goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 18, 2012, 11:53:19 AM
-
Obama Will Deny Permit on Keystone XL Pipeline (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-administration-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-20120118,0,999641.story). This decision flies in the face of Obama's own "jobs counsel," which recently urged him "to expedite the production of fossil fuels close to home, in part by 'allowing more access to oil, gas and coal opportunities on federal lands.'"
If this is true (and it could just be another test balloon), then I think this is a very foolish move in an election year. The administration evidently believes it can blame this on Republicans for demanding a decision within 60 days, before the project could be "adequately studied," but I don't think that excuse will be effective. This decision will be another good example of Obama's job killing policies.
-
Obama Will Deny Permit on Keystone XL Pipeline (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-administration-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-20120118,0,999641.story). This decision flies in the face of Obama's own "jobs counsel," which recently urged him "to expedite the production of fossil fuels close to home, in part by 'allowing more access to oil, gas and coal opportunities on federal lands.'"
If this is true (and it could just be another test balloon), then I think this is a very foolish move in an election year. The administration evidently believes it can blame this on Republicans for demanding a decision within 60 days, before the project could be "adequately studied," but I don't think that excuse will be effective. This decision will be another good example of Obama's job killing policies.
They have already said no after "adequately studying" months ago. This could be a defining moment. Even liberals are scratching their heads over this one. Follow the money right into Warren Buffett's (Burlington Santa Fe) pockets.
-
What an enormous bad person.
Too bad this pipeline doesn't go through a "swing state". After approval he'd be on a plane talking about how great he is and how he made a quick decision.
-
Obama says extending jobless benefits will create more jobs than Keystone (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-more-jobs-jobless-benefits-keystone/244871).
As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," he said, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."
It's just... mind boggling how this guy was ever elected President of the United States. eff the private company trying to create wealth and jobs. Your government can create even more jobs by dolling out tax dollars!
-
He is allowing TransCanada to reapply after rerouting the Nebraska portion of the pipeline around the sand hills. People who support state rights should support this decision, fwiw.
-
will be curious to see how the crazy neocons from NE react to this. If there are two things they hate it is this pipeline running over their aquifer and the president.
-
will be curious to see how the crazy neocons from NE react to this. If there are two things they hate it is this pipeline running over their aquifer and the president.
It must be tough on them. On the one hand, they don't think they will receive enough income from the pipeline to justify the risk of a spill into their aquifer. On the other hand, their political party is telling them to support the pipeline, and OBAMA of all people is taking their side on routing it away from the sand hills. It's got to be rough.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
-
Little known fact: the Majestic Nebraska Sand Hills are also home to the last native caribou herds in the continental U.S. There was serious concern that the pipeline might interfere with migration patterns, despite the proposed allocation of Stimulus funds to construct Caribou crossing points at every mile of pipeline.
-
He is allowing TransCanada to reapply after rerouting the Nebraska portion of the pipeline around the sand hills. People who support state rights should support this decision, fwiw.
Funny, it seems that there are already a number of oil pipelines that cross the Sand Hills and Ogallala Aquifer. I really think this must be more about protecting the caribou.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-54jvXnU_B-8%2FTsIWzSIqgHI%2FAAAAAAAAAc4%2FkqEV2voaPVc%2Fs1600%2FOil%2BGas%2BProducts%2BPipeline%2BMap%2BUS.jpg&hash=351da4044cc99c99afed8c0c18da62151f08d915)
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
yeah, it wasn't liberals in NE that were up in arms about it dumbass
-
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/10/keystone-xl-pipeline-divides-nebraska-residents.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/10/keystone-xl-pipeline-divides-nebraska-residents.html)
It looks like the liberal unions are supporting the pipeline in Nebraska. Republicans win, guys!
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
yeah, it wasn't liberals in NE that were up in arms about it dumbass
I guess I wasn't referring to them. Glad you are in favor of the pipeline.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
yeah, it wasn't liberals in NE that were up in arms about it dumbass
I guess I wasn't referring to them. Glad you are in favor of the pipeline.
It was NE ranchers. Republican NE ranchers doing the fear mongering.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
yeah, it wasn't liberals in NE that were up in arms about it dumbass
I guess I wasn't referring to them. Glad you are in favor of the pipeline.
It was NE ranchers. Republican NE ranchers doing the fear mongering.
I guess I wasn't referring to them. Glad you are in favor of the pipeline.
-
Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
:lol:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/ (http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/)
-
Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
:lol:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/ (http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/)
Those guys had nothing to do with the delay and Nebraskans had everything to do with it. This is a state's rights issue, nothing more. If you support the free market and states rights, you should support Obama not forcing Nebraska to allow the pipeline over the Ogallala when the local ranchers and government oppose it.
-
Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
:lol:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/ (http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/)
Those guys had nothing to do with the delay and Nebraskans had everything to do with it. This is a state's rights issue, nothing more. If you support the free market and states rights, you should support Obama not forcing Nebraska to allow the pipeline over the Ogallala when the local ranchers and government oppose it.
I would expect a lot of opposition from some landowners. I'm sure it's not just in NE.
-
Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
:lol:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/ (http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/)
Those guys had nothing to do with the delay and Nebraskans had everything to do with it. This is a state's rights issue, nothing more. If you support the free market and states rights, you should support Obama not forcing Nebraska to allow the pipeline over the Ogallala when the local ranchers and government oppose it.
I am glad the NE dumbasses got what they wanted, but you know just as well as I do that Obama didn't even consider that when he decided to nix it.
-
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has any idea what this thing was about other than the president nix'd it.....
-
Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.
:lol:
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/ (http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/)
Those guys had nothing to do with the delay and Nebraskans had everything to do with it. This is a state's rights issue, nothing more. If you support the free market and states rights, you should support Obama not forcing Nebraska to allow the pipeline over the Ogallala when the local ranchers and government oppose it.
This is not a "state's rights" issue. Interstate pipelines are subject to federal jurisdiction, dumbass. Furthermore, even if the federal government grants the permit, that does not mean that Nebraska landowners cannot still sue to divert the pipeline. Try again.
-
I have no doubt that Obama will approve the pipeline after more money is contributed and it gets closer to the election, and I agree he probably knows nothing of the whiny farmers.
-
The funny thing about energy projects, whether it be pipelines, solar panels, and especially wind turbines, is that there are two types of landowners: The vast majority of owners of property actually utilized by the project love them, because they earn extra money by selling the leases and/or easements. Then there's the landowners who are close enough to see the project, but not close enough to get any money from it. They generally oppose the projects.
I know this because I did condemnation work for energy companies for a time (both pipelines and wind). Also, on the rare occasion that I had to condemn a pipeline easement, the landowner was always a shotgun wielding, gold standard supporting, completely irrational Ron Paul type.
-
I have no doubt that Obama will approve the pipeline after more money is contributed and it gets closer to the election, and I agree he probably knows nothing of the whiny farmers.
Yes, I'm sure nobody mentioned to Obama the overwhelming lack of support the Nebraska citizens have for the pipeline or the fact that the Nebraska state legislature passed bills to deny the pipeline and fund a $2 million study to reroute the pipeline.
-
I have no doubt that Obama will approve the pipeline after more money is contributed and it gets closer to the election, and I agree he probably knows nothing of the whiny farmers.
Yes, I'm sure nobody mentioned to Obama the overwhelming lack of support the Nebraska citizens have for the pipeline or the fact that the Nebraska state legislature passed bills to deny the pipeline and fund a $2 million study to reroute the pipeline.
They'll reroute it in time for the election.
-
Can't they just route it next to a federal highway through Neb and threaten to withhold highway funds if they don't fall in line? Worked for the drinking age.
-
Can't they just route it next to a federal highway through Neb and threaten to withhold highway funds if they don't fall in line? Worked for the drinking age.
Way to risky, in my opinion. What if there was a leak? The highway would be all slippery with oil.
-
Can't they just route it next to a federal highway through Neb and threaten to withhold highway funds if they don't fall in line? Worked for the drinking age.
Why would they do that when they can just route the pipeline around the sandhills, minimizing risks and not pissing off an entire state?
-
Nuts, I thought you were just f'ing around, but you're really buying the Sand Hills excuse, aren't you? :lol: This is the real reason (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/obama-s-denial-of-keystone-permit-was-a-welcome-win-against-big-oil.html), and everyone knows it.
-
Nuts, I thought you were just f'ing around, but you're really buying the Sand Hills excuse, aren't you? :lol: This is the real reason (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/18/obama-s-denial-of-keystone-permit-was-a-welcome-win-against-big-oil.html), and everyone knows it.
If that were the real reason, he wouldn't be accepting the proposal in a few months like he is going to do.
-
And Obama has just released his first 2012 campaign ad (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/18/obamas_first_campaign_ad_secretive_oil_billionaires_are_attacking_obama.html). It accuses... Big Oil. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
-
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has any idea what this thing was about other than the president nix'd it.....
yes, confirmed
-
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has any idea what this thing was about other than the president nix'd it.....
yes, confirmed
Thanks for sharing your insidery info.
-
Some pretty awesome post-hoc rationalization by the libtards. "It's the republican sand farmers that forced Obama to block this" Jesus Christ you guys are pathetic. Nothing like the anti-intellectual left and its willful ignorance.
Obama apologists are the worst. His actions here are inexcusable. So pathetic.
-
Some pretty awesome post-hoc rationalization by the libtards. "It's the republican sand farmers that forced Obama to block this" Jesus Christ you guys are pathetic. Nothing like the anti-intellectual left and its willful ignorance.
