headlong to destruction, like monks flagellating themselves into religious ecstasies not even seeing their own blood flow. -- AJ
> Most of them don't even ride bicycles. So what in the hell do you suppose they are on this group for?
..
Slow Johnny is here to thug on his betters; he may also mistake this for an intellectual haven, since no one except those who know better object to his his addiction to his personal opiate, Wikipedia. --- AJ

On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>>
>> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>> drilling permits on public land than Trump
>> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>>
>> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>> global market.
>>
>> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
>
> You over simplify.
> There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
> first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
> Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
> cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
> join an existing pipeline.
>
> As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
> to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
> might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
> importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
>
> Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
> there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
> under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
> U.S.
>

Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
banned any new pipelines through NY.

https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php

Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/

Those are not isolated cases.

Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
and MI severely.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/

Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
conducted its policies.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> >>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
> >>
> >> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
> >> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
> >> drilling permits on public land than Trump
> >> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
> >>
> >> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
> >> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
> >> global market.
> >>
> >> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
> >> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
> >> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
> >> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
> >> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
> >
> > You over simplify.
> > There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
> > first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
> > Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
> > cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
> > join an existing pipeline.
> >
> > As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
> > to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
> > might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
> > importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
> >
> > Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
> > there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
> > under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
> > U.S.
> >
> Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
> improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
> natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
> Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
> banned any new pipelines through NY.
>
> https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
>
> Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
> makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
> New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
>
> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
>
> Those are not isolated cases.
>
> Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
> Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
> pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
> Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
> distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
> treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
> fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
> closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
> transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
> and MI severely.
>
> https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
>
>
> Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
> conducted its policies.

To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.

And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html

Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/8/2021 9:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>
> To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
>
> And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
>
> Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg

On Eminent Domain (but bike related): The local metroparks is trying to
use eminent domain to take land from several farmers to build a few
miles of bike trail. I'm against that, in part because the parallel
country road has a maximum of 1000 cars per day, almost no
intersections, and is very scenic. We ride it with no problems. If they
simply repaved it, it would be perfect. I say eminent domain is not
justified.

Anyway, one guy in our club disagrees. He claims this out-in-the-sticks
trail would bring in tourists from afar, spending huge amounts of money
and raising our area's prosperity. I think that's a fairy tale.

He also said "It's for the good of the community! If they wanted to put
a bike trail across my backyard, I'd let them do it!"

All I could say was "No you wouldn't."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:33:06 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> On Eminent Domain (but bike related): The local metroparks is trying to
> use eminent domain to take land from several farmers to build a few
> miles of bike trail. I'm against that, in part because the parallel
> country road has a maximum of 1000 cars per day, almost no
> intersections, and is very scenic. We ride it with no problems. If they
> simply repaved it, it would be perfect. I say eminent domain is not
> justified.
> --
> - Frank Krygowski
..
Another example of why the Decent Cyclists say Frank Krygowski aka Pink Panties Franki-boy is the enemy of cyclists and cycling. -- AJ

On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:23:20 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> > raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
> drilling permits on public land than Trump
> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>
> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
> global market.
>
> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.

Some people, including you don't know shit about shinola. The "tar sands" were not sand in the pipeline you ignorant fool. It was partially processed oil derived at the source from tar sands. Sure, since we had excess petroleum supplies at that point in time, part of it was to be exported. There was NO DANGER to the environment from modern pipelines.

