Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

GoneFishin

(5,217 posts)

7. We can't control what Canada does. If they want that crap leaking into their ground water

Reply to sdfernando (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 27, 2014, 12:29 AM

Feb 2014

that is their problem. But seeing as how the U.S. is not going to see any more or any less of that oil regardless of what route it is shipped by, let them poison some other country's aquifers. And let the taxpayers of some other country pick up the clean-up costs when that shit spills. And sooner or later it always does.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rail Cars Used To Ship Oil 'Unacceptable Public Risk,' Replacement Cars May Not Be Sufficient [View all] Purveyor Feb 2014 OP

Does this Robert Sumwalt support Keystone XL? KamaAina Feb 2014 #1

Rail has always been a bigger risk; no news there. 7962 Feb 2014 #2

Fine, let them sell the oil sdfernando Feb 2014 #4

We can't control what Canada does. If they want that crap leaking into their ground water GoneFishin Feb 2014 #7

so is the tar sand oil leftyohiolib Feb 2014 #3

Meanwhile, DOT-111s are being cranked out as fast as possible... Not Sure Feb 2014 #5

Either way maindawg Feb 2014 #6

A twenty year effort to increase rail shipping regulations on tank cars... Earth_First Feb 2014 #8

Did the NTSB ever come to a conclusion on the Quebec disaster? Blue_Tires Feb 2014 #9

Oil is the risk. Leave it in the ground. truthisfreedom Feb 2014 #10