Obama apologists are the worst. His actions here are inexcusable. So pathetic.
Nobody "forced" Obama to block this. Obama simply made the right decision in this instance. What rationalization is post-hoc? Did you not notice the shitstorm that Dave Heineman (R) has been throwing at this pipeline for over a year now?
-
Some pretty awesome post-hoc rationalization by the libtards. "It's the republican sand farmers that forced Obama to block this" Jesus Christ you guys are pathetic. Nothing like the anti-intellectual left and its willful ignorance.
Obama apologists are the worst. His actions here are inexcusable. So pathetic.
Nobody "forced" Obama to block this. Obama simply made the right decision in this instance. What rationalization is post-hoc? Did you not notice the shitstorm that Dave Heineman (R) has been throwing at this pipeline for over a year now?
:dunno:
-
Thanks Barack! May send you a campaign contribution this time around! :driving:
-
good decision. good pipeline, bad route. happy to see poltics et al functioned correctly.
-
good decision. good pipeline, bad route. happy to see poltics et al functioned correctly.
Agreed.
You shouldn't be allowed to post in this thread if you do not know what the ogallala aquifer is, and it's role on the economy in the middle states of this country.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
How do you think the ogallala aquifer get's refilled? JFC.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
yeah, it wasn't liberals in NE that were up in arms about it dumbass
Exactly. It was life long farmers....stewards of the land. But, they are just a bunch of rough ridin' liberals, eh?
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
How do you think the ogallala aquifer get's refilled? JFC.
The point was that if there were to be a leak, it would never be allowed to seep into the groundwater.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
How do you think the ogallala aquifer get's refilled? JFC.
The point was that if there were to be a leak, it would never be allowed to seep into the groundwater.
LOL
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
How do you think the ogallala aquifer get's refilled? JFC.
The point was that if there were to be a leak, it would never be allowed to seep into the groundwater.
Would it spill up, out of the ground and into the air?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/06/21/AlbertaToTexasPipeline/ (http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/06/21/AlbertaToTexasPipeline/)
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
How do you think the ogallala aquifer get's refilled? JFC.
The point was that if there were to be a leak, it would never be allowed to seep into the groundwater.
omg :lol:
-
Yes, stopping and cleaning up a leak on the plains of Nebraska is just as difficult as stopping and cleaning up on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.
-
So, there's no alarming or monitoring systems on these pipelines, they could literally be dumping oil for days on end if they have a problem?
Wow, pretty low tech.
-
So, there's no alarming or monitoring systems on these pipelines, they could literally be dumping oil for days on end if they have a problem?
Wow, pretty low tech.
And no shut-off valves, say, ever half-mile or so, either. Completely low tech. Way safer to ship this stuff by tanker. What's the worst that could happen?
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
yeah, it wasn't liberals in NE that were up in arms about it dumbass
Exactly. It was life long farmers....stewards of the land. But, they are just a bunch of rough ridin' liberals, eh?
Libtard outed. You people can't be serious. Delusion lives here
-
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:
-
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 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-oil-alaska-spill-idUSTRE76H0VA20110718)
-
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 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-oil-alaska-spill-idUSTRE76H0VA20110718)
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://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/08/17/297576/oil-spills-transcanada-keystone-xl-pipeline/?mobile=nc)
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-oil-alaska-spill-idUSTRE76H0VA20110718)
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://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/
-
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?
-
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.
-
Liberals hate poor people. Energy is probably the second biggest expense for the poor, and liberals are ecstatic about prices going up.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/25/bloomberg_articlesLY20WE6K50Z001-LYDM5.DTL)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
quit being a libtard. libtard.
harrumphhh harrumphhh harrrumphhhhhh
-
I'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.
-
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 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.
-
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
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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
-
:dunno:
"Pipeline shipping costs remain lower than rail, and a lack of readily available tanker cars may create a bottleneck. 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"
"Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.'s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada."
"During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL."
:dunno:
-
:dunno:
"Pipeline shipping costs remain lower than rail, and a lack of readily available tanker cars may create a bottleneck. 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"
"Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.'s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada."
"During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL."
:dunno:
Yo LickNeckey, this just means we need a higher capacity pipeline. Hauling by train is much less efficient and blows shitloads of lethal carbon dioxide into the air, which we all know is a killer of liberals around the world.
-
fair but also seems to create/sustain more jobs. no???
-
You can only build so many oil tanker cars.
Pipeline will open up more oil exploration, more jobs, less foreign oil via tankers, and more time to find economically viable renewable alternatives. The fact remains that solar and wind is not ready for mass generation, and we are wasting a lot of time and money pushing it before it's time. We may end up skipping right over both to something more viable.
-
less foreign oil via tankers
Ha
-
less foreign oil via tankers
Ha
People hate spills in the ocean.
-
:dunno:
"Pipeline shipping costs remain lower than rail, and a lack of readily available tanker cars may create a bottleneck. 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"
"Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd.'s shipments from North Dakota climbed to more than 13,000 carloads last year from about 500 in 2009, Ed Greenberg, a spokesman, said in an e-mail. The Calgary- based company has a similar plan in western Canada."
"During 2011, rail capacity in the region tripled to almost 300,000 barrels a day as higher production exceeded what pipelines handle, according to the State Department report on Keystone XL."
:dunno:
You understand that oil comes from places other than North Dakota right? You understand that the oil industry is creating the jobs, not the government, right? You understand that the only thing killing the pipeline does is cause oil prices to stay higher, right? That there is enough demand to redeploy oil tanker cars all over the country, right?
Why on earth is this so confusing to you guys?
-
I'm pretty sure all poor people take public transit so they don't really care about oil prices.
You're pretty sure? :lol: :lol:
What a rough ridin' idiot
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
-
I'll just leave this here:
pdf warning
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf)
KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
LOL
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
LOL
It's not really that funny.
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
LOL
It's not really that funny.
What's funny is that the decision to block it is purely political. 3 days after a little march on Washington by the enviro-nazis, Obama shuts it even though 10 different departments, including the EPA (shocking, really), gave it the green light. The state department, including a statement by Hillary Clinton in 2010, said they were inclined to approve it. It is Obama, and only Obama, that has nixed the pipeline. The excuse being used is, that after 40 months, the State Department needs more time to review a new path through NE, and that would take it past the next election. Actually, you are right, not that funny.
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
LOL
It's not really that funny.
What's funny is that the decision to block it is purely political. 3 days after a little march on Washington by the enviro-nazis, Obama shuts it even though 10 different departments, including the EPA (shocking, really), gave it the green light. The state department, including a statement by Hillary Clinton in 2010, said they were inclined to approve it. It is Obama, and only Obama, that has nixed the pipeline. The excuse being used is, that after 40 months, the State Department needs more time to review a new path through NE, and that would take it past the next election. Actually, you are right, not that funny.
What's wrong with rerouting the pipeline around an environmentally sensitive area? By all indications I've seen, this project is going to ultimately increase the cost of oil in America and cost us jobs in the long run, anyway.
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
LOL
It's not really that funny.
What's funny is that the decision to block it is purely political. 3 days after a little march on Washington by the enviro-nazis, Obama shuts it even though 10 different departments, including the EPA (shocking, really), gave it the green light. The state department, including a statement by Hillary Clinton in 2010, said they were inclined to approve it. It is Obama, and only Obama, that has nixed the pipeline. The excuse being used is, that after 40 months, the State Department needs more time to review a new path through NE, and that would take it past the next election. Actually, you are right, not that funny.
What's wrong with rerouting the pipeline around an environmentally sensitive area? By all indications I've seen, this project is going to ultimately increase the cost of oil in America and cost us jobs in the long run, anyway.
Pure BS. The State Department's job estimations only include the construction workforce to lay the pipe, nothing else. This is total manipulation of the numbers.
-
Keystone to be linked to U.S. highway bill: Boehner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers will try to force the Obama administration to approve the Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline by attaching it to a highway bill that Congress will consider next month, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday.
President Barack Obama earlier this month denied TransCanada's application for the oil sands pipeline, citing lack of time to review an alternative route within a 60-day window for action set by Congress.
Republicans have since been looking for a vehicle to resurrect the $7 billion project, and Boehner said that would be a House Republican energy and highway bill.
"If (Keystone) is not enacted before we take up the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act, it will be part of it," Boehner said on ABC's "This Week" news program.
Environmentalists and some Democrats oppose Keystone, citing higher greenhouse gas emissions, while most Republicans say it would create needed jobs.
Republicans in the Senate also plan to introduce a Keystone bill. Some Senate Democrats back the pipeline, but its passage is not guaranteed in the body.
Parts of the House Republican plan, such as opening up the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, stand little chance of passing the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate.
Attaching Keystone to a pending deal to extend payroll tax cuts for workers, which has greater bipartisan backing than the highway bills, is another vehicle Republicans are considering.
(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Paul Simao)
It's nice to see the republicans putting politics in the way of job creation, I guess. :dunno:
LOL
It's not really that funny.
What's funny is that the decision to block it is purely political. 3 days after a little march on Washington by the enviro-nazis, Obama shuts it even though 10 different departments, including the EPA (shocking, really), gave it the green light. The state department, including a statement by Hillary Clinton in 2010, said they were inclined to approve it. It is Obama, and only Obama, that has nixed the pipeline. The excuse being used is, that after 40 months, the State Department needs more time to review a new path through NE, and that would take it past the next election. Actually, you are right, not that funny.
What's wrong with rerouting the pipeline around an environmentally sensitive area? By all indications I've seen, this project is going to ultimately increase the cost of oil in America and cost us jobs in the long run, anyway.