I do find it interesting that you think that Biden approves public land drilling permits when that is covered entirely by the BLM and the oil companies thinking that Biden administration was going to make stricter drilling rules stockpiled requests for drilling LONG before those changes could be made. So it isn't as if these plans hadn't been in the pipeline for years ahead of this but of course some lying sack of shit with the brain power of an insect can make any claim he likes purely because he doesn't know any better.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:28:54 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 1:29:04 AM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 2:32:19 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 5:44:07 PM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Who else but Democrats would stop the flow of oil from Canada and then complain about the cost of gasoline here and how the oil companies are getting rich off of their backs'
> > > >
> > > > Who else but the same mindless morons would complain about pollution caused from mining process that could not possibly have been improved before we had the ability to perform the science to improve them using instruments that could only be made possible by using products of those older mining technologies?
> > > >
> > > > This is a demonstration of the mental capacities of people like Flunkmaster and Frank. This group understand NOTHING about the world and how we got where we are. Imagine using a computer that needs copper and aluminum and silicon and uses acids to etch circuit boards and then complains that older methods of mining in the 1950's caused pollution?
> > > >
> > > > Imagine John living in a country where slavery is legal and commenting about slavery in the US which ended 150 years ago?
> > > >
> > > > Imagine that Jay doesn't even realize the long term effects of his attempt to ski under poor conditions will do to him? Accidents happen? Sure, but don't pretend that this won't have any effects on you. Broken bones in particular in the feet leave permanent effects.
> > > The thing about the self-destructive is that they are so absolutely convinced that they are right, they can do no other than rush headlong to destruction, like monks flagellating themselves into religious ecstasies not even seeing their own blood flow. -- AJ
> > Most of them don't even ride bicycles. So what in the hell do you suppose they are on this group for?
> .
> Slow Johnny is here to thug on his betters; he may also mistake this for an intellectual haven, since no one except those who know better object to his his addiction to his personal opiate, Wikipedia. --- AJ
John, who thinks that Google makes him a genius is just at his SOS.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> >>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
> >>
> >> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
> >> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
> >> drilling permits on public land than Trump
> >> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
> >>
> >> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
> >> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
> >> global market.
> >>
> >> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
> >> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
> >> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
> >> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
> >> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
> >
> > You over simplify.
> > There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
> > first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
> > Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
> > cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
> > join an existing pipeline.
> >
> > As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
> > to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
> > might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
> > importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
> >
> > Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
> > there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
> > under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
> > U.S.
> >
> Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
> improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
> natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
> Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
> banned any new pipelines through NY.
>
> https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
>
> Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
> makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
> New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
>
> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
>
> Those are not isolated cases.
>
> Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
> Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
> pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
> Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
> distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
> treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
> fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
> closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
> transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
> and MI severely.
>
> https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
>
>
> Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
> conducted its policies.
This great country is left to develop policies predictably but extreme radicals that agree with no normal person. Pretending that pipelines are dangerous is one such radical idea that has grown in the minds of the leftists because it makes the US more profitable.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 6:52:21 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >>
> > >> <snip>
> > >>
> > >>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> > >>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
> > >>
> > >> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
> > >> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
> > >> drilling permits on public land than Trump
> > >> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
> > >>
> > >> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
> > >> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
> > >> global market.
> > >>
> > >> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
> > >> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
> > >> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
> > >> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
> > >> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
> > >
> > > You over simplify.
> > > There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
> > > first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
> > > Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
> > > cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
> > > join an existing pipeline.
> > >
> > > As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
> > > to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
> > > might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
> > > importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
> > >
> > > Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
> > > there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
> > > under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
> > > U.S.
> > >
> > Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
> > improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
> > natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
> > Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
> > banned any new pipelines through NY.
> >
> > https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
> >
> > Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
> > makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
> > New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
> >
> > https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
> >
> > Those are not isolated cases.
> >
> > Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
> > Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
> > pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
> > Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
> > distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
> > treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
> > fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
> > closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
> > transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
> > and MI severely.
> >
> > https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
> >
> >
> > Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
> > conducted its policies.
> To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
>
> And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
>
> Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg

I want to put Jay's sheer insanity into perspective: The nation's more than 2.6 million miles of pipelines safely deliver trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year. This is 65% of all of the energy this country needs and we have some stinking mindless lawyer claiming that a 100 year old pipeline leaked a million gallons of oil. The mental capacity that Jay has been showing since he claimed that the Portland riots of the criminals burning down the city center was "mostly peaceful protests" has gotten so out of hand that he can't even make sane statements any longer.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 7:42:32 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:33:06 PM UTC, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > On Eminent Domain (but bike related): The local metroparks is trying to
> > use eminent domain to take land from several farmers to build a few
> > miles of bike trail. I'm against that, in part because the parallel
> > country road has a maximum of 1000 cars per day, almost no
> > intersections, and is very scenic. We ride it with no problems. If they
> > simply repaved it, it would be perfect. I say eminent domain is not
> > justified.
> > --
> > - Frank Krygowski
> .
> Another example of why the Decent Cyclists say Frank Krygowski aka Pink Panties Franki-boy is the enemy of cyclists and cycling. -- AJ
Actually in cases like this I have to agree with Frank. While it may not often be that he makes sound points this is one of them. Bike trails are often build very poorly and degrade rapidly. Counties are loath to maintain them and the money is better spent on roads for all to use rather than a few that gain no advantage from them.

