Obama says no to the oil

[cutthemdown]

He's going to **** can the Canadian oil pipeline. Instead the pipeline goes to the pacific and then to China. The environmentalist say no to it because they think the oil production method causes too much co2. But Canada doing it regardless so really it comes down to Obama making them happy for nothing but support in the election. 20 thousand jobs down the drain. Not to mention its better to buy oil from Canada then Africa, or the mideast.

[peacepipe]

He's going to **** can the Canadian oil pipeline. Instead the pipeline goes to the pacific and then to China. The environmentalist say no to it because they think the oil production method causes too much co2. But Canada doing it regardless so really it comes down to Obama making them happy for nothing but support in the election. 20 thousand jobs down the drain. Not to mention its better to buy oil from Canada then Africa, or the mideast.yeah,the red state of Nebraska is bastion of environmentalist. you do realise nebraska(which the pipeline was going through)was against it regardless of wether it was approved.

[Tombstone RJ]

this suprises you?

[Tombstone RJ]

yeah,the red state of Nebraska is bastion of environmentalist. you do realise nebraska(which the pipeline was going through)was against it regardless of wether it was approved.

got any proof of this?

[cutthemdown]

yeah,the red state of Nebraska is bastion of environmentalist. you do realise nebraska(which the pipeline was going through)was against it regardless of wether it was approved.

There was an alternate route. It came down to environmentalist in Obamas base being against it period, regardless of how safe the pipeline itself could be.

[cutthemdown]

Great move by the Republicans to force Obama to show his true colors on this issue. He wanted to bury the fact he was going to screw those 13 thousand union pipeline workers until after the election.

[Requiem]

There was an alternate route. It came down to environmentalist in Obamas base being against it period, regardless of how safe the pipeline itself could be.

Most all of Nebraska was against the pipeline (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/08/31/nebraska-gov-heineman-comes-out-against-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/), even the alternative route because of what it did to their ecosystem. That's what prompted their congressional special sessions and their own Republican governor to bring light to the issue and have it get the attention it merited. FYI, the governor was against the initial proposed pipeline, and wasn't too favorable on the alternative draw-up.

It's the one of the same reasons viable railroad expansion never went through the Dakota's -- people who have lived off that land for generations weren't going to have their personal property destroyed for an endeavor that wouldn't benefit them.

[Bob]

The Unions are against Obama, many normal dems that like jobs, and those that dont believe that rickshaw transportation the new wave of the future.

[peacepipe]

got any proof of this?

post #7

[mhgaffney]

The project -- if allowed to proceed -- would eventually turn northern Alberta into a moonscape the size of Florida.

And we call ourselves man the wise.

[cutthemdown]

If Nebraska all against it why are the Senators trying to draft legislation to force it through? The project is a go Gaff, the only part we play is a pipeline to refine the oil in Texas. Now they just send the pipeline to the pacific and USA loses out to China, but the environmental impact the same.

Its bs, everyone knows they could build that pipeline safe, and then monitor it. Any spills would be handled, not like the pipeline under the ocean.

[Missouribronc]

got any proof of this?

No. He doesn't. This state was fully in support of it as long as it went east of the Oglalla Aquifer. It created jobs and it brought this country oil without the Middle East.

This is a huge failure on Obama's Administration.

[alkemical]

Water > Oil.

Besides, I don't trust the oil companies to...you know...make sure their equipment runs well. That's the problem when you're always doing stuff on the cheap like the oil companies do.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Scathing statement from Labor:

"The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero. We are completely and totally disappointed. This is politics at its worst," LIUNA General President Terry O'Sullivan said. "Once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers – even though environmental concerns were more than adequately addressed. Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this."

[Smiling Assassin27]

In the process of selecting the proposed route, TransCanada plotted and studied 14 different pipeline paths and submitted 10,000 pages of environmental studies. They’ve already studied this thing to death. So when the state department says this new review could be done by early 2013, can we really expect any different outcome than more delays?

If they really wanted to protect the land and the water of the Midwest they would focus on stopping the agribusiness giants from pouring mountains of hydrocarbon-derived fertilizers directly onto the land, chemicals that trickle down into the water table and through watersheds into the Mississippi.

Besides, it’s not as if delaying a pipeline from Canada will do anything to hurt Big Oil. The United States will continue to consume 19 million barrels of petroleum products per day and will continue to import roughly 10 million barrels per day from the rest of the world.

