Discussion:
Why there will be no XL pipeline: Warren Buffett
(too old to reply)
John Rockefeller
2013-03-09 18:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?

Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.

=======================

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines

Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.

Loading Image...
harry
2013-03-10 08:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
House Man
2013-03-10 14:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Railways are the transport of the future.
Not for fuel-liquids like oil or natural gas. Very expensive way to
transport those fuels compared to pipe-line. Adds $3 per barrel to the
price of oil.
Post by harry
Buffet knows this.
He knows he can influence the political process, otherwise he wouldn't
be investing in rail cars that carry oil.
Post by harry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
That's for people. The US has a poor passenger rail system, for a
variety of reasons.
Post by harry
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
They told us thirty or forty years ago we'd have flying cars (not just
experimental ones).
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-10 16:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Railways are the transport of the future.
Not for fuel-liquids like oil or natural gas.  Very expensive way to
transport those fuels compared to pipe-line.  Adds $3 per barrel to the
price of oil.
Post by harry
Buffet knows this.
He knows he can influence the political process, otherwise he wouldn't
be investing in rail cars that carry oil.
Post by harry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
That's for people.  The US has a poor passenger rail system, for a
variety of reasons.
Post by harry
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
They told us thirty or forty years ago we'd have flying cars (not just
experimental ones).
A classic example of how incompetent the lamestream
media has become was a story on a car that runs on
air. ABC news aired it lat night. Some bloke in the UK
has an old bucket of bolts car that he modified to run on
liquid air. It goes 15 mph for 3 miles. ABC heralded it
as some kind of miracle car that runs on air. Not one
mention of the overall energy picture, ie how much
energy it takes to chill air down to -250 to liquify it,
before it goes into the car, etc, how much that liquid
air actually costs, etc. Apparently you don't
even need a high school science education to be a
technology reporter on ABC. Then the clueless watch
this and go away thinking miracles like this are the
solution to our energy problems and it's just a big
conspiracy that we don't use them......

For a further example of the clueless, Darryl Hannah
was on O'Reilly's show last week to talk about all the
wonderful green solutions that are viable alternatives.
So, O'Reilly says he lives in a house on Long Island and
he'd love to use something other than oil to heat it,
if it makes sense and it's available.
She tells him he should be using solar panels. At that
point, it's clear she's talking about solar ELECTRIC
panels, which obviously are not going to heat a house
in the northeast. He tells her that last time he looked
into it, they were too expensive. Hannah tells him not
to worry, there are companies that will install them and
then sell you electric for what your current electric bill
is. That is partly true, but of course she ignores the
fact that this only works because only rich hippies are doing
it and the govt is heavily subsidizing the solar energy
companies with taxpayer dollars. And it surely won't
heat O'Reilly's house, which was what he asked.

Then it gets better. She tells him he could also use
alcohol heaters in his house? O'Reilly is like, WTF?
I've never seen an alcohol heater, where do you get
them, the alcohol, etc. She tells him you just call up
and companies will deliver the alcohol. Or even better,
he can make the alcohol himself. She claims that is
what was done 100+ years ago. People got tired of
using whale oil, so they used alcohol for heating. She
claims they used stills to make it.... WTF? To get a
modest amount of alcohol requires a hell of a lot of
mash and wood to fuel the still. It would be easier to
just burn the wood or coal. Gee, I guess that's why
that's what was actually done. Then she tells him
if he has the space of a garbage can, he could have
his own refueling station for an alcohol based car in
his house, generating the alcohol from garbage.
What a total sad sack
of liberal hippie nonsense. A TOTAL embarrassment.
You would think someone who claims to be an
environmental activist would have at least a basic
grasp of facts.
gonjah
2013-03-10 17:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@optonline.net
Post by House Man
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Railways are the transport of the future.
Not for fuel-liquids like oil or natural gas. Very expensive way to
transport those fuels compared to pipe-line. Adds $3 per barrel to the
price of oil.
Post by harry
Buffet knows this.
He knows he can influence the political process, otherwise he wouldn't
be investing in rail cars that carry oil.
Post by harry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
That's for people. The US has a poor passenger rail system, for a
variety of reasons.
Post by harry
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
They told us thirty or forty years ago we'd have flying cars (not just
experimental ones).
A classic example of how incompetent the lamestream
media has become was a story on a car that runs on
air. ABC news aired it lat night. Some bloke in the UK
has an old bucket of bolts car that he modified to run on
liquid air. It goes 15 mph for 3 miles. ABC heralded it
as some kind of miracle car that runs on air. Not one
mention of the overall energy picture, ie how much
energy it takes to chill air down to -250 to liquify it,
before it goes into the car, etc, how much that liquid
air actually costs, etc. Apparently you don't
even need a high school science education to be a
technology reporter on ABC. Then the clueless watch
this and go away thinking miracles like this are the
solution to our energy problems and it's just a big
conspiracy that we don't use them......
For a further example of the clueless, Darryl Hannah
was on O'Reilly's show last week to talk about all the
wonderful green solutions that are viable alternatives.
So, O'Reilly says he lives in a house on Long Island and
he'd love to use something other than oil to heat it,
if it makes sense and it's available.
She tells him he should be using solar panels. At that
point, it's clear she's talking about solar ELECTRIC
panels, which obviously are not going to heat a house
in the northeast. He tells her that last time he looked
into it, they were too expensive. Hannah tells him not
to worry, there are companies that will install them and
then sell you electric for what your current electric bill
is. That is partly true, but of course she ignores the
fact that this only works because only rich hippies are doing
it and the govt is heavily subsidizing the solar energy
companies with taxpayer dollars. And it surely won't
heat O'Reilly's house, which was what he asked.
Then it gets better. She tells him he could also use
alcohol heaters in his house? O'Reilly is like, WTF?
I've never seen an alcohol heater, where do you get
them, the alcohol, etc. She tells him you just call up
and companies will deliver the alcohol. Or even better,
he can make the alcohol himself. She claims that is
what was done 100+ years ago. People got tired of
using whale oil, so they used alcohol for heating. She
claims they used stills to make it.... WTF? To get a
modest amount of alcohol requires a hell of a lot of
mash and wood to fuel the still. It would be easier to
just burn the wood or coal. Gee, I guess that's why
that's what was actually done. Then she tells him
if he has the space of a garbage can, he could have
his own refueling station for an alcohol based car in
his house, generating the alcohol from garbage.
What a total sad sack
of liberal hippie nonsense. A TOTAL embarrassment.
You would think someone who claims to be an
environmental activist would have at least a basic
grasp of facts.
Hannah and O'Rielly? Can you say setup? May as well have Jon Stewart
interview Victoria Jackson.