On 12/8/2021 6:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>>>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>>>> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>>>> drilling permits on public land than Trump
>>>> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>>>>
>>>> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>>>> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>>>> global market.
>>>>
>>>> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>>>> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>>>> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>>>> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>>>> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
>>>
>>> You over simplify.
>>> There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
>>> first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
>>> Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
>>> cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
>>> join an existing pipeline.
>>>
>>> As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
>>> to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
>>> might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
>>> importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
>>>
>>> Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
>>> there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
>>> under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
>>> U.S.
>>>
>> Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
>> improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
>> natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
>> Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
>> banned any new pipelines through NY.
>>
>> https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
>>
>> Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
>> makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
>> New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
>>
>> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
>>
>> Those are not isolated cases.
>>
>> Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
>> Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
>> pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
>> Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
>> distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
>> treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
>> fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
>> closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
>> transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
>> and MI severely.
>>
>> https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
>>
>>
>> Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
>> conducted its policies.
>
> To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
>
> And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
>
> Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg

Bingo. We need to stop sacrificing land and water so Canada can
transport poor quality oil to global markets.

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 8:57:55 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> On 12/8/2021 6:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> >>>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
> >>>> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
> >>>> drilling permits on public land than Trump
> >>>> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
> >>>>
> >>>> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
> >>>> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
> >>>> global market.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
> >>>> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
> >>>> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
> >>>> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
> >>>> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
> >>>
> >>> You over simplify.
> >>> There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
> >>> first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
> >>> Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
> >>> cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
> >>> join an existing pipeline.
> >>>
> >>> As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
> >>> to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
> >>> might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
> >>> importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
> >>>
> >>> Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
> >>> there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
> >>> under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
> >>> U.S.
> >>>
> >> Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
> >> improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
> >> natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
> >> Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
> >> banned any new pipelines through NY.
> >>
> >> https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
> >>
> >> Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
> >> makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
> >> New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
> >>
> >> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
> >>
> >> Those are not isolated cases.
> >>
> >> Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
> >> Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
> >> pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
> >> Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
> >> distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
> >> treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
> >> fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
> >> closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
> >> transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
> >> and MI severely.
> >>
> >> https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
> >>
> >>
> >> Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
> >> conducted its policies.
> >
> > To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
> >
> > And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
> >
> > Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg
> Bingo. We need to stop sacrificing land and water so Canada can
> transport poor quality oil to global markets.

As an interesting aside, I wrote some of the contracts for the trans-shipment of refinery modules to Alberta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearl_Oil_Sands_Project https://www.foss.com/projects/kearl-oil-sands/ Offloading and transporting those modules was a MF. https://www.mymcmurray.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/11/2012/03/kearl-project-megaload-bigger.jpg

-- Jay Beattie.

On 12/8/2021 11:24 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:23:20 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>> drilling permits on public land than Trump
>> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>>
>> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>> global market.
>>
>> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
>
> Some people, including you don't know shit about shinola. The "tar sands" were not sand in the pipeline you ignorant fool. It was partially processed oil derived at the source from tar sands.

<sigh> Reading comprehension, Tom. Is that why you never got that high
school degree?

In any case, yours is not improving.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:10:38 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/8/2021 11:24 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 7, 2021 at 6:23:20 PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
> >> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
> >>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
> >> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
> >> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
> >> drilling permits on public land than Trump
> >> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
> >>
> >> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
> >> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
> >> global market.
> >>
> >> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
> >> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
> >> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
> >> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
> >> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
> >
> > Some people, including you don't know shit about shinola. The "tar sands" were not sand in the pipeline you ignorant fool. It was partially processed oil derived at the source from tar sands.
> <sigh> Reading comprehension, Tom. Is that why you never got that high
> school degree?
>
> In any case, yours is not improving.

Showing yet more of your vast engineering skill? Do you have any idea of how things are transported through pipelines? Plainly not. Stop taking sides because you're not bright enough to know what is being spoken of.

