Author Topic: Obama sez No to Keystone  (Read 39346 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2012, 09:39:24 PM »
I apologize for my low PLIQ but:  Has there been any major issues with the giant pipeline running through AK/Canada?  I get that they're different tech but I would assume newer tech means better tech?  :ck:

yes

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #51 on: January 22, 2012, 10:03:16 PM »
I apologize for my low PLIQ but:  Has there been any major issues with the giant pipeline running through AK/Canada?  I get that they're different tech but I would assume newer tech means better tech?  :ck:

yes

TransCanada has had 12 oil spills from it's "state of the art" pipeline in 2011 alone.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297576/oil-spills-transcanada-keystone-xl-pipeline/?mobile=nc

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2012, 08:20:15 PM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2012, 11:43:32 PM »
I apologize for my low PLIQ but:  Has there been any major issues with the giant pipeline running through AK/Canada?  I get that they're different tech but I would assume newer tech means better tech?  :ck:

yes

TransCanada has had 12 oil spills from it's "state of the art" pipeline in 2011 alone.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297576/oil-spills-transcanada-keystone-xl-pipeline/?mobile=nc

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/07/epa-oil-michigan-river/

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #54 on: January 25, 2012, 12:13:19 AM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #55 on: January 25, 2012, 08:08:43 PM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

None.  Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight.  They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #56 on: January 25, 2012, 08:26:35 PM »
Liberals hate poor people. Energy is probably the second biggest expense for the poor, and liberals are ecstatic about prices going up.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #57 on: January 25, 2012, 08:51:23 PM »
Liberals hate poor people. Energy is probably the second biggest expense for the poor, and liberals are ecstatic about prices going up.

I'm going to have to utilize my liberal intuition and get semanticky with you.  They don't "hate" the poor, they "despise" the poor.  They are more than willing to use other peoples money to buy their vote, they just don't want to have to see them, be near them, or have anything to do with any of them.

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #58 on: January 25, 2012, 08:57:27 PM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

None.  Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight.  They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.

It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? :dunno:

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #59 on: January 25, 2012, 09:03:52 PM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

None.  Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight.  They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.

It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? :dunno:

They can go haul coal to power plants.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #60 on: January 25, 2012, 09:45:22 PM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

None.  Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight.  They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.

It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? :dunno:

Not sure rolling stock factors into the unemployment numbers, idiot.  Nonetheless, there's no shortage of oil and other things that need to be hauled.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2012, 10:24:58 PM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

None.  Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight.  They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.

It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? :dunno:

Not sure rolling stock factors into the unemployment numbers, idiot.  Nonetheless, there's no shortage of oil and other things that need to be hauled.

If that is the case, then why was this decision such a windfall for Warren Buffett?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 03:43:41 PM by Nuts Kicked »

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2012, 10:32:05 PM »

If that is the case, then why was this decision such a windfall for Warren Buffet?

He gets paid for putting oil in his rolling stock and taking it to a destination.  JFC, are you serious? 
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2012, 12:17:14 AM »

Libtard Green Carl Safina of LibtardHuffPost understands the "Greens" were a driving force behind this.  Why don't you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-safina/obama-keystone-pipeline_b_1228314.html


Unsurprisingly it's another well-known Nebraskan manipulating his puppet in support of this debacle, not the sand farmers who sold easements to transcanada so it could build its rough ridin' pipe.  One of those newfangled pipes that "needs to be further evaluated" before it can be trusted.  Canada is sending the oil down Gulf of Mexico way, whether by pipe, land, sea, train, truck or pony express.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036

Pull your heads out of your ass and use your rough ridin' brains.   Even the most anecdotal understanding of property law, federalism, and washington politics will lead you to the right answer.


The pipeline will be rerouted around the sand hills. It's still going to go through Nebraska. How many jobs were created at BNSF because Obama rejected the pipeline?

None.  Believe it or not they didn't stop pumping oil FOUR rough ridin' YEARS AGO when they applied for the rough ridin' pipe, they kept pumping it and sending it freight.  They want the pipe so they can send it faster and cheaper and with a lesser risk of spilling it. GASP, when oil companies spill oil they can't sell it.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING SO ITS IMPORTANT AND SHOVEL READY AND STUFF AND MAKES GAS CHEAPER FOR THE POOR AND PUTS THEM TO WORK SO THEY HAVE MONEY TO SPEND.

The libs on this board are disgusting slobs of stupidity.

