Why do Americans stop doing homework [re: Keystone XL pipeline]

[Cheesesteak]

Schyler, here is your homework assignment for today:

1. Compare and contrast the location of the Ogallala Aquifer with the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline.

2. What percentage of the pipeline’s total length is over the Aquifer? Show your work.

3. If TransCanada secured a 50 foot wide right of way for the 1700 mile Keystone XL pipeline, what percentage of the 174,000 square mile aquifer would be owned by TransCanada? Show your work.

[kidchameleon]

@Cat_Whisperer

I’m good with CANADA and CANADIANS getting jobs and making money. Too bad most of the oil companies exploiting the oil sands are US AMERICAN companies.

Count your lucky stars they aren’t USSR AMERICAN companies.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Schyler

I’m trying to get Americans to start doing their homework again.

Well, what you offer isn’t the worst-written word problem I’ve ever seen, but it’s close.

[Sudden_Kestrel]

Damn, that OP gave me a migraine. I took it to mean that we should instead build a CANADIAN pipeline and use it to pipe CANADIANS to US AMERICA to be refined, which I disagree with because:

1. I like CANADIANS just fine in their raw state, and
   Point #II: Wouldn’t it be more efficient for CANADA just to sell us their own water?

[zoid]

@Miller

So, the OP’s argument is that free trade will allow the Canadians to come down and steal all our water?

Well, okay, then.

You obviously haven’t done your homework.

[Ludovic]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Wait, so is this an oil pipeline or a beer pipeline? I thought Keystone was made by Coors, and they’re in Colorado. Why would we need to build a pipeline to CANADA to get beer made in Colorado down to the Oglala Aquifier? And if we did that, wouldn’t it then become the Oglala Alcofier?

Connect the dots, people!!!

[Muffin]

I’d like Canada to increase its refining capacity so that it can sell value added products rather than raw products.

I’d also like Canada to sell more to China and develop better trade ties with China and the pacific rim, rather than tie its wagon to the USA, which quite frankly is too much of a political nut house to risk being almost exclusively tied to.

[Nars_Glinley]

So, the evil CANADIAN plan can be summed up as “HA HA! I BURNING YOUR AQUIFER!!11!”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Leaving aside the comprehensibility of the OP for a second, is there a reason the proposed route runs through an aquifer? Seems like a really bad idea.

@Schyler

But the most important point of choosing option 2 is the following: I’m no Remax agent, but I know just enough to realize that sometimes when you purchase land (IE: Canada buying property where the Keystone oil line wil be constructed) that in the fine print on the bottom there are sometimes terms that “convey water rights to purchaser”. Or that “convey mineral rights to the purchaser”. Hmmmm?

“Canada” isn’t buying any land. “Canada” isn’t even building a pipeline. TransCanada, a publicly traded corporation, is building the Keystone line.

In any case, they won’t buy the property where the line is being constructed. There’s no point. They’ll negotiate easements instead.

[kayaker]

I gots homework? The repeating nightmare has become reality???

[iftheresaway]

@Spoons

Me too. As a Canadian, I’m not seeing a problem here.

As a Canadian, are you more or less nefarious than a CANADIAN? And will you be selling me stolen oil water?

[Cheesesteak]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Leaving aside the comprehensibility of the OP for a second, is there a reason the proposed route runs through an aquifer? Seems like a really bad idea.

The aquifer is really big. It’s about 6% of the size of the continental US, spans 8 states, and covers almost all of Nebraska. Basically, if you’re west of the Missouri River and east of the Rockies, you’re standing on it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Ah. Fair enough, then.

[Rhythmdvl]

I really and truly wrote a fantastic post analysing the OP and adding several paragraphs of cogent discussion, ending with thought-provoking questions for further consideration.

But my dog at my post.

[Schyler]

black meaning “profit” as apposed to “red” meaning losing money.

Common everyday terms found in accounting practices everywhere. IE the reason the friday after Thanksgiving is called “black” Friday (because it’s the point when retail business actually start making profit for the year) (if they’re lucky)

[Bryan_Ekers]

Ottawa!

Oh, sorry, I thought you were asking for the capital of Canada.

[zoid]

@Schyler

black meaning “profit” as apposed to “red” meaning losing money.

Common everyday terms found in accounting practices everywhere. IE the reason the friday after Thanksgiving is called “black” Friday (because it’s the point when retail business actually start making profit for the year) (if they’re lucky)

Nope:

The earliest known reference to “Black Friday” to refer to shopping on the day after Thanksgiving was made in a public relations newsletter from 1961 that is clear on the negative implications of the name and its origin in Philadelphia:

For downtown merchants throughout the nation, the biggest shopping days normally are the two following Thanksgiving Day. Resulting traffic jams are an irksome problem to the police and, in Philadelphia, it became customary for officers to refer to the post-Thanksgiving days as Black Friday and Black Saturday. Hardly a stimulus for good business, the problem was discussed by the merchants with their Deputy City Representative, Abe S. Rosen, one of the country’s most experienced municipal PR executives. He recommended adoption of a positive approach which would convert Black Friday and Black Saturday to Big Friday and Big Saturday.

You’re on a roll, let’s see what else ya got.

[howye]

@Schyler

black meaning “profit” as apposed to “red” meaning losing money.

Common everyday terms found in accounting practices everywhere. IE the reason the friday after Thanksgiving is called “black” Friday (because it’s the point when retail business actually start making profit for the year) (if they’re lucky)

33 responses between your OP and this response, and this is the one item you chose to clarify?

Really?

Just for giggles, I googled " “black” bottom-line profits". This thread is the first hit.

Please rephrase your answer question in the form of something coherent.

[Ludovic]

I like black bottoms and I cannot lie.

[Esox_Lucius]

@Cat_Whisperer

I still say we need to build an oil refinery here in Alberta and cut out the middle men.

Going on the supposition that it’s impossible to derail a thread that left the tracks before it started…Why don’t we? (“we” being Alberta and Saskatchewan;))