LOL. And you watched it.
Bob F
2013-03-10 18:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@optonline.net
For a further example of the clueless, Darryl Hannah
was on O'Reilly's show last week to talk about all the
wonderful green solutions that are viable alternatives.
So, O'Reilly says he lives in a house on Long Island and
he'd love to use something other than oil to heat it,
if it makes sense and it's available.
She tells him he should be using solar panels. At that
point, it's clear she's talking about solar ELECTRIC
panels, which obviously are not going to heat a house
in the northeast. He tells her that last time he looked
into it, they were too expensive. Hannah tells him not
to worry, there are companies that will install them and
then sell you electric for what your current electric bill
is. That is partly true, but of course she ignores the
fact that this only works because only rich hippies are doing
it and the govt is heavily subsidizing the solar energy
companies with taxpayer dollars. And it surely won't
heat O'Reilly's house, which was what he asked.
Then it gets better. She tells him he could also use
alcohol heaters in his house? O'Reilly is like, WTF?
I've never seen an alcohol heater, where do you get
them, the alcohol, etc. She tells him you just call up
and companies will deliver the alcohol. Or even better,
he can make the alcohol himself. She claims that is
what was done 100+ years ago. People got tired of
using whale oil, so they used alcohol for heating. She
claims they used stills to make it.... WTF? To get a
modest amount of alcohol requires a hell of a lot of
mash and wood to fuel the still. It would be easier to
just burn the wood or coal. Gee, I guess that's why
that's what was actually done. Then she tells him
if he has the space of a garbage can, he could have
his own refueling station for an alcohol based car in
his house, generating the alcohol from garbage.
What a total sad sack
of liberal hippie nonsense. A TOTAL embarrassment.
You would think someone who claims to be an
environmental activist would have at least a basic
grasp of facts.
And some people actually think O'reilly actually represents reality! That's
funny!
gonjah
2013-03-10 21:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by t***@optonline.net
For a further example of the clueless, Darryl Hannah
was on O'Reilly's show last week to talk about all the
wonderful green solutions that are viable alternatives.
So, O'Reilly says he lives in a house on Long Island and
he'd love to use something other than oil to heat it,
if it makes sense and it's available.
She tells him he should be using solar panels. At that
point, it's clear she's talking about solar ELECTRIC
panels, which obviously are not going to heat a house
in the northeast. He tells her that last time he looked
into it, they were too expensive. Hannah tells him not
to worry, there are companies that will install them and
then sell you electric for what your current electric bill
is. That is partly true, but of course she ignores the
fact that this only works because only rich hippies are doing
it and the govt is heavily subsidizing the solar energy
companies with taxpayer dollars. And it surely won't
heat O'Reilly's house, which was what he asked.
Then it gets better. She tells him he could also use
alcohol heaters in his house? O'Reilly is like, WTF?
I've never seen an alcohol heater, where do you get
them, the alcohol, etc. She tells him you just call up
and companies will deliver the alcohol. Or even better,
he can make the alcohol himself. She claims that is
what was done 100+ years ago. People got tired of
using whale oil, so they used alcohol for heating. She
claims they used stills to make it.... WTF? To get a
modest amount of alcohol requires a hell of a lot of
mash and wood to fuel the still. It would be easier to
just burn the wood or coal. Gee, I guess that's why
that's what was actually done. Then she tells him
if he has the space of a garbage can, he could have
his own refueling station for an alcohol based car in
his house, generating the alcohol from garbage.
What a total sad sack
of liberal hippie nonsense. A TOTAL embarrassment.
You would think someone who claims to be an
environmental activist would have at least a basic
grasp of facts.
And some people actually think O'reilly actually represents reality! That's
funny!
Never underestimate stupidity.
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-11 13:21:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob F
Post by t***@optonline.net
For a further example of the clueless, Darryl Hannah
was on O'Reilly's show last week to talk about all the
wonderful green solutions that are viable alternatives.
So, O'Reilly says he lives in a house on Long Island and
he'd love to use something other than oil to heat it,
if it makes sense and it's available.
She tells him he should be using solar panels.  At that
point, it's clear she's talking about solar ELECTRIC
panels, which obviously are not going to heat a house
in the northeast.   He tells her that last time he looked
into it, they were too expensive.  Hannah tells him not
to worry, there are companies that will install them and
then sell you electric for what your current electric bill
is.   That is partly true, but of course she ignores the
fact that this only works because only rich hippies are doing
it and the govt is heavily subsidizing the solar energy
companies with taxpayer dollars.   And it surely won't
heat O'Reilly's house, which was what he asked.
Then it gets better.  She tells him he could also use
alcohol heaters in his house?  O'Reilly is like, WTF?
I've never seen an alcohol heater, where do you get
them, the alcohol, etc.   She tells him you just call up
and companies will deliver the alcohol.  Or even better,
he can make the alcohol himself.  She claims that is
what was done 100+ years ago.  People got tired of
using whale oil, so they used alcohol for heating.  She
claims they used stills to make it....  WTF?  To get a
modest amount of alcohol requires a hell of a lot of
mash and wood to fuel the still.  It would be easier to
just burn the wood or coal.  Gee, I guess that's why
that's what was actually done.  Then she tells him
if he has the space of a garbage can, he could have
his own refueling station for an alcohol based car in
his house, generating the alcohol from garbage.
What a total sad sack
of liberal hippie nonsense.  A TOTAL embarrassment.
You would think someone who claims to be an
environmental activist would have at least a basic
grasp of facts.
And some people actually think O'reilly actually represents reality! That's
funny!
Never underestimate stupidity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I look at the questions asked, the answers given. You two jump
to conclusions without even watching it at all. Like the typical
libs that blast Fox all the time, without ever watching it. One of
you can't even spell O'Reilly's name. You think when O'Reilly asked
how
he could replace oil heat in his home on Long Island, that was
an unfair question? And that when Hannah replied using electric
solar panels or alcohol heaters, those were intelligent and valid
answers that made it look like she knows what she's talking about?
The Real Bev
2013-03-10 16:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by House Man
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Railways are the transport of the future.
Not for fuel-liquids like oil or natural gas. Very expensive way to
transport those fuels compared to pipe-line. Adds $3 per barrel to the
price of oil.
Post by harry
Buffet knows this.
He knows he can influence the political process, otherwise he wouldn't
be investing in rail cars that carry oil.
Post by harry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
That's for people. The US has a poor passenger rail system, for a
variety of reasons.
Post by harry
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
They told us thirty or forty years ago we'd have flying cars (not just
experimental ones).
Yeah, but the 2-way wrist radios are HERE!
--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I
hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about."
-- FernandoP
John
2013-03-11 11:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Bev
Post by House Man
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Railways are the transport of the future.
Not for fuel-liquids like oil or natural gas. Very expensive way to
transport those fuels compared to pipe-line. Adds $3 per barrel to the
price of oil.
Post by harry
Buffet knows this.
He knows he can influence the political process, otherwise he wouldn't
be investing in rail cars that carry oil.
Post by harry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
That's for people. The US has a poor passenger rail system, for a
variety of reasons.
Post by harry
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
They told us thirty or forty years ago we'd have flying cars (not just
experimental ones).
Yeah, but the 2-way wrist radios are HERE!
Feel free to 'duck' tape your Iphone to your wrist!

