12 thoughts on “Video: Arizona Congressman opposes Keystone XL because rocks sink in water”

  1. Obviously, you don’t need to be intelligent or even informed of reality to be a congressperson. (yeah, I know, we’ve always known that) Just sayin’ here’s a specimen.

  2. Oh. My. God.
    This Obliviot actually thinks they will be sending actual Tar Sand through the pipeline?
    Or does he think the voters are?

  3. When I saw his able assistant, I thought, Beeker isn’t a muppet, he lives. Does he oppose all the oil pipelines in OK? For, example:
    http://www.sunocologistics.com/Customers/Business-Lines/Asset-Map/130/
    http://www.bkep.com/oklahoma-pipeline-systems
    https://plus.google.com/105570875301070867218/about?gl=us&hl=en
    http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/energy-pl.html

    Of course I spent seconds doing in depth research to get these.:)
    Oil isn’t as dense as water, so it will float for a while. However, the emulsified residue will sink. I’m not sure why he thinks they are pumping oil sands or why going to the bottom is so bad. Maybe the congresscritter should have stayed in a Holiday Inn before making this video.

  4. He an Hank Johnson (of Guam capsizing fame) should get together and form the Congressional Democrat Stupid Caucus. So many others are prequalified, it would be an enormous power block.

  5. What is it with these goofballs and their rock-envy? And does this guy really believe there would be rocks pumped through the pipeline? If so, then he’s surely got a few loose ones banging around in his head.

    Here’s another one–however, she simply wants to worship the rocks, as opposed to pumping them through a pipeline.

  6. I wish he was wrong in thinking this video would support any idea except that Rep. Grijalva is an idiot. But this is probably of a piece with what his voters want and expect.
    Good gracious, did he really try to sell the idea that the tar sands will come through the pipeline as rocks? And that the sinking rocks were somehow more of an environmental risk than liquid petroleum would be?

  7. Grijalva represents a largely Hispanic, and thus Democrat district. He’s managed to stay elected, even though he’s never sponsored much legislation that’s relevant.He has a reputation of poor taste in dress and this video shows his grasp of such details in this policy leaves much to be desired. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with him. Kinda like marrying a woman with a wart on her nose.

  8. Eh, you could love a woman for her wart, or you could love her despite the wart, or you could have the wart removed. Apparently most of Rep. Grijalva’s voters like the wart.
    Stupid is much harder to remove than a wart.

  9. The people at Earth First must be deniers since, eventually, everything dies. Even them. A rock will be weathered back into sand and be recycled.
    I wish more people would realize the oil really is a “solar” fuel. It has raised more people to a higher standard of living than just about any other concept.

  10. I hope to educate an_observer who believes oil is a “solar” fuel. Oil is a by-product of nuclear reaction. I could explain it here, but professional engineer genius, Joe Olsen, PE, does a great job at http://fauxscience.com.

  11. This is as bad as the congressmen that declared that Guam would “capsize” if we put more people on our military base there or expanded the military base at all… in fact, he also stated that Guam was becoming over-populated and needed to be evacuated before it capsized… oh the joys of the fake scientist…

  12. Howdy Mr. Chenosky
    I’ve read this both ways — that most petroleum is biogenic or that most is abiogenic, and that the supporters of each position accept that the other also occurs. Possibly the shallower deposits are the biogenic and the deep stuff is abiogenic. If the earth is producing more petroleum and methane, that’s good news.

Comments are closed.