Skip to comments.Tom Steyer groupís latest Keystone XL attack: Pipeline would be too vulnerable to terrorist attacks
Posted on 06/10/2014 1:37:54 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hedge fund billionaire and rapturous eco-crusader Tom Steyer has fronted a lot of ridiculous attempts to not only thwart the construction of the already-existing Keystone pipeline’s northern extension, which would merely give Canada’s oil sands an efficient connection to our refineries in the Gulf, but to smear everything about the fossil fuel industry, the technology it employs, and the global free market in which it operates. The absurdly worded poll that his NextGen Climate Action group commissioned earlier this year, claiming that the “majority of U.S. voters want to know where the crude oil transported through the Keystone XL pipeline will end up” — as if that’s somehow an indictment of the Keystone XL pipeline, and as if the U.S. doesn’t sell and ship its own petroleum products to Africa, Asia, and the Middle East (which, by the way, it does) — springs immediately to mind. This, however… this, I did not see this coming.
Hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer, a climate change activist and staunch opponent of the prospective 1,179-mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Cushing, Okla., has hired retired Navy SEAL chief David Dave Cooper to assess how vulnerable the Keystone XL might be to deliberate sabotage. In a 14-page report made public today (but redacted to keep it from being a playbook for aspiring terrorists), Cooper concludes that a small group of evildoers could easily cause a catastrophic spill of millions of gallons of diluted bitumen, or tar sands crude, from the Keystone XL. They could do it with as little as four pounds of commercial-grade, improvised explosives.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
I think DC or NYC is a more likely target....or a Walmart store.
Yeah right, especially after the Bergdahl trade.
As opposed to trains of oil tanker cars?
Progressivism empowered is the ultimate doomsday machine.
After unraveling Steyer's associations, investments, and proxies, it has become apparent that Steyer stands to benefit very greatly from the construction of a pipeline from Alberta's oil sands west to BC, where it can be easily exported to Asia.
If the Keystone XL pipeline is built, the western pipeline won't be economically viable, and Steyer will lose a bunch of money, or at least won't be making more.
It's not about "climate change", or "terrorism". It's all about money.
Apparently, the $100 million he has committed to Democrats is chump change, by comparison.
Such a simple rebuttal:
“Gee Tom, in that case we should get rid of all pipelines in the U.S., even though we’ve not had any successful terrorist attacks against them? Should we transport more oil by train and truck through neighborhoods where they could have accidents? Would you want that even though there’d be more bottlenecks and shortages? How then would we get oil for our cars, our homes, to transport our food and clothes? What would the children eat? What would grandma use to heat her home? Are you trying to kill kids and grandma? ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL KIDS AND GRANDMA? HUH TOM???!!! YOU’RE A PSYCHO KILLER TOM, YOU PIECE OF GENOCIDAL CRAP!!!!”
Rinse and repeat.
Or a solar farm or wind farm?
Exactly. If it doesn’t bleed, it doesn’t lead. A blown up pipeline would be lucky to make the local news for more than one cycle.
Good things we’ve totally secured that border./sarc
Isn’t that pipe buried? That’s what all the fuss is about - contamination (supposedly).
That would be like flying a hijacked jumbo jet into a building in Podunk Hollow.
Or ringing up Underground Service Alert and just having them come out and locate existing utilities for you...
Steyer’s “green” energy holdings create environmental wastelands. Steyer’s just another big mouth rentseeker looking for gov’t to put its thumb on the scales in favor of his businesses.
And, trains are not. Tell that to the Spaniards.
They said the same thing when the Alaska Pipeline was built.
Here’s the thing... ANY energy infrastructure or transport system is vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Deliver it by freight train? Don’t make me laugh... even without a terrorist attack an accident has the potential of destroying a small town ( see what happened in Canada ). See here:
Ship it? If they can blow up the USS Cole, you think they can’t blow up a ship transporting crude oil?
Therefore, this argument by Steyer is INVALID. The response as in any other method of transporting energy is the same — BE VIGILANT.
The Keystone pipeline will go through some pretty remote and low population areas. I would worry more about trains carrying crude as they go through populated areas and trains are very vulnerable to sabotage.
So if the Keystone pipeline would be vulnerable to attack, what about the thousands of miles of existing pipelines?
Bet this goof doesn’t realize that there are pipelines buried within feet of his house.