Pure BS. The State Department's job estimations only include the construction workforce to lay the pipe, nothing else. This is total manipulation of the numbers.
Who are they leaving out? Most of the steel and other construction materials have already been purchased from India and Canada. Cornell found that this project will add about 50 non-construction jobs. So after a 2 year construction period, we have gained 50 jobs and probably lost more than that from other industries due to a lack of need of manpower to transport the oil as well as rising energy costs due to the creation of a new avenue for Canada to export oil to countries other than the US.
-
Well it took them longer than usual (a little over a week) but the left is finally getting it's propoganda and outright lies in order regarding the pipeline. An oil pipeline that necessarily takes thousands of people to build and necessarily lowers the cost of transporting oil reducing it's cost at delivery actually reduces the number of jobs and makes the cost of oil go up. Intuition and common sense aside, this is still a ridiculous thing to say.
Unbelieveable. I just can't wait for Gitmo to close so the terrorists will finally stop terrorizing. Then, when we finally get taxes on the rich up to "their fair share" everyone that isn't rich finally can be rich. Finally, when we give everyone free healthcare who is too poor or sick to afford it, the cost we finally come down to reasonable levels. Welcome to the world Tom the Dancing Bug so ironically lives in.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.sportressofblogitude.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2Fbizarro.jpg&hash=7acb6f4a3c64b1c02e3daa9d5f715569c2eb4bdd)
-
Well it took them longer than usual (a little over a week) but the left is finally getting it's propoganda and outright lies in order regarding the pipeline. An oil pipeline that necessarily takes thousands of people to build and necessarily lowers the cost of transporting oil reducing it's cost at delivery actually reduces the number of jobs and makes the cost of oil go up. Intuition and common sense aside, this is still a ridiculous thing to say.
Unbelieveable. I just can't wait for Gitmo to close so the terrorists will finally stop terrorizing. Then, when we finally get taxes on the rich up to "their fair share" everyone that isn't rich finally can be rich. Finally, when we give everyone free healthcare who is too poor or sick to afford it, the cost we finally come down to reasonable levels. Welcome to the world Tom the Dancing Bug so ironically lives in.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.sportressofblogitude.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F02%2Fbizarro.jpg&hash=7acb6f4a3c64b1c02e3daa9d5f715569c2eb4bdd)
The cost of delivering oil has nothing to do with the value of that oil.
-
The cost of delivering oil has nothing to do with the value of that oil.
good dear
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
Yeah, that BP oil spill was just a mythical fabrication made up by the left. Pffffftttttt....
-
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.
So angry. So full of hate. Seek therapy.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
Yeah, that BP oil spill was just a mythical fabrication made up by the left. Pffffftttttt....
:facepalm:
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
Yeah, that BP oil spill was just a mythical fabrication made up by the left. Pffffftttttt....
:facepalm:
You do realize that some oil would leach into the water supply just by being in contact with the surface, right? It's not a matter of "how long oil is on the surface". It's a sandy soil. It's capable of soaking up oil at a pretty fast rate. The 50' depth to water is completely irrelevant. Once the oil is below the surface, it will make its way to the aquifer.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
Yeah, that BP oil spill was just a mythical fabrication made up by the left. Pffffftttttt....
:facepalm:
You do realize that some oil would leach into the water supply just by being in contact with the surface, right? It's not a matter of "how long oil is on the surface". It's a sandy soil. It's capable of soaking up oil at a pretty fast rate. The 50' depth to water is completely irrelevant. Once the oil is below the surface, it will make its way to the aquifer.
You remove the contaminated soil within a few days. They already do this, not rocket science. Also, the aquifer is much deeper in most areas, like hundreds of feet. I used 50 ft because that was the shallowest point. A train wreck is likely to spill more oil than a pipeline leak.
-
A spill seems to be a stupid argument given the safety procedures, remote valves, leak detection, and construction of the pipe in general. It seems to be much safer than train, truck or ship. How long would oil need to sit on the surface untouched to leach at least 50' down through the soil? Liberal fear mongering.
Yeah, that BP oil spill was just a mythical fabrication made up by the left. Pffffftttttt....
:facepalm:
You do realize that some oil would leach into the water supply just by being in contact with the surface, right? It's not a matter of "how long oil is on the surface". It's a sandy soil. It's capable of soaking up oil at a pretty fast rate. The 50' depth to water is completely irrelevant. Once the oil is below the surface, it will make its way to the aquifer.
You remove the contaminated soil within a few days. They already do this, not rocket science. Also, the aquifer is much deeper in most areas, like hundreds of feet. I used 50 ft because that was the shallowest point. A train wreck is likely to spill more oil than a pipeline leak.
Water infiltrates into sand at a rate of about 8 m/day. I'm sure oil would have a slower rate, but I don't think it would take much more than a few hours to get to a depth where removing the topsoil wouldn't do much good.
*Edit: Sorry, it's actually 0.8 m/day, but that's still way too fast to clean up a spill a few days later.
-
IMO, we should close all highways that cross the aquifer. There's a really good chance of a car , or GASP a fuel truck, accident and gas seeping into the water supply. Also, no flights over the aquifer as planes carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel and could crash, re-route please. No sewers, waste treatment plants, or public gas lines for the same reasons. JFC, sewers leak sewage all over the place, makes the water taste like crap.
Let's bring all commerce to a screeching halt, because something COULD happen, and EVEN IF IT DID the effect would be potable water by the EPA's own standards. It's not like the treatment plants (that would have to be moved) couldn't filter it out. And let's not pretend that trace amounts of petrol on crops is going to kill them. Afterall, what is petrol actually made of?
This mongoloid administration did the same thing with fractional drilling in Wyoming. There was a slight correlation that some of the solvents used in fracking were leaching into the water table based on trace findings of a plastic that's used in a million things. Although the traces of the contaminant found were well below EPA standards the project was shut down for "further analysis".
It's a joke people, wake the eff up. Stop defending the indefensible.
-
OMG, sound the alarm... President Obama is trying to reroute a pipeline project so that rural Nebraskans don't have to fear having their drinking water contaminated by an oil spill. Meanwhile, domestic oil production in the U.S. is up ~25% since Obama has been in office, and our reliance on foreign oil imports is down from its peak of 60% under the Bush administration to 49%. Oh, the horror!
:flush:
-
OMG, sound the alarm... President Obama is trying to reroute a pipeline project so that rural Nebraskans don't have to fear having their drinking water contaminated by an oil spill. Meanwhile, domestic oil production in the U.S. is up ~25% since Obama has been in office, and our reliance on foreign oil imports is down from its peak of 60% under the Bush administration to 49%. Oh, the horror!
:flush:
The oil discoveries and technological breakthroughs in horizontal drilling have nothing to do with Obama or Bush or any other politician (unless you're one of those crazies that blames Bush for $100+ oil, then you can credit Bush). That's like giving Bill Clinton credit for the internet IPO frenzy, or giving Bush credit for the housing boom. Domestic oil production would be even higher, but for Obama's oppressive and helter skelter administration. Oil imports have been in steady decline since 2006 as a result of the hard work and innovation of the oil exploration industry, god bless them and their penance for creating high paying domestic jobs.
Keep your ignorant "correlation without causation" libtard talking points to yourself and your like-minded friends, and off this board. k thx
-
for BMWhjawk
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overthinkingit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Frs-500-us-oil-production1.jpg&hash=5966c32da3e144253fbc179561083afa6eeb37ad)
-
LOL. Seek therapy.
-
Well it took them longer than usual (a little over a week) but the left is finally getting it's propoganda and outright lies in order regarding the pipeline. An oil pipeline that necessarily takes thousands of people to build and necessarily lowers the cost of transporting oil reducing it's cost at delivery actually reduces the number of jobs and makes the cost of oil go up. Intuition and common sense aside, this is still a ridiculous thing to say.
Unbelieveable. I just can't wait for Gitmo to close so the terrorists will finally stop terrorizing. Then, when we finally get taxes on the rich up to "their fair share" everyone that isn't rich finally can be rich. Finally, when we give everyone free healthcare who is too poor or sick to afford it, the cost we finally come down to reasonable levels. Welcome to the world Tom the Dancing Bug so ironically lives in.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/117832183.html (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/117832183.html)
-
OMG, sound the alarm... President Obama is trying to reroute a pipeline project so that rural Nebraskans don't have to fear having their drinking water contaminated by an oil spill. Meanwhile, domestic oil production in the U.S. is up ~25% since Obama has been in office, and our reliance on foreign oil imports is down from its peak of 60% under the Bush administration to 49%. Oh, the horror!
:flush:
Crediting/blaming any President for pretty much anything is really dumb
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
I'm not sure anybody really has a firm grasp on that. It should lower the global price of oil, but at the same time we currently are purchasing oil from Canada well below the market rate because they don't have the ability to export it. It seems pretty likely that this pipeline could actually increase what we pay for oil in America, especially in the Midwest. It would create thousands of temporary jobs, though. That might be worth paying an extra 10 cents per gallon at the pump. I just don't see the benefit as being so great that we have to push this pipeline through ASAP when it could be easily rerouted to the east.
-
I don't think anyone would care about it getting rerouted/delayed/whatever if Obama's name wasn't connected.
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
I'm not sure anybody really has a firm grasp on that. It should lower the global price of oil, but at the same time we currently are purchasing oil from Canada well below the market rate because they don't have the ability to export it. It seems pretty likely that this pipeline could actually increase what we pay for oil in America, especially in the Midwest. It would create thousands of temporary jobs, though. That might be worth paying an extra 10 cents per gallon at the pump. I just don't see the benefit as being so great that we have to push this pipeline through ASAP when it could be easily rerouted to the east.