John
The Daring Dufas
2013-03-10 16:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
Harry, when will you get it through your thick skull that The U.S.A. is
not anything like Europe and what works for Europe will not necessarily
work for The United States? Passenger train service is wonderful for the
densely populated cities/regions of our Northeast and those of Europe
but makes no sense for the less densely population areas of The
United States. There were goofy politicians who were pushing the idea of
high speed rail between Birmingham, Al and Atlanta, Ga and it never
took off for the simple reason that most Americans like the freedom of
hopping in their automobiles and driving to one of those cities. It's a
lot more convenient and less expensive than taking a train then renting
a car or finding a way to get around your destination especially when
the two cities are so spread out. Personal transportation is what helped
build America and I doubt most Americans want to give up that freedom.
Ask a rancher in Wyoming where the high speed rail station should be
built in his state. ^_^

TDD
harry
2013-03-10 17:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
Harry, when will you get it through your thick skull that The U.S.A. is
not anything like Europe and what works for Europe will not necessarily
work for The United States? Passenger train service is wonderful for the
densely populated cities/regions of our Northeast and those of Europe
but makes no sense for the less densely population areas of The
United States. There were goofy politicians who were pushing the idea of
high speed rail between Birmingham, Al and Atlanta, Ga and it never
took off for the simple reason that most Americans like the freedom of
hopping in their automobiles and driving to one of those cities. It's a
lot more convenient and less expensive than taking a train then renting
a car or finding a way to get around your destination especially when
the two cities are so spread out. Personal transportation is what helped
build America and I doubt most Americans want to give up that freedom.
Ask a rancher in Wyoming where the high speed rail station should be
built in his state. ^_^
TDD
Duf, you are in Lala land.
In ten or fifteen years oil/petrol will be ten times the price it is
now. That's the only reason why cars/air flight is cheap.

When/if the islamonuts take over Saudi Arabia, the first thing they
will do is cut off your oil anyway.

High speed (electric ) trains can run on any primary fuel fuel.
nuclear, coal, hydro, renewable, however the electricity is made.

Petrol is cheap at the moment, we are in a recession. When/if the
recession is over and demand picks up, the price will rocket.

If you don't start building your HS rail network now, you will be
destroyed as an economic power when the recession finishes. Even more
destroyed than now.
Attila Iskander
2013-03-11 13:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
Harry, when will you get it through your thick skull that The U.S.A. is
not anything like Europe and what works for Europe will not necessarily
work for The United States? Passenger train service is wonderful for the
densely populated cities/regions of our Northeast and those of Europe
but makes no sense for the less densely population areas of The
United States. There were goofy politicians who were pushing the idea of
high speed rail between Birmingham, Al and Atlanta, Ga and it never
took off for the simple reason that most Americans like the freedom of
hopping in their automobiles and driving to one of those cities. It's a
lot more convenient and less expensive than taking a train then renting
a car or finding a way to get around your destination especially when
the two cities are so spread out. Personal transportation is what helped
build America and I doubt most Americans want to give up that freedom.
Ask a rancher in Wyoming where the high speed rail station should be
built in his state. ^_^
TDD
#
# Duf, you are in Lala land.
# In ten or fifteen years oil/petrol will be ten times the price it is
# now. That's the only reason why cars/air flight is cheap.

LOL
This from the idiot who also believes that High-speed trains across the US
are the way to go..

#
# When/if the islamonuts take over Saudi Arabia, the first thing they
# will do is cut off your oil anyway.

So what ?
The US has enough reserves in oil and natural gas to be completely
independend.
The ONLY reason the US buys petro-products elsewhere is because they are
currently cheaper than producing it in the US.


#
# High speed (electric ) trains can run on any primary fuel fuel.
# nuclear, coal, hydro, renewable, however the electricity is made.
#

And this while idiot greenies are doing everything to BLOCK electric
production by the above means
Although it should be noted that a lot of coal-fired power plants are now
conveerting to natgas since fracking has made it cheaper than coal.

#
# Petrol is cheap at the moment, we are in a recession. When/if the
# recession is over and demand picks up, the price will rocket.
#

You're repeating your ignorant mantra
See above for answer

#
# If you don't start building your HS rail network now, you will be
# destroyed as an economic power when the recession finishes. Even more
# destroyed than now.

Sorry but the real world is NOT like Field of Dreams where "If you build it,
they will come".

There are whole segments of the US where even regular rail cannot be
justified, and it's still a lot more cost-effective to fly from shore to
shore.

See how successful rail passenger service coast-to-coast in Canada, along a
corridor that holds 90% of the population has been..
If it wasn't for government subsidies, there would be no passenger service
at all..


Maybe you should sign up for a class about US Geography so that you can stop
demonstrating your ignorance
Hell, in your case ANY form AND SUBJECT of education would be an
improvement.
harry
2013-03-10 17:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
Harry, when will you get it through your thick skull that The U.S.A. is
not anything like Europe and what works for Europe will not necessarily
work for The United States? Passenger train service is wonderful for the
densely populated cities/regions of our Northeast and those of Europe
but makes no sense for the less densely population areas of The
United States. There were goofy politicians who were pushing the idea of
high speed rail between Birmingham, Al and Atlanta, Ga and it never
took off for the simple reason that most Americans like the freedom of
hopping in their automobiles and driving to one of those cities. It's a
lot more convenient and less expensive than taking a train then renting
a car or finding a way to get around your destination especially when
the two cities are so spread out. Personal transportation is what helped
build America and I doubt most Americans want to give up that freedom.
Ask a rancher in Wyoming where the high speed rail station should be
built in his state. ^_^
TDD
Have look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Saudi_Arabia#Nuclear_power

Now why would SA want nuclear power unless they knew their oil was
about to run out in the near future?

They have a lot less oil than they make out, that's why.

BTW your rancher would/should be happy to shift his cattle cheaper.
(As they were shifted in the past.)
Jeff
2013-03-10 18:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelin
e
s
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been
aggressively attempting to corner the railroad market, while the
administration relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very
much competing petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the
north to cross through the US (in gratitude for the former's
generous "tax advice" an
d
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the
environment
.
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2.
.
.
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
Harry, when will you get it through your thick skull that The U.S.A. is
not anything like Europe and what works for Europe will not necessarily
work for The United States? Passenger train service is wonderful for
the densely populated cities/regions of our Northeast and those of
Europe but makes no sense for the less densely population areas of The
United States. There were goofy politicians who were pushing the idea
of high speed rail between Birmingham, Al and Atlanta, Ga and it never
took off for the simple reason that most Americans like the freedom of
hopping in their automobiles and driving to one of those cities. It's a
lot more convenient and less expensive than taking a train then renting
a car or finding a way to get around your destination especially when
the two cities are so spread out. Personal transportation is what
helped build America and I doubt most Americans want to give up that
freedom. Ask a rancher in Wyoming where the high speed rail station
should be built in his state. ^_^
TDD
Have look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Saudi_Arabia#Nuclear_power
Now why would SA want nuclear power unless they knew their oil was
about to run out in the near future?
They want it for the same reason Iran does, weapons. They are supporters
of their hometown boy Osama bin Laden and his work.
Post by harry
They have a lot less oil than they make out, that's why.
BTW your rancher would/should be happy to shift his cattle cheaper.
(As they were shifted in the past.)
Sure, the ranchers would be delighted to run good old fashioned cattle
drives across the state and through the streets of Cheyenne to get to the
rail terminal and then paying over $500 a head to give them a ride on a
high speed train. The landowners along the way won't mind a bit to clean
up the mess the cows leave behind.
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-10 18:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Railways are the transport of the future.
Buffet knows this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highspeed_rail
The USA is decades behind, as usual.
Oil as a fuel will be virtually extinct in thirty or forty years.
Harry, when will you get it through your thick skull that The U.S.A. is
not anything like Europe and what works for Europe will not necessarily
work for The United States? Passenger train service is wonderful for the
densely populated cities/regions of our Northeast
Not so much. Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak. Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane? hour and a half. And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc. It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down. And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane. What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains? So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?

Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris. The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket. The train takes an hour longer.
Post by The Daring Dufas
and those of Europe
but makes no sense for the less densely population areas of The
United States. There were goofy politicians who were pushing the idea of
high speed rail between Birmingham, Al and Atlanta, Ga and it never
took off for the simple reason that most Americans like the freedom of
hopping in their automobiles and driving to one of those cities. It's a
lot more convenient and less expensive than taking a train then renting
a car or finding a way to get around your destination especially when
the two cities are so spread out. Personal transportation is what helped
build America and I doubt most Americans want to give up that freedom.
Ask a rancher in Wyoming where the high speed rail station should be
built in his state. ^_^
TDD- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Agree with the rest of your point.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
2013-03-10 20:59:32 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by t***@optonline.net
Not so much. Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak. Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane? hour and a half. And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc. It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down. And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane. What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains? So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
Post by t***@optonline.net
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris. The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket. The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
Han
2013-03-10 20:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
In article
Post by t***@optonline.net
Not so much. Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak. Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane? hour and a half. And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc. It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down. And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane. What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains? So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
Post by t***@optonline.net
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris. The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket. The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
Personal example:
North Jersey suburb to Somerville, MA door to door
(i.e New York City area to Boston area)

Car ~4 1/2 hours driving. Cost: gas + tolls end result: have car
available at all times (watch out for Boston area parking tickets)

Bus: Walk to train station, train to Penn Sta (~45 min); Bus (4 hr); T +
walk another 45 min
total including waiting 6 hours (advantage very cheap, I don't have to
drive, disadvantage bus is less comfortable)

Train: same as bus, but quite a bit more expensive (depending on train
chosen, time of day), much more comfortable

Plane: 45 min to Newark airport (drive yourself, cost of parking, cost
of limo, or cost of train (then it takes longer than 45 min because of
transfers). TSA etc 1 1/2 hours. Flight 1 hr; transportation in Boston,
1 hr. Total time 4 1/2 hours (estimate, never done it). Cost: Close to
or more than cheaper Amtrak, depends on fare conditions.

Btw, I think Amtrak makes money on the Boston to Washington corridor,
certainly on the Acela which is a nice train if it has no problems
<ahem>.

Trains have much less subsidy than airlines do. Certainly for the middle
distances trains should be much more economical (taking ALL costs into
account) than cars or planes. But who can truthfully account for all
costs. Having ridden high speed trains in Europe, I would reallylike
them here too, but the costs and the NIMBY would be very high since true
high speed trains require special tracks and rights of way without same
level crossings. This works in Europe because, despite population
densities similar to the Washington-Boston area, there is still much more
land available for rights of way (towns are much more compact with
agricultural and recreational lands between). And especially in the
early era, the French rail development just said we need the land.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-11 14:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Han
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
In article
Not so much.  Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak.   Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane?  hour and a half.  And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc.  It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down.   And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.   What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains?    So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris.  The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket.  The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
North Jersey suburb to Somerville, MA door to door
(i.e New York City area to Boston area)
Car ~4 1/2 hours driving.  Cost: gas + tolls end result: have car
available at all times (watch out for Boston area parking tickets)
Bus: Walk to train station, train to Penn Sta (~45 min); Bus (4 hr); T +
walk another 45 min
total including waiting 6 hours (advantage very cheap, I don't have to
drive, disadvantage bus is less comfortable)
Train: same as bus, but quite a bit more expensive (depending on train
chosen, time of day), much more comfortable
Plane: 45 min to Newark airport (drive yourself, cost of  parking, cost
of limo, or cost of train (then it takes longer than 45 min because of
transfers).  TSA etc 1 1/2 hours.  Flight 1 hr; transportation in Boston,
1 hr.  Total time 4 1/2 hours (estimate, never done it).  Cost:  Close to
or more than cheaper Amtrak, depends on fare conditions.
Btw, I think Amtrak makes money on the Boston to Washington corridor,
certainly on the Acela which is a nice train if it has no problems
<ahem>.
Trains have much less subsidy than airlines do.
That depends entirely on how you look at it. If you look at
it in strictly dollar terms, then it's probably true. If you look at
it in terms of how many passengers are moved, then Amtrak
is getting huge subsidies per compared to the airlines. It's
about the VOLUME.




 >Certainly for the middle
Post by Han
distances trains should be much more economical (taking ALL costs into
account) than cars or planes.  But who can truthfully account for all
costs.  Having ridden high speed trains in Europe, I would reallylike
them here too, but the costs and the NIMBY would be very high since true
high speed trains require special tracks and rights of way without same
level crossings.  This works in Europe because, despite population
densities similar to the Washington-Boston area, there is still much more
land available for rights of way (towns are much more compact with
agricultural and recreational lands between).  And especially in the
early era, the French rail development just said we need the land.
I agree. The folks that think you could easily put in a high speed
250mph
train between Boston and DC for example, have no idea what that
would entail. Like all the grade crossings. You want a 250mph train
going through those? Of the turn radiuses that support 100mph. What
happens when you have to widen them out for a mile? All the homes,
businesses, roads, highways that are in the way? All the
environmental
studies, issues that come into play. harry keeps bringing up China.
It's
mostly open space, and if the commies want to take your hut, they give
you $1000 and bring over the bulldozer. Oh, and unlike the Chinese,
we'd
have to pay union wages and benefits for all the labor, etc.....

I road the fastest train in the world. It connects Shanghai to the
airport.
It's only like 20 miles. It reached 260mph. They have a speedometer
display so you can see it, like the Concorde did. Yes, it gets you
there
fast, but.......

We were staying at a hotel and they wanted to know our flight so
they could pick us up in a car. Yes, that's right, a car. We said
we wanted to experience the train, and they didn't like that idea
at all. They couldn't even seem to grasp why one would want to
try the train. In the end, they insisted on sending a car to the
airport
to greet us and escort us to the train. They were worried we would
have trouble finding it. That's kind of funny, considering it's a
nice modern airport and the world's fastest train. So, that's what
we did. They met us and escorted us over to the train, which
wasn't hard to find at all. We took the speedy 20 mile ride.
At the other end, the train ended kind of in a crummy neighborhood
part of Shanghai, not a transportation hub, subway center, or
anything like that. Another one of their cars was waiting and took
us to the hotel. Given that people have luggage, want to get
to their hotel direct without having to get on a train, off a train,
into a taxi, etc, and that car transportation is cheap in China,
I can see why the train doesn't make much sense.