On 12/8/2021 9:33 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 12/8/2021 9:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>
>> To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968,
>> spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and
>> in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths
>> between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where
>> it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor
>> strikes." I can totally understand why the state of
>> Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
>>
>> And why should private landowners give up their property
>> for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from
>> Nebraska said FU to the XL.
>> https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
>>
>>
>> Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be
>> happy, eh?
>> https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg
>>
>
> On Eminent Domain (but bike related): The local metroparks
> is trying to use eminent domain to take land from several
> farmers to build a few miles of bike trail. I'm against
> that, in part because the parallel country road has a
> maximum of 1000 cars per day, almost no intersections, and
> is very scenic. We ride it with no problems. If they simply
> repaved it, it would be perfect. I say eminent domain is not
> justified.
>
> Anyway, one guy in our club disagrees. He claims this
> out-in-the-sticks trail would bring in tourists from afar,
> spending huge amounts of money and raising our area's
> prosperity. I think that's a fairy tale.
>
> He also said "It's for the good of the community! If they
> wanted to put a bike trail across my backyard, I'd let them
> do it!"
>
> All I could say was "No you wouldn't."
>
>

+1

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=homeless+tents+bike+path&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/8/2021 8:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>>>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>>>>
>>>> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>>>> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>>>> drilling permits on public land than Trump
>>>> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>>>>
>>>> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>>>> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>>>> global market.
>>>>
>>>> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>>>> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>>>> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>>>> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>>>> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
>>>
>>> You over simplify.
>>> There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
>>> first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
>>> Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
>>> cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
>>> join an existing pipeline.
>>>
>>> As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
>>> to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
>>> might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
>>> importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
>>>
>>> Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
>>> there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
>>> under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
>>> U.S.
>>>
>> Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
>> improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
>> natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
>> Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
>> banned any new pipelines through NY.
>>
>> https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
>>
>> Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
>> makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
>> New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
>>
>> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
>>
>> Those are not isolated cases.
>>
>> Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
>> Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
>> pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
>> Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
>> distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
>> treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
>> fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
>> closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
>> transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
>> and MI severely.
>>
>> https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
>>
>>
>> Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
>> conducted its policies.
>
> To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
>
> And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
>
> Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
>
>
>

Right. Pipelines are not zero cost nor zero risk.

But that line carries 23 million gallons per day.

An arithmetic moment:
570,860,000,000 volume
1,130,000 loss

1.13 million loss on 570 billion volume is small.

Truck and rail are not only more expensive by magnitudes but
at higher overall risk per volume such as the Canadian
Megantic disaster.

BTW I was wrong about 1950 (faulty memory). It's been
transporting oil since 1953.

People may assume or reject risk for their own reasons or no
reason but this doesn't seem cataclysmic to me. YMMV.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/8/2021 11:13 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 8:57:55 AM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>> On 12/8/2021 6:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 5:49:56 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 12/7/2021 10:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 18:23:15 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/2021 5:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, based on a survey of your posts it is mostly "for" ranting and
>>>>>>> raving about how the Republicans lost the presidential election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ironically, Biden is being criticized by some people in the
>>>>>> environmental community because he has approved far more oil and gas
>>>>>> drilling permits on public land than Trump
>>>>>> <https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/biden-trump-oil-drilling-cop26-b1971501.html>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However Biden did stop the Keystone XL pipeline which would have brought
>>>>>> Canadian tar sands bitumen to the Gulf of Mexico for export to the
>>>>>> global market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people don't understand what the actual reason for the Keystone XL
>>>>>> pipeline was. Rather than build a pipeline from Alberta across Canada to
>>>>>> east coast Canadian ports, it was shorter to build a pipeline across the
>>>>>> U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico. The bitumen was never going to turned into
>>>>>> crude oil and then refined into gasoline for the U.S. market.
>>>>>
>>>>> You over simplify.
>>>>> There were several pipelines built as part of the Keystone system. The
>>>>> first, was from Alberta Canada to, I believe, somewhere in Illinois.
>>>>> Then there were several more built and the last, the one that was
>>>>> cancelled, ran from Alberta to somewhere in Nebraska where it was to
>>>>> join an existing pipeline.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the oil, which is described in the trade as "heavy crude" was
>>>>> to have been pumped to the Gulf coast, possibly for export but it
>>>>> might be noted that the U.S. refineries in the area are currently
>>>>> importing heavy crude from Venezuela.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the various arguments about possible environmentally damage
>>>>> there are, as of 2020, some 185 existing oil pipe lines and 34 more
>>>>> under construction and some 1,276,303 miles of gas pipelines in the
>>>>> U.S.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's right. But at the margin stymied
>>>> improvements/extensions matter. For example PA has plenty of
>>>> natural gas due to advanced technology of extraction. Mr
>>>> Cuomo, on advice from his top energy advisor, Yoko Ono,
>>>> banned any new pipelines through NY.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/The-truth-behind-the-pipeline-6406849.php
>>>>
>>>> Mr Baker did the same in MA. Add in the Jones Act, which
>>>> makes shipping from Philadelphia to Boston prohibitive, and
>>>> New England heats the last several years with Russian gas:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/massachusetts-limits-gas-pipelines-imports-lng-russia-instead/
>>>>
>>>> Those are not isolated cases.
>>>>
>>>> Two MI governors (Ms Whitmer and her predecessor Ms
>>>> Granholm, now at EPA) have a similar opinion on the Canadian
>>>> pipeline which transits MI from the straits to just north of
>>>> Detroit on its way to CA population centers, refineries and
>>>> distribution in eastern Ontario. The line was built with a
>>>> treaty and contracts in 1950 and MI has collected transit
>>>> fees since with no disasters over that long time. It will be
>>>> closed 'in an abundance of caution' throwing heat and
>>>> transport fuels for Canada into tumult besides affecting WI
>>>> and MI severely.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/24/michigan-gov-whitmer-biden-administration-target-another-pipeline/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Leaving one to wonder how a great nation would have
>>>> conducted its policies.
>>>
>>> To quote: "Line 5 has failed at least 33 times since 1968, spilling at least 1.13 million gallons of oil on land and in wetlands. These 68-year-old Line 5 runs at depths between 100 and 270 feet in the Straits of Mackinac, where it is stressed by strong currents and prone to anchor strikes." I can totally understand why the state of Michigan is concerned about a nearly 70-year old pipeline.
>>>
>>> And why should private landowners give up their property for Canadian hydrocarbon exporters. Plain folks from Nebraska said FU to the XL. https://nptelegraph.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-opponents-hail-end-to-eminent-domain-effort/article_6e7f5ef8-17f3-5a42-97be-9f9d2e989895.html
>>>
>>> Say, we're putting a pipeline through your cornfield. Be happy, eh? https://nebraska.boldalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2016/07/465018_10150766170603617_500113616_9340305_1232952674_o-540x284.jpg
>> Bingo. We need to stop sacrificing land and water so Canada can
>> transport poor quality oil to global markets.
>
> As an interesting aside, I wrote some of the contracts for the trans-shipment of refinery modules to Alberta. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kearl_Oil_Sands_Project https://www.foss.com/projects/kearl-oil-sands/ Offloading and transporting those modules was a MF. https://www.mymcmurray.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/sites/11/2012/03/kearl-project-megaload-bigger.jpg
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
>

There's plenty of oil in logistics-friendly California but
it can't be extracted. We have a National Petroleum Reserve
in Alasaka set aside for oil production. Even that's much
more accessible than the Alberta Sands and pipeline systems
are in place. But no, can't extract there either:

https://www.offshore-technology.com/news/conocophillips-continues-with-alaska-exploration-despite-legal-dispute/

Which sorta leaves Alberta (or Russia or the Saudis, name
your poison)

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 12/8/2021 11:35 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> +1
>
> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=homeless+tents+bike+path&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images

-1

One reason our local water district encourages the construction of
multi-use paths along creeks is because having people using their land
for bicycling, running, walking, scootering, dog-walking, etc.,
discourages encampments from being established. In the past, fenced off
creek banks have been popular places for encampments to become established.

It is true that good bicycle infrastructure, in some areas, encourages
tourism and brings in a lot of money. In San Francisco, bicycle rentals
to tourists was never a thing until the City added a great deal of
bicycle infrastructure along the San Francisco Bay, and along the
highway along the ocean, plus cities on the other side of the Golden
Gate Bridge added multi-use paths. I know that Frank enjoys lying about
bicycle infrastructure in San Francisco, but the truth is that even when
the injunction against new bike lanes on streets was in place, the city
was adding a lot of new infrastructure in areas not affected by the lawsuit.

When I was in Massachusetts and Vermont back in September, the multi-use
paths had a lot of tourists using them and bicycle rentals was a big
thing in Burlington.

OTOH, a multi-use path in northeastern Ohio, where Frank lives, is not
likely to do anything to increase tourism and would likely only be used
by local residents.