Then eff that. We need preferred rates. A bunch of temporary jobs so some loser laborers can buy new Camaros/bass boats and screw everyone else with higher prices as a tube full of oil cuts through our country is not a good deal for us.
-
OMG, sound the alarm... President Obama is trying to reroute a pipeline project so that rural Nebraskans don't have to fear having their drinking water contaminated by an oil spill. Meanwhile, domestic oil production in the U.S. is up ~25% since Obama has been in office, and our reliance on foreign oil imports is down from its peak of 60% under the Bush administration to 49%. Oh, the horror!
:flush:
Crediting/blaming any President for pretty much anything is really dumb
No it's not. The executive branch has a lot of power.
-
They just need to have bob krause offer to take out a life insurance policy to get this thing crackin.
-
OMG, sound the alarm... President Obama is trying to reroute a pipeline project so that rural Nebraskans don't have to fear having their drinking water contaminated by an oil spill. Meanwhile, domestic oil production in the U.S. is up ~25% since Obama has been in office, and our reliance on foreign oil imports is down from its peak of 60% under the Bush administration to 49%. Oh, the horror!
:flush:
Crediting/blaming any President for pretty much anything is really dumb
No it's not. The executive branch has a lot of power.
I guess you are right. Look at all of those wars Bush started all by himself.
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
cheaper for everyone
-
I don't think anyone would care about it getting rerouted/delayed/whatever if Obama's name wasn't connected.
The only reason it got "whatevered" was because of Obama, so this is a really dumb argument. It's also incredibly naive and ignorant
-
I don't think anyone would care about it getting rerouted/delayed/whatever if Obama's name wasn't connected.
If Obama's name wasn't attached to it, construction would have started already.
-
[three "guys" sitting at a table at Bourgeoisie Pig]
Guy 2: "hey fellers, I don't think they should give black players player of the year in college ball"
BMWJhawk: "LOL seek therapy, I agree"
Guy 3: "I think Obama is a mommy"
BMWJhawk: "LOL seek therapy, I agree" "It really irks me that my lord and savior Obama is such a shill for the oil industry. Did you know our oil production is through the roof, all because of him."
Guy 2: "Yes, that's absolutely true, I agree"
Guy 3: "Absolutely, I agree"
BMWJhawk: tweets: [I just remembered I left the toaster on #kufball] "crap!, gotta go"
-
[three "guys" sitting at a table at Bourgeoisie Pig]
Guy 2: "hey fellers, I don't think they should give black players player of the year in college ball"
BMWJhawk: "LOL seek therapy, I agree"
Guy 3: "I think Obama is a mommy"
BMWJhawk: "LOL seek therapy, I agree" "It really irks me that my lord and savior Obama is such a shill for the oil industry. Did you know our oil production is through the roof, all because of him."
Guy 2: "Yes, that's absolutely true, I agree"
Guy 3: "Absolutely, I agree"
BMWJhawk: tweets: [I just remembered I left the toaster on #kufball] "crap!, gotta go"
:confused:
-
I don't think anyone would care about it getting rerouted/delayed/whatever if Obama's name wasn't connected.
If Obama's name wasn't attached to it, construction would have started already.
If the federal government had no involvement in the energy sector, i.e. no DOE, construction would have been blocked when Nebraska voted to not allow the pipeline.
-
[three "guys" sitting at a table at Bourgeoisie Pig]
Guy 2: "hey fellers, I don't think they should give black players player of the year in college ball"
BMWJhawk: "LOL seek therapy, I agree"
Guy 3: "I think Obama is a mommy"
BMWJhawk: "LOL seek therapy, I agree" "It really irks me that my lord and savior Obama is such a shill for the oil industry. Did you know our oil production is through the roof, all because of him."
Guy 2: "Yes, that's absolutely true, I agree"
Guy 3: "Absolutely, I agree"
BMWJhawk: tweets: [I just remembered I left the toaster on #kufball] "crap!, gotta go"
what on earth
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
cheaper for everyone
Ok. So the reports that it will actually raise some prices in the midwest are false?
-
for BMWhjawk
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overthinkingit.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F09%2Frs-500-us-oil-production1.jpg&hash=5966c32da3e144253fbc179561083afa6eeb37ad)
:sdeek:
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
cheaper for everyone
Ok. So the reports that it will actually raise some prices in the midwest are false?
No. The reason they're building a $7 billion pipeline across nearly 2/3rds of the continent is to have it refined for export in Texas. If the goal was to sell this oil only in the U.S. they would build a pipeline to refineries in the Midwest, which would be much cheaper to do.
-
shut the front door.
so FSD has been lying this whole time :horrorsurprise:
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
cheaper for everyone
Ok. So the reports that it will actually raise some prices in the midwest are false?
No. The reason they're building a $7 billion pipeline across nearly 2/3rds of the continent is to have it refined for export in Texas. If the goal was to sell this oil only in the U.S. they would build a pipeline to refineries in the Midwest, which would be much cheaper to do.
:facepalm:
yeah, it's a devious plan to bypass all those midwest refineries with limitless capacity to refine oil. what they really want to send oil to refineries in Texas so rather than refine the oil it can be shipped overseas.
This is utter nonsense. I can't believe this thread is still going with these outlandish claims and absurd statements. Idiocy
The pipeline is to expedite and improve the efficiency of transporting oil. Can you imagine if all your vegetables were still delivered by horse and cart? A lot of it is already going to Texas, by rail rather than by pipe. There hasn't been a refinery in the US with excess capacity since the 70's. Nebraska wasn't going to block it, nor did they help block it. The president's own advisors said NOT to block it. It's the unilateral action of one man pandering to the environazis.
-
So, will this pipeline make oil more expensive or not? I think you can handle the spill issue by making Keystone post a bond or be liable for any damages caused by a spill.
cheaper for everyone
Ok. So the reports that it will actually raise some prices in the midwest are false?
No. The reason they're building a $7 billion pipeline across nearly 2/3rds of the continent is to have it refined for export in Texas. If the goal was to sell this oil only in the U.S. they would build a pipeline to refineries in the Midwest, which would be much cheaper to do.
:facepalm:
yeah, it's a devious plan to bypass all those midwest refineries with limitless capacity to refine oil. what they really want to send oil to refineries in Texas so rather than refine the oil it can be shipped overseas.
This is utter nonsense. I can't believe this thread is still going with these outlandish claims and absurd statements. Idiocy
The pipeline is to expedite and improve the efficiency of transporting oil. Can you imagine if all your vegetables were still delivered by horse and cart? A lot of it is already going to Texas, by rail rather than by pipe. There hasn't been a refinery in the US with excess capacity since the 70's. Nebraska wasn't going to block it, nor did they help block it. The president's own advisors said NOT to block it. It's the unilateral action of one man pandering to the environazis.
Oh, so Nebraska wants the pipeline now? Also, if every refinery in the US is already operating under 100% capacity, then how does getting more crude to Texas help us?
-
seems like midwestern refineries could process and ship oil through the Great Lakes.
shorter pipeline and access to markets
but i am admittedly really dumb so why doesn't this work??? why the need to reach the gulf???
-
seems like midwestern refineries could process and ship oil through the Great Lakes.
shorter pipeline and access to markets
but i am admittedly really dumb so why doesn't this work??? why the need to reach the gulf???
Canadian Pirates!!!!
-
Also, if every refinery in the US is already operating under 100% capacity, then how does getting more crude to Texas help us?
Stop, you're being a dumbass. Understand the difference between producing a product, taking it to market, and what is done with that product once it leaves market. The guy that grows the carrot is different than the guy who trucks it, is different that the guy who washes and bundles it, is different than the guy who sells it, is different than the guy the puts it in your salad at Golden Corral.
Refinery capacity is near 100%. Believe or not, they have to be shut down every once in a while for maintenance, EPA colonoscopy, etc. We're literally refining as much oil as we possibly (and safely) can in the US. At $110 p/bbl it needs to go somewhere. Think of, GASP, the lost tax revenues if it stayed in the ground. The cheaper it gets to the refineries the cheaper its costs, the cheaper it is for everyone. Oil is not refined in North Dakota or Canada. It needs to get to market so it can be sold.
There is no sense in arguing the merits of shutting down the pipeline, because outside of the environazis, Obama, and you, everyone knows and agrees it was wrong.
-
If the goal was to sell this oil only in the U.S. they would build a pipeline to refineries in the Midwest, which would be much cheaper to do.
why the need to reach the gulf???
There already is a pipeline to the midwest. The original Keystone pipeline (completed within the last couple years) goes to crude terminals in Oklahoma and the St. Louis area. The are some other smaller pipelines that go to the great leaks region and then down to STL and OK as well. Refineries can only run so much of the stuff and midwest refining capacity isn't nearly enough to run what the expected production from Canada will get up to. The gulf has lots of refining capacity and could take this crude rather than the importing from somewhere overseas.
It's a good thing for the industry and the country to have a stable supply of oil from our own continent. If we block it from getting to the gulf, they will probably just build a pipeline to the Pacific and ship it to Asia.
-
If the goal was to sell this oil only in the U.S. they would build a pipeline to refineries in the Midwest, which would be much cheaper to do.
why the need to reach the gulf???
There already is a pipeline to the midwest. The original Keystone pipeline (completed within the last couple years) goes to crude terminals in Oklahoma and the St. Louis area. The are some other smaller pipelines that go to the great leaks region and then down to STL and OK as well. Refineries can only run so much of the stuff and midwest refining capacity isn't nearly enough to run what the expected production from Canada will get up to. The gulf has lots of refining capacity and could take this crude rather than the importing from somewhere overseas.
It's a good thing for the industry and the country to have a stable supply of oil from our own continent. If we block it from getting to the gulf, they will probably just build a pipeline to the Pacific and ship it to Asia.
Yeah, the Canadian environmentalists and native tribes would never let a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast of Canada happen, though. Canada needs this pipeline. TransCanada will build it wherever the United States will let them build it. They have no other options. There is absolutely no reason to let them run the oil over the sand hills when there are other potential routes.
Also, I believe the benefits of most of our oil imports coming from Canada are exaggerated. This is an interesting article on the subject of energy independence.
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W11_Verleger.pdf (http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W11_Verleger.pdf)
-
the aquifer is already in danger :horrorsurprise:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theodora.com%2Fpipelines%2Funited_states_pipelines_map.jpg&hash=6f2409b73b2e8b56cdd17bf6830e89010dd18295)
-
the aquifer is already in danger :horrorsurprise:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theodora.com%2Fpipelines%2Funited_states_pipelines_map.jpg&hash=6f2409b73b2e8b56cdd17bf6830e89010dd18295)
What are the capacities of all of those different pipelines?
-
the aquifer is already in danger :horrorsurprise:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theodora.com%2Fpipelines%2Funited_states_pipelines_map.jpg&hash=6f2409b73b2e8b56cdd17bf6830e89010dd18295)
Well it looks like Canada already has a pipeline and doesn't need another.
-
If the goal was to sell this oil only in the U.S. they would build a pipeline to refineries in the Midwest, which would be much cheaper to do.
why the need to reach the gulf???
There already is a pipeline to the midwest. The original Keystone pipeline (completed within the last couple years) goes to crude terminals in Oklahoma and the St. Louis area. The are some other smaller pipelines that go to the great leaks region and then down to STL and OK as well. Refineries can only run so much of the stuff and midwest refining capacity isn't nearly enough to run what the expected production from Canada will get up to. The gulf has lots of refining capacity and could take this crude rather than the importing from somewhere overseas.
It's a good thing for the industry and the country to have a stable supply of oil from our own continent. If we block it from getting to the gulf, they will probably just build a pipeline to the Pacific and ship it to Asia.
Yeah, the Canadian environmentalists and native tribes would never let a pipeline from Alberta to the west coast of Canada happen, though. Canada needs this pipeline. TransCanada will build it wherever the United States will let them build it. They have no other options. There is absolutely no reason to let them run the oil over the sand hills when there are other potential routes.
Also, I believe the benefits of most of our oil imports coming from Canada are exaggerated. This is an interesting article on the subject of energy independence.
http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W11_Verleger.pdf (http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_W11_Verleger.pdf)
Maybe so but eventually they will get the oil to the demand, gulf or Asia. Might as well be us. I don't really care what route the keystone takes, one side needs to budge so that the project can get started.
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
This may force TransCanada to make a public statement.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3900 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3900)
Right now, I don't think the answer to your question is available since it has become a political issue.
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
Yes, most likely. You won't have to support as many people's unemployment with tax dollars, though. Honestly, I don't think the effect on the cost of gas will amount to much.
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
Yes, most likely. You won't have to support as many people's unemployment with tax dollars, though. Honestly, I don't think the effect on the cost of gas will amount to much.
Then, when the pipeline is complete, we all pay more for gas without the jobs and Canada is pushing crude over our land for shipping out of our ports for sale in foreign markets?
I mean, I get that we need jobs but why not just build it ourselves and charge the Canadians a large user fee?
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
Yes, most likely. You won't have to support as many people's unemployment with tax dollars, though. Honestly, I don't think the effect on the cost of gas will amount to much.
Then, when the pipeline is complete, we all pay more for gas without the jobs and Canada is pushing crude over our land for shipping out of our ports for sale in foreign markets?
I mean, I get that we need jobs but why not just build it ourselves and charge the Canadians a large user fee?
It's not going to make gas cost more in the midwest, that is nonsense
we obviously need and use a crap ton of oil in the US, we don't produce enough to meet our needs. fortunately canada has a lot and they don't use the proceeds from its sale to kill us so that's good too. pipe will bring oil to our refineries quicker and cheaper. we also get a crap ton of jobs out of it
this isn't a difficult concept
-
The cheaper it gets to the refineries the cheaper its costs, the cheaper it is for everyone.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What a rough ridin' tard.
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
Yes, most likely. You won't have to support as many people's unemployment with tax dollars, though. Honestly, I don't think the effect on the cost of gas will amount to much.
Then, when the pipeline is complete, we all pay more for gas without the jobs and Canada is pushing crude over our land for shipping out of our ports for sale in foreign markets?
I mean, I get that we need jobs but why not just build it ourselves and charge the Canadians a large user fee?
It's not going to make gas cost more in the midwest, that is nonsense
we obviously need and use a crap ton of oil in the US, we don't produce enough to meet our needs. fortunately canada has a lot and they don't use the proceeds from its sale to kill us so that's good too. pipe will bring oil to our refineries quicker and cheaper. we also get a crap ton of jobs out of it
this isn't a difficult concept
If you were a major stockholder of an oil company and you had a big pipeline to reduce the cost of getting your oil to refineries and to market, would you want your company to pass that cost savings on to your customers, or would you want to sell the oil at the market rate so that you make a lot of money? I would sell the oil at market rate, personally.
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
Yes, most likely. You won't have to support as many people's unemployment with tax dollars, though. Honestly, I don't think the effect on the cost of gas will amount to much.
Then, when the pipeline is complete, we all pay more for gas without the jobs and Canada is pushing crude over our land for shipping out of our ports for sale in foreign markets?
I mean, I get that we need jobs but why not just build it ourselves and charge the Canadians a large user fee?
It's not going to make gas cost more in the midwest, that is nonsense
we obviously need and use a crap ton of oil in the US, we don't produce enough to meet our needs. fortunately canada has a lot and they don't use the proceeds from its sale to kill us so that's good too. pipe will bring oil to our refineries quicker and cheaper. we also get a crap ton of jobs out of it
this isn't a difficult concept
If you were a major stockholder of an oil company and you had a big pipeline to reduce the cost of getting your oil to refineries and to market, would you want your company to pass that cost savings on to your customers, or would you want to sell the oil at the market rate so that you make a lot of money? I would sell the oil at market rate, personally.
you idiots clearly have no idea how this works
-
Has anyone answered my question? Are we just helping the Canadians get their oil to foreign markets cheaper in exchange for some chitty blue collar jobs that will be gone in a few years?
Yes. We should also get more oil into our gulf coast refineries, while bypassing some of our midwest refineries. We are talking about thousands of blue collar jobs, though.
So, if I am not a grease monkey who would work on a pipeline, but I buy gas in the midwest, I am likely to pay more for my gas thus will be worse off. Right?
Yes, most likely. You won't have to support as many people's unemployment with tax dollars, though. Honestly, I don't think the effect on the cost of gas will amount to much.
Then, when the pipeline is complete, we all pay more for gas without the jobs and Canada is pushing crude over our land for shipping out of our ports for sale in foreign markets?
I mean, I get that we need jobs but why not just build it ourselves and charge the Canadians a large user fee?
It's not going to make gas cost more in the midwest, that is nonsense
we obviously need and use a crap ton of oil in the US, we don't produce enough to meet our needs. fortunately canada has a lot and they don't use the proceeds from its sale to kill us so that's good too. pipe will bring oil to our refineries quicker and cheaper. we also get a crap ton of jobs out of it
this isn't a difficult concept
If you were a major stockholder of an oil company and you had a big pipeline to reduce the cost of getting your oil to refineries and to market, would you want your company to pass that cost savings on to your customers, or would you want to sell the oil at the market rate so that you make a lot of money? I would sell the oil at market rate, personally.
you idiots clearly have no idea how this works
At this point, the cost of gasoline has nothing to do with the cost to extract, ship and refine oil. Those factors even have very little to do with the cost of the actual oil.
Oil from tar sands cost about $27 per barrel to produce with a gravity of less than 10 api (really shitty oil for refining).
Dubai crude can be produced for between $3-$10 per barrel with a gravity of 31 api (good for refining).
The tar sand oil will sell for about $100, while the Dubai oil will run $115 or so.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-claims-a-bipartisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html
:sdeek:
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-jobs-claims-a-bipartisan-fumble/2011/12/13/gIQAwxFisO_blog.html
:sdeek:
I have no doubt that more than 51 dancer jobs would be created if you include exotic dancers.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fadmin%2Fed-assets%2F2012%2F03%2FTOONCLR030112_800.jpg.cms_.png&hash=a35361e570216b33e524733a7be7d03347a3a7f2)
-
Why was oil so high under Bush?
I know there is a dem/lib to blame.
-
Good point Lickey. Bush and Obama are the same. IIRC, libs loved Bush? Surprised he didn't get a third term.
-
Why was oil so high under Bush?
I know there is a dem/lib to blame.
Because of supply and demand. The same forces are also at play here, as always. However, that doesn't mean Obama has not contributed to the problem.
-
I had no idea B.O. was actually taking credit for the increase in domestic production. :lol: We haven't seen this level of propaganda since FDR. Good God. :facepalm:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/02/will-energy-be-obamas-waterloo
-
Maybe this Obama guy knew what he was doing after all.
Retail gasoline deliveries are through the floor:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Fdnav%2Fpet%2Fhist_chart%2FA103600001M.jpg&hash=d33f600499d55e79126ee79f988eddb603b5bfb4)
Exports of finished gasoline are up (almost 20% YOY):
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Fdnav%2Fpet%2Fhist_chart%2FMGFEXUS2M.jpg&hash=bb0bcc31b5916cdfddecdeee82a547494a3590bd)
Imports are trending down:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Fdnav%2Fpet%2Fhist_chart%2FWGTIMUS2w.jpg&hash=f045bcedcb561c59cfc34c94f9c6547b5a041325)
Inventories are normal:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eia.gov%2Foog%2Finfo%2Ftwip%2Fgtstusm.gif&hash=b20a52ff013fdabada48577b5bb251857976970e)
Apparently those 1300 Volts are really doing their job & we clearly don't need that cheap Canadian oil! :emawkid:
-
I had no idea B.O. was actually taking credit for the increase in domestic production. :lol: We haven't seen this level of propaganda since FDR. Good God. :facepalm:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/02/will-energy-be-obamas-waterloo
I meant to link to that editorial. There's also some good info in there about why wind and solar are such massive debacles.
-
Bump: Obama still blocking it. Not the Nebraska sand farmer scapegoats. This thread is full of idiot liberal logic, lies and misinformation. :lol:
-
Bump: Obama still blocking it. Not the Nebraska sand farmer scapegoats. This thread is full of idiot liberal logic, lies and misinformation. :lol:
As soon as obama is gone, the thing will get built. Meanwhile, all of the oil is being shipped by Buffet's trains, which is much more dangerous and environmentally worse.
-
all of the oil is being shipped by Buffet's trains
FYI a group of KSU alums design and manufacture the latest technology in loading said train cars with oil. They are currently making a killing and KSU athletics is benefiting. This is good for KSU FB, so there's that.
-
all of the oil is being shipped by Buffet's trains
FYI a group of KSU alums design and manufacture the latest technology in loading said train cars with oil. They are currently making a killing and KSU athletics is benefiting. This is good for KSU FB, so there's that.
Of course there are 'cats out there attempting to save the world from the libs, but pipelines will always be safer and more efficient.
-
all of the oil is being shipped by Buffet's trains
FYI a group of KSU alums design and manufacture the latest technology in loading said train cars with oil. They are currently making a killing and KSU athletics is benefiting. This is good for KSU FB, so there's that.
Cool. But transporting oil and gas by pipeline seems much more efficient in the long run than by rail. At least, it would be, in a perfect world without liberals.
Speaking of which, seems about time one of the resident libtards chimes in with the standard "oil production is way up (on private land) under Obama" canard.
-
Obama's "economy" speeches really fly in the face of his actions on this pipe.
"Streamline the permit process"
What a rough ridin' clown
-
So angry. So butthurt. The Republican party, ladies and gentlemen!
:dance:
-
So angry. So butthurt. The Republican party, ladies and gentlemen!
:dance:
Pipelines are better for the environment. It's like liberals have waged a war on the environment and women lately.
-
So angry. So butthurt. The Republican party, ladies and gentlemen!
:dance:
Pipelines are better for the environment. It's like liberals have waged a war on the environment and women lately.
:lol:
-
Obama's "economy" speeches really fly in the face of his actions on this pipe.
"Streamline the permit process"
What a rough ridin' clown
he really is the worst ever
-
So angry. So butthurt. The Republican party, ladies and gentlemen!
:dance:
Pipelines are better for the environment. It's like liberals have waged a war on the environment and women lately.
:lol:
Oh yeah, trains and ships never spill oil and move it more efficiently.
The only reason obama won't approve it is because his enviro-nazis wants less oil, period.
-
For some reason I'm skeptical that building a pipeline for Canadian tar sands oil is going to solve this country's economic woes.
-
For some reason I'm skeptical that building a pipeline for Canadian tar sands oil is going to solve this country's economic woes.
It's not meant to, but it certainly will help. It would be the one thing obama could point to and say he helped the economy.
-
Pipelines are better for the environment.
yeah. the block the pipeline to prevent exploitation of the tar sands people are dumbasses.
-
Pipelines are better for the environment.
yeah. the block the pipeline to prevent exploitation of the tar sands people are dumbasses.
Yes, and they're delusional enough to thinknitactually prevents the exploitation of the tar sands.
-
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/30/2384551/obama-keystone-jobs/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/30/2384551/obama-keystone-jobs/)
While Republicans have advocated for Keystone by insisting that it will create jobs, Obama slammed that assertion Tuesday, pointing to the Cornell University estimate that Keystone would only create 50 permanent jobs:
If [Congressional Republicans have] got a better plan to create jobs rebuilding our infrastructure or to help workers earn the high-tech skills they need, then they should offer up these ideas. But I’ve got to tell you, just gutting our environmental protection, that’s not a jobs plan. Gutting investments in education, that’s not a jobs plan. You know, they keep on talking about an oil pipeline coming down from Canada that’s estimated to create about 50 permanent jobs. That’s not a jobs plan.
An estimate done by Obama’s own State Department pegs the the total number of permanent jobs created by Keystone even lower — at a mere 35. But that’s not the only reason not to build it; were the pipeline completed, it would emit levels of CO2 equivalent to that of 51 coal-fired power plants.
While for a time it seemed as though the pipeline was set to go through, more recently, Obama has been on the fence about Keystone’s creation. In a speech last month, he set the ultimatum that he would only approve it if it “does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” Surely, he will find that it does. A recent National Resources Defense Council estimate of the project found that “approving the tar sands pipeline would add 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere over the 50-year lifespan of the project.”
Eat that, pubtards.
-
A recent National Resources Defense Council estimate of the project found that “approving the tar sands pipeline would add 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere over the 50-year lifespan of the project.”
Eat that, pubtards.
That emission total is direct and indirect production based emissions from the development of the tar sands, and not emissions from the actual pipeline. That area has been and will continue to be extensively developed, whether or not the Keystone XL is completed or not. The XL project is just the first option.
-
oregon, was that written by a journalist? because that journalist should be fired, if so (unless you deliberately distorted meaning by removing context).
-
Thinkprogress, tho
:lol:
-
oregon, was that written by a journalist? because that journalist should be fired, if so (unless you deliberately distorted meaning by removing context).
Is this what is called an ad hominem attack? Just asking for a friend
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthfirstjournal.org%2Fnewswire%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2013%2F12%2Fea387b1f89927cf4.jpg&hash=060aefbc463e167268a805d5d7fad6a38f2ae8a0)
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthfirstjournal.org%2Fnewswire%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2013%2F12%2Fea387b1f89927cf4.jpg&hash=060aefbc463e167268a805d5d7fad6a38f2ae8a0)
It's in North Dakota. That is an improvement
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fearthfirstjournal.org%2Fnewswire%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F3%2F2013%2F12%2Fea387b1f89927cf4.jpg&hash=060aefbc463e167268a805d5d7fad6a38f2ae8a0)
It's in North Dakota. That is an improvement
Someone is still bitter
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqeNlRg6M8I
-
Shipping oil by rail instead of installing pipelines - just another feather in the cap for the enviro nitwits, kind of like reducing nuclear power.
-
Buffet's best investment in 2013. What a crony douchenozzle
-
The midterm elections claim their first tangible result. Harry Reid is going to finally allow the Senate to vote on Keystone to try to help Mary Landrieu save her ass in Louisiana. :lol: Of course, it will pass, which is why Harry would never allow a vote previously.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-democrats-plan-vote-on-keystone-xl-pipeline/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-democrats-plan-vote-on-keystone-xl-pipeline/)
But wait, it gets even funnier.
Senate Democrats plan to hold a vote Tuesday on a bill to approve the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, a move that could help Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, who is headed for a Dec. 6 runoff to keep her seat.
Landrieu, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, appeared on the floor of the Senate and in a press conference for reporters Wednesday to urge the Democratic leadership to take up the bill during the lame-duck session that will take place until the next Congress is sworn in in January.
"We believe the bill that we drafted :lol: could gain support in the House of Representatives and could potentially receive the signature of the president of the United States which is important and necessary for this bill to become law," Landrieu told reporters Wednesday. She has said her influence on energy policy is one of the key reasons she deserves re-election over her Republican challenger, Louisiana Rep. Bill Cassidy, and a chief difference she has with President Obama.
The Republican-led House, which has already voted to approve construction of the long-delayed pipeline, doesn't want to give Landrieu the credit if it passes. The body plans to hold a vote on its own version of a Keystone bill Thursday, which will be named the "Cassidy Keystone Solution" after Landrieu's opponent. :lol:
Poor Tom Steyer. :Crybaby:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biggreenradicals.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F11%2FSad-Steyer.jpg&hash=0a81d84649b87e80b245ec753daa54af325cc6ea)
-
Obama will never sign a Keystone bill, 'cause politics.
-
Obama will never sign a Keystone bill, 'cause politics.
I think he probably will if it lands on his desk. We'll finally see. Obama and his fellow libtards should be well aware by now after two midterm ass-kickings that the klimate krazies don't win elections. Meanwhile, white working class males - still a very important voting bloc - are increasingly slipping away from the Dems due to their whacko policies. If Ohio goes Red in 2016, the Dems' path to the WH gets significantly narrower.
-
Heh. Chuckie Schumer tried to intervene, and Mary evidently told him to eff off.
Before her remarks, Landrieu was spotted riding the escalator alone up from the Senate trains that carry lawmakers between their offices and the Capitol, toward a row of elevators. She was stone-faced and declined to answer questions from reporters. Once she reached the top level and stepped off, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of his party’s top campaign strategists, walked over.
Smiling, he asked Landrieu to step aside for a private conversation. She shook her head and moved briskly toward the elevator. As she did, she pointed to her phone, saying she had a call. Schumer paused for a moment as she moved away. His smile dropped, and he turned to follow her. “Mary, Mary,” he said, a few steps behind, asking her to speak with him. When she kept moving and ducked into an elevator, he hustled and jumped in to join her as the doors closed.
Advertisement
A few minutes later, Landrieu took to the Senate floor to vent her frustrations and to try to shift the political winds in her direction.
:lol:
-
Obama will never sign a Keystone bill, 'cause politics.
I think he probably will if it lands on his desk. We'll finally see. Obama and his fellow libtards should be well aware by now after two midterm ass-kickings that the klimate krazies don't win elections. Meanwhile, white working class males - still a very important voting bloc - are increasingly slipping away from the Dems due to their whacko policies. If Ohio goes Red in 2016, the Dems' path to the WH gets significantly narrower.
I just don't see Obama signing on a bill that makes it through the House, and I think he'll burn the country to the ground before he compromises on anything. Just look at his sequestration move, which libs still believe was a republican idea, where he refused to compromise.
-
Good grief JD
-
Good grief JD
I know it hurts, bro.
-
You are better than that post dude
-
seven, Obama is now a confirmed ideologue, as in "the end justifies the means". Ideologues, by definition, don't compromise.
-
seven, Obama is now a confirmed ideologue, as in "the end justifies the means". Ideologues, by definition, don't compromise.
I guess that depends on your ideology. I myself am a compromise ideologue, so by definition I always and only compromise. I think we can agree on that much, at least.
-
Whatsherface needs pipeline to have any chance in louisiana run off.
Obama knows he has to sign a popular pipeline bill anyway.
So they hatch this plan to make it look like their idea and not be humialiated with what O sees as an oncoming shitsammich.
-
g27 is renocat? :surprised:
-
Four damn years for Obama to conclude "well dang this thing may be all right". Reminds me of my inbred genetically short-changed brain dog who just sits around licking his happy stick and balls. I guess he preening himself to look good for other dogs. I would call him Barak, but he would bite me. All Obama cares about is getting a vote, When he gets frisky he tells MOOOchelle to pull the lever and vote for promised loving.
-
Four damn years for Obama to conclude "well dang this thing may be all right". Reminds me of my inbred genetically short-changed brain dog who just sits around licking his happy stick and balls. I guess he preening himself to look good for other dogs. I would call him Barak, but he would bite me. All Obama cares about is getting a vote, When he gets frisky he tells MOOOchelle to pull the lever and vote for promised loving.
Maybe he does it for the same reason I do--it just feels good. He's all barak and no bite.
-
seven, Obama is now a confirmed ideologue, as in "the end justifies the means". Ideologues, by definition, don't compromise.
It's sad, really
-
Just when I thought Obama got some brains from the Wizard, but it appears he picked up one of TOto's turds instead. Articles today say he is back peddling on allowing Keystone. He said it will not create jobs, and provide us oil. Instead we should build roads, bridges, buildings to create jobs. Hello, the wicked witch is dead, and no longer controls mindless monkeys. Keystone = private investment. The other is government investment which is needed, but has nothing to do with Keystone. So does he want the government to build and control pipelines? Never, pump them greenies up with natural gas, light it, and send to China to clean up their crap brown air and urine yellow streams..
-
Drill, Baby, Drill!
-
Why is Obama the final say on a pipeline?
-
Why is Obama the final say on a pipeline?
The renderings of elected despotism?
-
I'm serious. How did interstate pipeline become something the president approves?
-
I'm serious. How did interstate pipeline become something the president approves?
the project would require the review/approval of a number of executive branches anyways (depts of interior, energy, epa, etc), but because it crosses an international border it also falls under the review of the dept. of state. the dept. of the state's review is by far the broadest in scope. the dept. of the state decides if the project is in the nation's interest.
the president heads the executive branch of government and has final authority over the executive departments and agencies.
-
Gawd, our president sucks so hard
-
:lol:
-
:lol:
You've really been off your pit game lately. What gives?
-
:lol:
You've really been off your pit game lately. What gives?
you got annihilated by sys and your response was "gawd, our president sucks so hard", excuse me for finding that very :lol: worthy
:lol:
-
:lol:
You've really been off your pit game lately. What gives?
you got annihilated by sys and your response was "gawd, our president sucks so hard", excuse me for finding that very :lol: worthy
I'm
:lol:
Wut?
-
So the senate voted on the keystone today but fell one short of the needed 60 votes (59 voted yes). Is presume this is some legislative remedy around the administrative roadblock and why B.O. is the final say (via veto).
-
Is presume this is some legislative remedy around the administrative roadblock and why B.O. is the final say (via veto).
the Keystone XL bill will not let any other pipelines that cross international borders bypass the State Department's permitting process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/18/another-reason-to-be-outraged-over-congress-keystone-bill-it-gives-one-company-special-treatment/
-
Sys is a great research assistant. :combofan:
-
So the senate voted on the keystone today but fell one short of the needed 60 votes (59 voted yes). Is presume this is some legislative remedy around the administrative roadblock and why B.O. is the final say (via veto).
One last hurrah for the lame duck Dem majority. The vote was calculated to fall exactly one vote short, but next session I don't think they'll have 41 votes. It will finally land on Obama's desk. But at this point, the issue is making the entire Dem party look silly, not just Obama.
-
god damn calculating dems :curse:
-
I am afraid environmentalists will sue and tie this up in court no matter what Congress does. Most people do not realize that most enviromental laws have citizen lawsuits provisions that the public can use to force the government to enforce law and regulation standards. Also Native Americans say the pipeline will cross their sovereign nation and will sue also. Meanwhile, Canada will likely determine Marvy Superhero Envirohole Obama will fight this because conservatives want it, and build a trans-Canada to an eastern seaport to ship oil out in tankers, likely to China. China will burn the hell out it and pollute the air.
-
it's been a long-time since keystone xl was proposed, people haven't been just sitting around waiting for it. there's oil coming south now, and numerous planned/proposed new pipelines and expansions. at a minimum, expansion of transmountain and expansion of the alberta clipper seem likely (to me) to go through no matter what happens with keystone xl. each would have about the same capacity as keystone xl.
the oil isn't going to be stranded.
-
god damn calculating dems :curse:
Why are you mad about it? I just think it's funny that the media reports this "it failed by a single vote" BS as if it was that close to passing! :lol: The votes are decided ahead of time, allowing as many vulnerable Dems as possible to vote in favor of popular legislation while still ensuring that the bill is defeated to appease the activist base that is so contrary to public opinion. Hell, they probably draw straws for all I know.
-
Is presume this is some legislative remedy around the administrative roadblock and why B.O. is the final say (via veto).
the Keystone XL bill will not let any other pipelines that cross international borders bypass the State Department's permitting process.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/18/another-reason-to-be-outraged-over-congress-keystone-bill-it-gives-one-company-special-treatment/
That seems like a really bad thing, why would people want that passed?
-
We gotta re-write the constitution to stop allowing our democratically elected leaders to vote on stuff
-
We gotta re-write the constitution to stop allowing our democratically elected leaders to vote on stuff
Amendment is a pain on the ass. Just ignore it like our president (the constitutional law "scholar") does.
-
seven, Obama is now a confirmed ideologue, as in "the end justifies the means". Ideologues, by definition, don't compromise.
What is his "end" that you're perceiving here? What will he burn the country to the ground to accomplish?
-
seven, Obama is now a confirmed ideologue, as in "the end justifies the means". Ideologues, by definition, don't compromise.
What is his "end" that you're perceiving here? What will he burn the country to the ground to accomplish?
Destroying the American way of life
-
seven, Obama is now a confirmed ideologue, as in "the end justifies the means". Ideologues, by definition, don't compromise.
What is his "end" that you're perceiving here? What will he burn the country to the ground to accomplish?
The end was Obamacare and the means involved intentionally lying to you about what the bill really was and is.
-
So in your mind he's going to veto this pipeline bill coming up to save obamacare?
-
Maybe he just really, really likes Miller Lite? Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
-
silver bullet
-
Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted? I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.
-
Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted? I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.
Nebraska objected to the project at first. I'm not sure if they still object, though. I think a project like this should need approval from each state legislature that it passes through.
-
Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted? I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.
Nebraska objected to the project at first. I'm not sure if they still object, though. I think a project like this should need approval from each state legislature that it passes through.
That happened years ago. JFC
-
Can anyone name one real reason why this shouldn't have been summarily permitted? I haven't seen a single reason that wasn't fallacy by definition.
no. but i'm glad it was rerouted around the sandhills. and using eminent domain to seize property for private projects is completely horrible, immoral, etc.
-
Fwiw, you have to consent to be regulated as a utility to have condemnation powers, so it's quasi-public
-
Fwiw, you have to consent to be regulated as a utility to have condemnation powers, so it's quasi-public
i don't really know how that makes it any different. it still seems ridiculous and wrong to me.
-
Fwiw, you have to consent to be regulated as a utility to have condemnation powers, so it's quasi-public
i don't really know how that makes it any different. it still seems ridiculous and wrong to me.
Think of it like the gas line that heats your house. Without condemnation powers (these are easements, not fee simple) people would be unable to hook up or the cost would be outrageous.
-
Think of it like the gas line that heats your house. Without condemnation powers (these are easements, not fee simple) people would be unable to hook up or the cost would be outrageous.
i can see how it is practical, for anything that is long and thin and crosses a ton of people's property. but it still seems immoral.
-
Think of it like the gas line that heats your house. Without condemnation powers (these are easements, not fee simple) people would be unable to hook up or the cost would be outrageous.
i can see how it is practical, for anything that is long and thin and crosses a ton of people's property. but it still seems immoral.
It's a sacrifice we all make to have access to roads, water, gas, internet, phone, electricity, etc.
I agree the condemnation to build things like arenas and Pfizer offices is bullshit.
-
There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.
-
Plus, less than 1% of the land was condemned (although the hammer of condemnation obviously incentives private contract)
-
It's a sacrifice we all make to have access to roads, water, gas, internet, phone, electricity, etc.
yeah, except it's just a small number of people making the sacrifices, not everyone. and against their will.
btw, by pure coincidence i heard this podcast today, which is the most heartwarming story about eminent domain (not really, but kinda related) you'll ever hear. i also liked the weirdo nyc guy who refused to sell his property.
http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/holdout/
-
There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.
what in the world does that have to do with eminent domain? are you suggesting they deserve to have to forfeit their property rights because they're unreasonable?
-
There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.
what in the world does that have to do with eminent domain? are you suggesting they deserve to have to forfeit their property rights because they're unreasonable?
Huh? I'm not saying unreasonable farmers deserve to forfeit their property rights - I'm not sure what that even means or where you got that from. Condemnation is often necessary and appropriate for infrastructure projects such as highways, rail, utilities, and pipelines due to the linear nature and necessity of those projects.
As I said, most farmers gladly pocket the cash offered by the pipeline company. An easement generally doesn't disturb their use and enjoyment of the property. Those farmers that hold out a bit longer will often pocket a bit more money than those that signed up early. Contesting the condemnation in court, however, is a bad idea, and can often result in receiving less than was offered. The condemnation is going to happen.
-
From my experience, a lot of farmers have history with the gov taking land for projects. They know plenty of ways to come out way ahead in it.
-
There is a huge difference bw condemning easements and fee simple. Most farmers hosting a pipeline love them - it's free money to them because they don't really impair their use of the land.
what in the world does that have to do with eminent domain? are you suggesting they deserve to have to forfeit their property rights because they're unreasonable?
Huh? I'm not saying unreasonable farmers deserve to forfeit their property rights - I'm not sure what that even means or where you got that from. Condemnation is often necessary and appropriate for infrastructure projects such as highways, rail, utilities, and pipelines due to the linear nature and necessity of those projects.
As I said, most farmers gladly pocket the cash offered by the pipeline company. An easement generally doesn't disturb their use and enjoyment of the property. Those farmers that hold out a bit longer will often pocket a bit more money than those that signed up early. Contesting the condemnation in court, however, is a bad idea, and can often result in receiving less than was offered. The condemnation is going to happen.
This is called the "take the gold or take the lead" approach
-
As I said, most farmers gladly pocket the cash offered by the pipeline company.
as i said, what relevance does this have to the seizure of property rights by eminent domain? by definition (ignoring for now, those who simply want a higher price) those people impacted by eminent domain are not glad to pocket the cash in exchange for those property rights.
-
As a policy measure, it prevents people from acquiring land in an effort to create a barrier which can then be used to extort everyone on the other side of the barrier.
-
Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?
-
Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?
Don't they need 2/3? That would be 67 votes. Plus, they would also need 2/3 of the House.
-
Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?
Don't they need 2/3? That would be 67 votes. Plus, they would also need 2/3 of the House.
Assuming every senator votes, that would be 67. They probably don't have quite enough votes in the House or Senate. That's unfortunate, but it is still productive legislation. The President will finally be held to account one way or another.
-
Approved with 62 votes in the senate. This is enough to defeat a veto, no?
Don't they need 2/3? That would be 67 votes. Plus, they would also need 2/3 of the House.
Assuming every senator votes, that would be 67. They probably don't have quite enough votes in the House or Senate. That's unfortunate, but it is still productive legislation. The President will finally be held to account one way or another.
Yeah, I don't know all the details on Keystone, but I generally support projects that improve energy infrastructure.
-
I didn't know/remember what the super majority threshold was, sounds like it's 2/3 not 60%.
In addition to making the president look like a huge dumbass, anti democratic, totalitarian bad person, it will also force party line dems to take a position in the house or senate that is contrary to their constituency.
-
The Democrats pretty much have nothing to stand on here. The Senate dems were resorting to amendments requiring such things as "the pipeline must be manufactured with American steel." :lol:
So after the vote, Chuck Shumer gives a press conference: "We tried to pass an amendment requiring the use of American steel - the Republicans said 'no.'" Amazing. Democrat politicians are definitely the best at politics.
-
I think the 60+ avoids a filibuster.
-
It's official. Obama puts his radical ideology before jobs and commerce. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/24/obama-keystone-veto/23879735/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/24/obama-keystone-veto/23879735/)
-
Largest shovel ready infrastructure project ready to go and he says "no".
-
What an bad person
-
foolish.
-
Also privately funded and would generate millions in tax revenue for decades to come.
-
Also privately funded and would generate millions in tax revenue for decades to come.
In Red states. Purely political
-
Also privately funded and would generate millions in tax revenue for decades to come.
In Red states. Purely political
Yup, brownback has proven red states don't need tax revenue.
-
Also privately funded and would generate millions in tax revenue for decades to come.
In Red states. Purely political
Yup, brownback has proven red states don't need tax revenue.
Hence the refund.
-
I think the 60+ avoids a filibuster.
Off topic here but will you mention this to Dax. I don't think he quite understands this when he's doing one of his diatribes.
-
Headinjun might be confusing filibuster with overriding the veto.
Regardless, another petty and pathetic move from a failed loser
-
I've talked about filibusters?
Weird.
In your diatribes you complain that Obama had both houses of congress at one point but fail to acknowledge this 2/3rds majority requirement.
-
I've talked about filibusters?
Weird.
In your diatribes you complain that Obama had both houses of congress at one point but fail to acknowledge this 2/3rds majority requirement.
Obama had a filibuster proof democrat majority in the senate, but his ideas were so shitty he could never achieve it without buying democrat votes.
-
I for one support Obama making America more energy secure!!! Its time we have a president that puts America and its security first.
-
wut? More energy secure?
We already have a ton of pipelines, what's one more? Why is this one such a big deal and the rest aren't?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
wut? More energy secure?
We already have a ton of pipelines, what's one more? Why is this one such a big deal and the rest aren't?
Fact: The companies that want this built say it will hurt domestic gas prices.
-
wut? More energy secure?
We already have a ton of pipelines, what's one more? Why is this one such a big deal and the rest aren't?
Fact: The companies that want this built say it will hurt domestic gas prices.
Meh... Seems like such a petty thing for liberals to take such a hard line on.
-
wut? More energy secure?
We already have a ton of pipelines, what's one more? Why is this one such a big deal and the rest aren't?
I think you know the answer to that.
-
wierd that the president would dig in on something the next president would probably pass instantly, also dumb that the congress insists on spending their time on something that they knew 100% would get vetoed. how about do some actual work instead.
-
wierd that the president would dig in on something the next president would probably pass instantly, also dumb that the congress insists on spending their time on something that they knew 100% would get vetoed. how about do some actual work instead.
Well, how many times have they voted to repeal Obamacare? They don't care about anything but symbolism.
-
wierd that the president would dig in on something the next president would probably pass instantly, also dumb that the congress insists on spending their time on something that they knew 100% would get vetoed. how about do some actual work instead.
It is actual work. They at least have an obligation to put common sense legislation on his desk. It is not their fault that the President is a radical.
-
wierd that the president would dig in on something the next president would probably pass instantly, also dumb that the congress insists on spending their time on something that they knew 100% would get vetoed. how about do some actual work instead.
Well, how many times have they voted to repeal Obamacare? They don't care about anything but symbolism.
Again, see above. But in the case of Obamacare, Republicans need to propose a legislative means of transitioning away from Obamacare and back to the free markets, something they have still failed to agree on because of their rank incompetency. So I would agree that, until Republicans actually have a piece of coherent legislation on replacing Obamacare, their "repeal" votes are moronic. If they ever get their act together, they absolutely need to put the legislation on Obama's desk, veto or not. That's part of the constitutional process. It is the consequence of twice-electing a radical liberal idealogue, but he must at least be made to exercise his veto power.
-
I still enjoy it when someone mentions that the Keystone shouldn't be allowed through Kansas, and all up in arms getting ready to chain themselves to a backhoe. Then I tell them that it was installed and finished in Kansas like four years ago.
-
I still enjoy it when someone mentions that the Keystone shouldn't be allowed through Kansas, and all up in arms getting ready to chain themselves to a backhoe. Then I tell them that it was installed and finished in Kansas like four years ago.
You enjoy weird crap.
-
Easily enjoyed
-
And 6 years later, Keystone is officially dead. The cause? "Climate Change." Libtards rejoice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=1)
Jobs? Psshhh. According to the State Department:
The construction would have had little impact on the nation’s economy. A State Department analysis concluded that building the pipeline would have created jobs, but the total number represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the nation’s total employment. :lol: :lol: :lol:
In other words, Obama just killed jobs in the amount of one-tenth of 1 percent of the nation's total employment, all for the sake of libtard ideology.
-
This is simply horrifying. Approving this permit is no less ministerial than approving a marriage license. Remember when libtards cared about abuse of power?
-
Welp
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Literally no way anyone could have predicted something like this happening
-
Wrong Keystone pipeline.
-
Welp