Oh, and despite the fact that it was afternoon, there were few
people on it. Probably because the cost was about $10 or so,
I suspect the locals can get a bus or similar to the airport for
a lot less. Also, it only hits that 260mph speed for one brief
period on straight track..
harry
2013-03-11 16:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Han
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
In article
Not so much.  Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak.   Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane?  hour and a half.  And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc.  It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down.   And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.   What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains?    So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris.  The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket.  The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
North Jersey suburb to Somerville, MA door to door
(i.e New York City area to Boston area)
Car ~4 1/2 hours driving.  Cost: gas + tolls end result: have car
available at all times (watch out for Boston area parking tickets)
Bus: Walk to train station, train to Penn Sta (~45 min); Bus (4 hr); T +
walk another 45 min
total including waiting 6 hours (advantage very cheap, I don't have to
drive, disadvantage bus is less comfortable)
Train: same as bus, but quite a bit more expensive (depending on train
chosen, time of day), much more comfortable
Plane: 45 min to Newark airport (drive yourself, cost of  parking, cost
of limo, or cost of train (then it takes longer than 45 min because of
transfers).  TSA etc 1 1/2 hours.  Flight 1 hr; transportation in Boston,
1 hr.  Total time 4 1/2 hours (estimate, never done it).  Cost:  Close to
or more than cheaper Amtrak, depends on fare conditions.
Btw, I think Amtrak makes money on the Boston to Washington corridor,
certainly on the Acela which is a nice train if it has no problems
<ahem>.
Trains have much less subsidy than airlines do.
That depends entirely on how you look at it.  If you look at
it in strictly dollar terms, then it's probably true.  If you look at
it in terms of how many passengers are moved, then Amtrak
is getting huge subsidies per compared to the airlines.   It's
about the VOLUME.
 >Certainly for the middle
Post by Han
distances trains should be much more economical (taking ALL costs into
account) than cars or planes.  But who can truthfully account for all
costs.  Having ridden high speed trains in Europe, I would reallylike
them here too, but the costs and the NIMBY would be very high since true
high speed trains require special tracks and rights of way without same
level crossings.  This works in Europe because, despite population
densities similar to the Washington-Boston area, there is still much more
land available for rights of way (towns are much more compact with
agricultural and recreational lands between).  And especially in the
early era, the French rail development just said we need the land.
I agree.  The folks that think you could easily put in a high speed
250mph
train between Boston and DC for example, have no idea what that
would entail.  Like all the grade crossings.  You want a 250mph train
going through those?   Of the turn radiuses that support 100mph.  What
happens when you have to widen them out for a mile?   All the homes,
businesses, roads, highways that are in the way?   All the
environmental
studies, issues that come into play.   harry keeps bringing up China.
It's
mostly open space, and if the commies want to take your hut, they give
you $1000 and bring over the bulldozer.   Oh, and unlike the Chinese,
we'd
have to pay union wages and benefits for all the labor, etc.....
I road the fastest train in the world.  It connects Shanghai to the
airport.
It's only like 20 miles.  It reached 260mph.  They have a speedometer
display so you can see it, like the Concorde did.  Yes, it gets you
there
fast, but.......
We were staying at a hotel and they wanted to know our flight so
they could pick us up in a car.   Yes, that's right, a car.   We said
we wanted to experience the train, and they didn't like that idea
at all.   They couldn't even seem to grasp why one would want to
try the train.  In the end, they insisted on sending a car to the
airport
to greet us and escort us to the train.  They were worried we would
have trouble finding it.   That's kind of funny, considering it's a
nice modern airport and the world's fastest train.  So, that's what
we did.   They met us and escorted us over to the train, which
wasn't hard to find at all.   We took the speedy 20 mile ride.
At the other end, the train ended kind of in a crummy neighborhood
part of Shanghai, not a transportation hub, subway center, or
anything like that.   Another one of their cars was waiting and took
us to the hotel.   Given that people have luggage, want to get
to their hotel direct without having to get on a train, off a train,
into a taxi, etc, and that car transportation is cheap in China,
I can see why the train doesn't make much sense.
Oh, and despite the fact that it was afternoon, there were few
people on it.  Probably because the cost was about $10 or so,
I suspect the locals can get a bus or similar to the airport for
a lot less.  Also, it only hits that 260mph speed for one brief
period on straight track..
That is an experimental maglev train. Not very practical at the
moment, But maybe a pointer for the future.
There is even a proposal for a sub Atlantic train. I don't suppose
we'd see that fora few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_tunnel
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-11 18:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by Han
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
In article
Not so much.  Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak.   Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane?  hour and a half.  And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc.  It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down.   And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.   What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains?    So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris.  The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket.  The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
North Jersey suburb to Somerville, MA door to door
(i.e New York City area to Boston area)
Car ~4 1/2 hours driving.  Cost: gas + tolls end result: have car
available at all times (watch out for Boston area parking tickets)
Bus: Walk to train station, train to Penn Sta (~45 min); Bus (4 hr); T +
walk another 45 min
total including waiting 6 hours (advantage very cheap, I don't have to
drive, disadvantage bus is less comfortable)
Train: same as bus, but quite a bit more expensive (depending on train
chosen, time of day), much more comfortable
Plane: 45 min to Newark airport (drive yourself, cost of  parking, cost
of limo, or cost of train (then it takes longer than 45 min because of
transfers).  TSA etc 1 1/2 hours.  Flight 1 hr; transportation in Boston,
1 hr.  Total time 4 1/2 hours (estimate, never done it).  Cost:  Close to
or more than cheaper Amtrak, depends on fare conditions.
Btw, I think Amtrak makes money on the Boston to Washington corridor,
certainly on the Acela which is a nice train if it has no problems
<ahem>.
Trains have much less subsidy than airlines do.
That depends entirely on how you look at it.  If you look at
it in strictly dollar terms, then it's probably true.  If you look at
it in terms of how many passengers are moved, then Amtrak
is getting huge subsidies per compared to the airlines.   It's
about the VOLUME.
 >Certainly for the middle
Post by Han
distances trains should be much more economical (taking ALL costs into
account) than cars or planes.  But who can truthfully account for all
costs.  Having ridden high speed trains in Europe, I would reallylike
them here too, but the costs and the NIMBY would be very high since true
high speed trains require special tracks and rights of way without same
level crossings.  This works in Europe because, despite population
densities similar to the Washington-Boston area, there is still much more
land available for rights of way (towns are much more compact with
agricultural and recreational lands between).  And especially in the
early era, the French rail development just said we need the land.
I agree.  The folks that think you could easily put in a high speed
250mph
train between Boston and DC for example, have no idea what that
would entail.  Like all the grade crossings.  You want a 250mph train
going through those?   Of the turn radiuses that support 100mph.  What
happens when you have to widen them out for a mile?   All the homes,
businesses, roads, highways that are in the way?   All the
environmental
studies, issues that come into play.   harry keeps bringing up China.
It's
mostly open space, and if the commies want to take your hut, they give
you $1000 and bring over the bulldozer.   Oh, and unlike the Chinese,
we'd
have to pay union wages and benefits for all the labor, etc.....
I road the fastest train in the world.  It connects Shanghai to the
airport.
It's only like 20 miles.  It reached 260mph.  They have a speedometer
display so you can see it, like the Concorde did.  Yes, it gets you
there
fast, but.......
We were staying at a hotel and they wanted to know our flight so
they could pick us up in a car.   Yes, that's right, a car.   We said
we wanted to experience the train, and they didn't like that idea
at all.   They couldn't even seem to grasp why one would want to
try the train.  In the end, they insisted on sending a car to the
airport
to greet us and escort us to the train.  They were worried we would
have trouble finding it.   That's kind of funny, considering it's a
nice modern airport and the world's fastest train.  So, that's what
we did.   They met us and escorted us over to the train, which
wasn't hard to find at all.   We took the speedy 20 mile ride.
At the other end, the train ended kind of in a crummy neighborhood
part of Shanghai, not a transportation hub, subway center, or
anything like that.   Another one of their cars was waiting and took
us to the hotel.   Given that people have luggage, want to get
to their hotel direct without having to get on a train, off a train,
into a taxi, etc, and that car transportation is cheap in China,
I can see why the train doesn't make much sense.
Oh, and despite the fact that it was afternoon, there were few
people on it.  Probably because the cost was about $10 or so,
I suspect the locals can get a bus or similar to the airport for
a lot less.  Also, it only hits that 260mph speed for one brief
period on straight track..
That is an experimental maglev train. Not very practical at the
moment,  But maybe a pointer for the future.
BS. IT's *not* experimental. It's just the fastest and newest
such train. It's in commercial operation. It's how you get
the fast trains you're bitching about. WTF do you want?
First you crow about how smart the Chinese are with regard
to high speed trains. Then you call them experimental
and not very practical. Make up your mind. They are not
experimental. They are very expensive and because of a
whole host of issues, principally economic, they are of limited
appeal, which is why they are not widely deployed everywhere.

And here's some breaking news for you:

"The fastest trains in the UK operating domestic services are the
Intercity 225 trains operated by National Express East Coast.
These trains run at a maximum speed of 125mph and average
112mph between London and York. "


Well, well, well. Amtraks Acela runs at a top speed of 150mph.
Post by harry
There is even a proposal for a  sub Atlantic train. I don't suppose
we'd see that fora few years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_tunnel- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Is that when you Britts plan to build it?
harry
2013-03-12 07:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
That is an experimental maglev train. Not very practical at the
moment,  But maybe a pointer for the future.
*
*
Not very practical because of cost and how do you make points for such
a train? plans to build more are suspended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train#Extensions
*
*
BS.  IT's *not* experimental.  It's just the fastest and newest
such train.  It's in commercial operation.  It's how you get
the fast trains you're bitching about.  WTF do you want?
First you crow about how smart the Chinese are with regard
to high speed trains.  Then you call them experimental
and not very practical.   Make up your mind.  They are not
experimental.  They are very expensive and because of a
whole host of issues, principally economic, they are of limited
appeal, which is why they are not widely deployed everywhere.
"The fastest trains in the UK operating domestic services are the
 Intercity 225 trains operated by National Express East Coast.
 These trains run at a maximum speed of 125mph and average
 112mph between London and York. "
Well, well, well.  Amtraks Acela runs at a top speed of 150mph.
*
*
That train is years old.
The fastest trains in the UK run through the Channel tunnel to
continental Europe at speeds of up to 200mph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar#Records_achieved

There are plans for an even faster one from London to Scotland at
speeds of up to 250mph intially though the line is to be designed for
up to 300mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2
*
*
Post by harry
There is even a proposal for a  sub Atlantic train. I don't suppose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_tunnel-Hide quoted text -
Is that when you Britts plan to build it?
We might. We were the first to build tunnels under water and invented
the technology to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tunnel

You Yanks are such stick-in-the-muds.
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-12 12:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by harry
That is an experimental maglev train. Not very practical at the
moment,  But maybe a pointer for the future.
*
*
Not very practical because of cost and how do you make points for such
a train?  plans to build more are suspended.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train#Extensions
*
*
YOU were the one demanding high speed trains, crowing about
how essential they are for transportation. YOU dragged the Chinese
into it, as examples of folks that are deploying them, that are
smarter
than the USA, that know what they are doing. So, I give you an
example of one of the Chinese trains that I have actual experience
riding on, and now you piss all over it. You really are the village
idiot. Why do you persist in embarrassing yourself here?
Post by harry
BS.  IT's *not* experimental.  It's just the fastest and newest
such train.  It's in commercial operation.  It's how you get
the fast trains you're bitching about.  WTF do you want?
First you crow about how smart the Chinese are with regard
to high speed trains.  Then you call them experimental
and not very practical.   Make up your mind.  They are not
experimental.  They are very expensive and because of a
whole host of issues, principally economic, they are of limited
appeal, which is why they are not widely deployed everywhere.
"The fastest trains in the UK operating domestic services are the
 Intercity 225 trains operated by National Express East Coast.
 These trains run at a maximum speed of 125mph and average
 112mph between London and York. "
Well, well, well.  Amtraks Acela runs at a top speed of 150mph.
*
*
That train is years old.
So is Eurostar.
Post by harry
The fastest trains in the UK run through the Channel tunnel to
continental Europe at speeds of up to 200mphhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurostar#Records_achieved
That's a lie. A one time test record is not a train in actual
service.
The actual top speed of the Eurostar service from London to Paris
is 186mph. So here you are,
telling us how the USA has no high speed trains and in reality,
only one small section of railroad in the UK is any faster than
Amtrak's Acela. That being the Eurostar between London and
the Chunnel. And it reaches a top speed of 186mph, vs 150mph
for Amtrak. And about this, you're bragging? I suppose you
brag because your penis is 1/4" bigger than the average
groundhog too.
Post by harry
There are plans for an even faster one from London to Scotland at
speeds of up to 250mph intially though the line is to be designed for
up to 300mph.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS2
*
*
I have plans too for a brain transplant for you. Plans <> real lines
today.
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-11 14:22:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 10, 3:59 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
In article
Not so much.  Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak.   Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane?  hour and a half.  And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc.  It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down.   And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.   What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains?    So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
What the hell does nuclear power have to do with trains?
You could take all the sunsidies to nuclear power and it would
be a drop in the bucket in creating a high speed rail service
in the northeast or connecting the midwest cities. It's not just
"fixing" tracks. There are HUGE problems. For example,
does a high speed 250mph train go across grade crossings
ANYWHERE in the world, let alone in a section of the country,
like the northeast where they occur multiple times in a mile?
Any go around turns with radiuses designed for 100mph?
What's the value of the homes, business, roads, highways,
streets, that are in the way of expanding those turn radiuses?
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris.  The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket.  The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
Yes, that's an advantage IF your final destination happens to
be the city itself. Between London and Paris, it's an advantage
IF your final destination is within the city itself. But it has
little
relevance to linking up the midwest USA as harry is advocating.
And if you apply it to say Boston to DC, the cost of getting that
250mph train that could compete with an airplane, would make
the ticket so expensive it would be the next Concorde. At 100mph,
the ticket is already the price of an airline ticket.
harry
2013-03-11 16:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@optonline.net
On Mar 10, 3:59 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
In article
Not so much.  Take a look at traveling from Boston to say
Washington DC by Amtrak.   Their fastest train today costs
about the same as an airline ticket and takes 6 1/2 hours.
The plane?  hour and a half.  And that is with Amtrak losing
money, subsidized by the govt, etc.  It would take a HUGE
investment to upgrade the tracks due to all the grade crossings,
etc to get that time down.   And even then, at best it would still
be longer than a plane. You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.   What would Amtrak have to charge for
a ticket to cover the cost of the billions for the high speed
trains?    So, where is this compelling advantage for
a train?
oh we could just take the direct and indirect subsidies that Nuclear
Power gets/will get and put that money into fixing all those tracks,
sort of just like when we built the interstates
What the hell does nuclear power have to do with trains?
You could take all the sunsidies to nuclear power and it would
be a drop in the bucket in creating a high speed rail service
in the northeast or connecting the midwest cities.  It's not just
"fixing" tracks.   There are HUGE problems.  For example,
does a high speed 250mph train go across grade crossings
ANYWHERE in the world, let alone in a section of the country,
like the northeast where they occur multiple times in a mile?
Any go around turns with radiuses designed for 100mph?
What's the value of the homes, business, roads, highways,
streets, that are in the way of expanding those turn radiuses?
Tunnels. And they don't travel at high speeds all the time.
Post by t***@optonline.net
Post by Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Or in the case of harry and the Britts, take a look at Eurostar,
their fastest train,between London and Paris.  The tickets are
about the same as an airline ticket.  The train takes an hour longer.
the difference being that you don't have to take a car to/from either
airport to get to/from the city...kind of makes the train safer than
driving your car on those dangerous roads/motorways
Yes, that's an advantage IF your final destination happens to
be the city itself.  Between London and Paris, it's an advantage
IF your final destination is within the city itself.   But it has
little
relevance to linking up the midwest USA as harry is advocating.
And if you apply it to say Boston to DC, the cost of getting that
250mph train that could compete with an airplane, would make
the ticket so expensive it would be the next Concorde.   At 100mph,
the ticket is already the price of an airline ticket.
Your Name
2013-03-10 21:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@optonline.net
You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.
True but it would cost an additional $200 to take a piece of luggage
with you. ;-)
harry
2013-03-11 07:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Your Name
  You can do the trip today for $200
bucks on a plane.
True but it would cost an additional $200 to take a piece of luggage
with you.  ;-)
You can take your car with you on the Eurostar HS train.
Or even your truck if you have one.
Only stupid Yanks want to drive those distances. In such boring
scenery as well.
Here you can drive your car onto the train, maybe travel overnight in
a nice bed and drive off the next day.
Save on petrol & hotel bills.

At one time in the UK yo could take your car on the plane with you.
(If you were rich)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_United_Air_Ferries
Django Chained
2013-03-12 15:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Yeah. Detriot. The monument to American capitalism.
Detroit was destroyed by socialism. Unions and the welfare system
Plenty of whites enjoy unions and welfare and other aspects of
socialism.

Detroit was destroyed by blacks and their habbit of forming fatherless
families, which led to "white-flight".

By the way, Canadian tar-sands oil is being pumped to a Marathon
refinery in Detroit. The refinery for the first time is processing
heavy Canadian crude oil brought in by pipeline from the Alberta
oilsands.

Marathon Oil refinery completed a $2-billion facility upgrade to process
Alberta oilsands crude oil last fall.

There is presently several piles of petroleum coke (the byproduct of
processing the oil) accumulating on the Detroit side of the river,
apparently waiting to be taken by ship to China.

http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2013/03/09/petcoke-along-the-u-s-shores-sparks-protest/

Lots of people are apparently not happy about the mountains of this
stuff accumulating on the waterfront.
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-18 00:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Django Chained
Yeah. Detriot. The monument to American capitalism.
Detroit was destroyed by socialism. Unions and the welfare system
Plenty of whites enjoy unions and welfare and other aspects of
socialism.
It takes a racist like you, HomoGay, to see the whole world through
the lens of race.
Post by Django Chained
Detroit was destroyed by blacks and their habbit of forming fatherless
families, which led to "white-flight".
See above.
Post by Django Chained
By the way, Canadian tar-sands oil is being pumped to a Marathon
refinery in Detroit. The refinery for the first time is processing
heavy Canadian crude oil brought in by pipeline from the Alberta
oilsands.
...and that's supposed to be relevant because?
Post by Django Chained
Marathon Oil refinery completed a $2-billion facility upgrade to process
Alberta oilsands crude oil last fall.
There is presently several piles of petroleum coke (the byproduct of
processing the oil) accumulating on the Detroit side of the river,
apparently waiting to be taken by ship to China.
You're *ON* coke, HomoGay.
Post by Django Chained
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2013/03/09/petcoke-along-the-u-s-shores-sparks-protest/
Lots of people are apparently not happy about the mountains of this
stuff accumulating on the waterfront.
...and that's relevant, how?
Robert
2013-03-11 13:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rockefeller
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
Makes a lot of sense. Carry oil south to Texas. And
on their return, carry Mexicans north to Canada. It's a win-win
for America.....
Moe DeLoughan
2013-03-11 17:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines
Actually, the petroleum pipelines can't compete with rail tankers. The
Canadian oil is a heavy, thick bitumen that must be diluted with other
petroleum products before it can flow through pipelines. Rail tanker
cars, on the other hand, have no problem at all with bitumen oil, so
there's no processing needed.

Another railroad bonus: no permitting, no special processes needed to
ship oil via rail. Just load it and go.

Third railroad bonus: increased rail transport = more American jobs.
There are five factories manufacturing the tank cars, and they have an
order backlog for 48,000 new tank cars. More Canadian jobs, too -
they've built nearly three dozen new oil-loading terminals so far, and
more are under construction.

They're also planning to ship oil via the Great Lakes.

So as long as current infrastructure meets their shipping needs, there
isn't any great urgency about building a pipeline.
Kurt Ullman
2013-03-11 19:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moe DeLoughan
Actually, the petroleum pipelines can't compete with rail tankers. The
Canadian oil is a heavy, thick bitumen that must be diluted with other
petroleum products before it can flow through pipelines. Rail tanker
cars, on the other hand, have no problem at all with bitumen oil, so
there's no processing needed.
My understanding, though, is that the dilution things can be pulled out
at the other and used. So, in that case, you get a two-fer.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-11 19:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
Actually, the petroleum pipelines can't compete with rail tankers. The
Canadian oil is a heavy, thick bitumen that must be diluted with other
petroleum products before it can flow through pipelines. Rail tanker
cars, on the other hand, have no problem at all with bitumen oil, so
there's no processing needed.
My understanding, though, is that the dilution things can be pulled out
at the other and used. So, in that case, you get a two-fer.
Not to mention it seems rather odd that the Keystone folks,
who's business it is to build the pipeline, who's money is on
the line, would be building it if it's not competitive with the
railroad for moving oil.
Moe DeLoughan
2013-03-11 20:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@optonline.net
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
Actually, the petroleum pipelines can't compete with rail tankers. The
Canadian oil is a heavy, thick bitumen that must be diluted with other
petroleum products before it can flow through pipelines. Rail tanker
cars, on the other hand, have no problem at all with bitumen oil, so
there's no processing needed.
My understanding, though, is that the dilution things can be pulled out
at the other and used. So, in that case, you get a two-fer.
Not to mention it seems rather odd that the Keystone folks,
who's business it is to build the pipeline, who's money is on
the line, would be building it if it's not competitive with the
railroad for moving oil.
The Keystone folks get the sweet, sweet corporate welfare aka taxpayer
subsidies. That's how it's competitive. That, and their ability to use
eminent domain against property owners trying to hold out for more money.

That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Kurt Ullman
2013-03-11 21:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Having already used imminent domain to force people off their land 100
or so years ago.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
harry
2013-03-12 07:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Having already used imminent domain to force people off their land 100
or so years ago.
--
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
Oren
2013-03-12 08:17:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:59:43 -0700 (PDT), harry
Post by harry
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
Which tribe? I paid for my land, obtained title and Mohawk Indians had
no claim to my property. I did allow moose to traverse my land.

I think the Vikings and Romans invaded your land, killed your leaders
and listened to the lamentations of your women.