It seems like a bunch of BNSF people would be put out of work by this pipeline if Obama saying no is such a windfall for them, does it not? :dunno:

Not sure rolling stock factors into the unemployment numbers, idiot.  Nonetheless, there's no shortage of oil and other things that need to be hauled.

If that is the case, then why was this decision such a windfall for Warren Buffet?

From a wacky ultra lib paper, so you can believe it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2012, 08:00:20 AM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2012, 08:57:30 AM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

You know what will bring a windfall of jobs?  Affordable energy.

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2012, 09:36:37 AM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

You know what will bring a windfall of jobs?  Affordable energy.

You mean like the oil and coal that BNSF will be hauling?

Online LickNeckey

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 6004
  • #fakeposts
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2012, 09:51:34 AM »
quit being a libtard. libtard.

harrumphhh harrumphhh harrrumphhhhhh

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #68 on: January 26, 2012, 11:04:28 AM »
I'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #69 on: January 26, 2012, 11:20:20 AM »
I'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.

Do they buy anything that is shipped with oil? If not, they're probably ok.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Online michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53675
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #70 on: January 26, 2012, 11:23:20 AM »
I'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.

Do they buy anything that is shipped with oil? If not, they're probably ok.

I'm just saying they won't notice it as much as the rich people in their limousines will. Because they are all poor and walk and stuff.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #71 on: January 26, 2012, 02:50:35 PM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

And we've come full circle. The oil is already carted by train and has been for years. no new jobs

The windfall (not sure if this is your term or the linked article) is that the only option to train the oil right now is bnsf(Buffett). By rejecting the permit, Buffets near monopolistic control of current pipeline (bnsf trains) remains in tact.

Sort of an inverse windfall I guess

goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Online Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37049
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #72 on: January 26, 2012, 03:34:18 PM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

And we've come full circle. The oil is already carted by train and has been for years. no new jobs

The windfall (not sure if this is your term or the linked article) is that the only option to train the oil right now is bnsf(Buffett). By rejecting the permit, Buffets near monopolistic control of current pipeline (bnsf trains) remains in tact.

Sort of an inverse windfall I guess



From the article posted by John:

Quote
The availability of tank cars may create a temporary "hiccup" in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are "a pretty hot commodity," as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.

Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. and American Railcar Industries Inc. expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1kbPZqpye

Hmmm.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2012, 05:54:23 PM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

And we've come full circle. The oil is already carted by train and has been for years. no new jobs

The windfall (not sure if this is your term or the linked article) is that the only option to train the oil right now is bnsf(Buffett). By rejecting the permit, Buffets near monopolistic control of current pipeline (bnsf trains) remains in tact.

Sort of an inverse windfall I guess



From the article posted by John:

Quote
The availability of tank cars may create a temporary "hiccup" in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are "a pretty hot commodity," as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.

Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. and American Railcar Industries Inc. expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1kbPZqpye

Hmmm.

But, notice which railroad cars they are producing. Not tanker cars, but cars to haul sand used in oil and gas exploration. Obama hates oil and gas exploration, even though he says otherwise. If he liked oil and gas exploration, the interior dept wouldn't be constantly trying to stop it, even on private land (see endangered Texas lizard lawsuit) and would be opening up federal lands.

Offline Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #74 on: January 26, 2012, 09:56:23 PM »
Oh, I believe that there will be a financial windfall for BNSF. Usually a company getting a financial windfall leads to more jobs, though. That's something that Fake Sugar Dick adamantly said would not happen.

And we've come full circle. The oil is already carted by train and has been for years. no new jobs

The windfall (not sure if this is your term or the linked article) is that the only option to train the oil right now is bnsf(Buffett). By rejecting the permit, Buffets near monopolistic control of current pipeline (bnsf trains) remains in tact.

Sort of an inverse windfall I guess



From the article posted by John:

Quote
The availability of tank cars may create a temporary "hiccup" in transport capacity, according to Tony Hatch, an independent railroad analyst in New York. Rail cars are "a pretty hot commodity," as a result of demand from oil producers in North Dakota, he said.

Rail car production is already at a three-year high as manufacturers such as Greenbrier Cos Inc. and American Railcar Industries Inc. expand to meet demand for sand used in oil and gas exploration, according to Steve Barger, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. in Cleveland, citing Railway Supply Institute statistics.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL&ao=all#ixzz1kbPZqpye

Hmmm.

I mean, I don't even . . .  :facepalm:

It's like being at a crosswalk with two dozen blind kids, you want to help them all, but eventually one's going to walk out into traffic.  You can only hold so many hands
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd