Author Topic: Obama sez No to Keystone  (Read 39557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Obama sez No to Keystone
« on: January 18, 2012, 11:53:19 AM »
Obama Will Deny Permit on Keystone XL Pipeline. 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.


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2012, 12:04:34 PM »
Obama Will Deny Permit on Keystone XL Pipeline. 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.

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

  • Racist Piece of Shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 18431
  • Kiss my ass and suck my dick
    • View Profile
    • I am the one and only Sugar Dick
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2012, 12:28:43 PM »

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.
goEMAW Karmic BBS Shepherd

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2012, 01:50:27 PM »
Obama says extending jobless benefits will create more jobs than Keystone.

Quote
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!
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2012, 02:06:49 PM »
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.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85311
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2012, 02:11:02 PM »
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.  

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2012, 02:20:07 PM »
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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2012, 03:04:17 PM »
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.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2012, 03:13:16 PM »
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.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2012, 03:24:52 PM »
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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85311
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2012, 03:30:59 PM »
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

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2012, 03:51:40 PM »
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!

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2012, 04:34:10 PM »
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.

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1663
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2012, 05:25:10 PM »
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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 05:34:06 PM »
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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2012, 06:17:39 PM »
Quote
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/

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2012, 06:36:48 PM »
Quote
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/

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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2012, 07:01:03 PM »
Quote
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/

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.

Offline Stupid Fitz

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4736
  • Go Cats
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2012, 07:01:16 PM »
Quote
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/

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.

Offline steve dave

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 85311
  • Romantic Fist Attachment
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2012, 07:10:45 PM »
I'm not sure anyone in this thread has any idea what this thing was about other than the president nix'd it.....

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2012, 08:17:28 PM »
Quote
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/

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.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2012, 08:24:21 PM by K-S-U-Wildcats! »
I've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2012, 08:22:19 PM »
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.

Offline K-S-U-Wildcats!

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2012, 08:38:10 PM »
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've said it before and I'll say it again, K-State fans could have beheaded the entire KU team at midcourt, and K-State fans would be celebrating it this morning.  They are the ISIS of Big 12 fanbases.

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 37086
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2012, 10:35:08 PM »
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.

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7633
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Obama sez No to Keystone
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2012, 11:38:14 PM »
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.