After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
Attila Iskander
2013-03-12 12:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:59:43 -0700 (PDT), harry
Post by harry
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
Which tribe? I paid for my land, obtained title and Mohawk Indians had
no claim to my property. I did allow moose to traverse my land.
I think the Vikings and Romans invaded your land, killed your leaders
and listened to the lamentations of your women.
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-18 02:37:54 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 07:55:19 -0500, "Attila Iskander"
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:59:43 -0700 (PDT), harry
Post by harry
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
Which tribe? I paid for my land, obtained title and Mohawk Indians had
no claim to my property. I did allow moose to traverse my land.
I think the Vikings and Romans invaded your land, killed your leaders
and listened to the lamentations of your women.
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
Oren
2013-03-20 01:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-20 03:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
Oren
2013-03-20 04:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-20 17:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
His mother's name was "Rosemary"? Makes sense.
Oren
2013-03-20 21:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
His mother's name was "Rosemary"? Makes sense.
The Spawn of a Yank
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-21 21:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
His mother's name was "Rosemary"? Makes sense.
The Spawn of a Yank
Hey, now!
Oren
2013-03-22 02:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
His mother's name was "Rosemary"? Makes sense.
The Spawn of a Yank
Hey, now!
Oh calm down.

- British Yanks are spawned of Americans.

America:

We have Yankees and dammed Yankees.

I married a Yankee.
The Daring Dufas
2013-03-22 04:01:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
His mother's name was "Rosemary"? Makes sense.
The Spawn of a Yank
Hey, now!
Oh calm down.
- British Yanks are spawned of Americans.
We have Yankees and dammed Yankees.
I married a Yankee.
My Yankee mother was a naturalized Southerner originally from Brooklyn,
NY. o_O

TDD
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-22 03:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
...and harry was born.
... so ugly the doctor slapped his mum, cut off his horns and sent him
home in a taxi.
His mother's name was "Rosemary"? Makes sense.
The Spawn of a Yank
Hey, now!
Oh calm down.
- British Yanks are spawned of Americans.
We have Yankees and dammed Yankees.
I married a Yankee.
So did my wife. ;-)

harry
2013-03-20 08:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
Ah living in your fantasy world again.
There was no such thing as a Yank until a monkey fucked a pig.
The Daring Dufas
2013-03-20 09:16:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
Ah living in your fantasy world again.
There was no such thing as a Yank until a monkey fucked a pig.
And there was no such thing as a Limey until a donkey fucked a Heinie. ^_^

TDD
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-20 17:22:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 03:16:07 -0600, The Daring Dufas
Post by The Daring Dufas
Post by harry
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
Ah living in your fantasy world again.
There was no such thing as a Yank until a monkey fucked a pig.
And there was no such thing as a Limey until a donkey fucked a Heinie. ^_^
Donkey * Hinie = ass^2. Yep.
Attila Iskander
2013-03-20 13:07:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
Post by k***@attt.bizz
Post by Attila Iskander
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
I suspect that that may be one reason for harry's hatred of all things US
He hates his daddy?
No. A mother thing... if she gave-up some coochie to a member of the
8th Air Force.
#
# Ah living in your fantasy world again.
# There was no such thing as a Yank until a monkey fucked a pig.

Wasn't that a British Navy tradition, along with Rum and the lash ?
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-18 02:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:59:43 -0700 (PDT), harry
Post by harry
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
Which tribe? I paid for my land, obtained title and Mohawk Indians had
no claim to my property. I did allow moose to traverse my land.
I think the Vikings and Romans invaded your land, killed your leaders
and listened to the lamentations of your women.
Why would they do that? Look what happened to harry after he was
exposed to Brit women!
Post by Oren
After all that, "Yanks" made British babies, because your women liked
chocolate and American cigarettes.
They had no intention of living there.
The Real Bev
2013-03-16 23:59:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by harry
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Having already used imminent domain to force people off their land 100
or so years ago.
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
...who stole it from other Indians who stole it from somebody else.
--
Cheers, Bev
===========================================
Lawyering: the only profession that if you
didn't have it you wouldn't need it.
harry
2013-03-17 07:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Bev
Post by harry
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Having already used imminent domain to force people off their land 100
or so years ago.
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
...who stole it from other Indians who stole it from somebody else.
Oh, what sort of excuse is that?
Give some details or did you just make that up?
Oren
2013-03-18 00:18:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT), harry
Post by harry
Post by The Real Bev
Post by harry
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Having already used imminent domain to force people off their land 100
or so years ago.
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
...who stole it from other Indians who stole it from somebody else.
Oh, what sort of excuse is that?
It is fact. And Bev is correct.
Post by harry
Give some details or did you just make that up?
Did they already burn books in England?
k***@attt.bizz
2013-03-18 02:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oren
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT), harry
Post by harry
Post by The Real Bev
Post by harry
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
Having already used imminent domain to force people off their land 100
or so years ago.
ALL your land is stolen from the indians.
...who stole it from other Indians who stole it from somebody else.
Oh, what sort of excuse is that?
It is fact. And Bev is correct.
Post by harry
Give some details or did you just make that up?
Did they already burn books in England?
What's he going to do with one of them? Colo(u)r in it?
t***@optonline.net
2013-03-11 21:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moe DeLoughan
Post by t***@optonline.net
Post by Kurt Ullman
Post by Moe DeLoughan
Actually, the petroleum pipelines can't compete with rail tankers. The
Canadian oil is a heavy, thick bitumen that must be diluted with other
petroleum products before it can flow through pipelines. Rail tanker
cars, on the other hand, have no problem at all with bitumen oil, so
there's no processing needed.
My understanding, though, is that the dilution things can be pulled out
at the other and used. So, in that case, you get a two-fer.
Not to mention it seems rather odd that the Keystone folks,
who's business it is to build the pipeline, who's money is on
the line, would be building it if it's not competitive with the
railroad for moving oil.
The Keystone folks get the sweet, sweet corporate welfare aka taxpayer
subsidies. That's how it's competitive.
Reference for that claim, please......
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That, and their ability to use
eminent domain against property owners trying to hold out for more money.
Yawn.... That has been used as much by the railroad
folks more than for any pipeline ever built, so it's a moot point.
Post by Moe DeLoughan
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
There is no need, for the most part, to force anyone off their land
because of the Keystone pipeline. They need
an easement to put the pipe underground. For that, owners
get a tidy sum. I saw a rancher on TV last month very
happy with the amount he got. They put the pipeline through
his pasture, pay him a lot of money and after it's done
he doesn't even know it's there. Now the railroad, they do
force folks off their property, at least more so then a pipeline.
Cows can still graze on land above a pipeline.
With railroad tracks, not so much........
harry
2013-03-16 17:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Rockefeller
Why will there be no XL Pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the US?
Because Warren wants to play for a while with his new train set.
=======================
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-09/meet-new-us-petroleum-pipelines
Still confused why crony capitalist #1, the "rustic" Octogenarian of
Omaha, and Obama tax advisor #1, Warren Buffett has been aggressively
attempting to corner the railroad market, while the administration
relentlessly refuses to allow assorted new, and very much competing
petroleum pipelines from America's neighbor to the north to cross
through the US (in gratitude for the former's generous "tax advice" and
pedigree by association)? Hint: it's not concern about the environment.
The answer is the chart below.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2...
The other reason why not is that the oil companies want to transport
it by tanker.
That way it can be taken to Japan or China if the price is better.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...