That oil, wherever it comes from, will be traversing continents in pipelines that likely aren’t built to the specifications that the government would demand of TransCanada. That oil will be shipped to the United States in tankers that belch into the air the exhaust of millions of tons of bunker oil. Great victory.




the objection that it's a water v oil decision is highly questionable. but this administration is too lazy and unqualified to get their hands dirty and look for a common sense solution to any and all objections. instead, they prefer to punt and lay it at the feet of someone else down the road. sad.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/11/10/obama-rejects-reason-kills-keystone-xl/

[pricejj]

Water > Oil.

Besides, I don't trust the oil companies to...you know...make sure their equipment runs well. That's the problem when you're always doing stuff on the cheap like the oil companies do.

Hilarious!

You do realize there are MANY pipelines all over the world, just like this one, that don't impact the environment negatively at all?

Ever heard of Alaska, South Sudan?

You act as if using a metal conduit to transport oil is a new technology. Guess you would rather have oil tankers transporting it around U.S. coastlines...great idea, and so utterly inefficient...

Please continue to blindly support every bad decision the Obama administration makes, it really shows your lack of intelligence.

[alkemical]

Hilarious!

You do realize there are MANY pipelines all over the world, just like this one, that don't impact the environment negatively at all?

Ever heard of Alaska, South Sudan?

You act as if using a metal conduit to transport oil is a new technology. Guess you would rather have oil tankers transporting it around U.S. coastlines...great idea, and so utterly inefficient...

Please continue to blindly support every bad decision the Obama administration makes, it really shows your lack of intelligence.


Ad hominmen and yet you don't even do any research of your own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Alaska_Pipeline_System#Incidents


Incidents
Reported oil spills[152] [show]Year No. of spills Amount spilled (bbl)
Wikinews has related news: Oil spill in Alaska closes 800 miles of pipeline
The massive length and remoteness of the pipeline make it more or less impossible to secure

The pipeline has at times been damaged due to sabotage, human error, maintenance failures, and natural disasters. By law, Alyeska is required to report significant oil spills to regulatory authorities.[153] The Exxon Valdez oil spill is the best-known accident involving Alaska oil, but it did not involve the pipeline itself.[154] Following the spill, Alyeska created a rapid response force that is paid for by the oil companies,[155] including ExxonMobil, which was found liable for the spill.[156]

The largest oil spill involving the main pipeline took place on February 15, 1978, when an unknown individual blew a 1-inch (2.54-centimeter) hole in it at Steele Creek, just east of Fairbanks.[157] Approximately 16,000 barrels (2,500 m3) of oil leaked out of the hole before the pipeline was shut down.[152] After more than 21 hours, it was restarted.[158]

The steel pipe is resistant to gunshots and has resisted them on several occasions, but on October 4, 2001, a drunken gunman named Daniel Carson Lewis shot a hole into a weld near Livengood, causing the second-largest mainline oil spill in pipeline history.[159] Approximately 6,144 barrels (976.8 m3) leaked from the pipeline; 4,238 barrels (673.8 m3) were recovered and reinjected into the pipeline.[160] Nearly 2 acres (8,100 m2) of tundra were soiled and were removed in the cleanup.[161] The pipeline was repaired and was restarted more than 60 hours later.[162] Lewis was found guilty in December 2002 of criminal mischief, assault, drunken driving, oil pollution, and misconduct. He was sentenced to 16 years in jail and ordered to repay the $17 million cleanup costs.[163]

The pipeline was built to withstand earthquakes, forest fires, and other natural disasters. The 2002 Denali earthquake damaged some of the pipeline sliders designed to absorb similar quakes,[164] and it caused the pipeline to shut down for more than 66 hours as a precaution.[162] In 2004, wildfires overran portions of the pipeline, but it was not damaged and did not shut down.[165][166]

In March 2006, corroded feeder pipelines on the North Slope gave way, spilling at least 6,310 barrels (1,003 m3) of oil.[167] In August 2006, during an inspection mandated by the United States Department of Transportation after the leak, severe corrosion was discovered.[168] The transit pipelines were shut down for several days that month, and replacement of 16 miles (26 km) of transit pipeline began. The project was completed before Christmas Day 2008 at a cost of $500 million to BP.[169]

In May 2010, as much as several thousands of barrels were spilled from a pump station near Fort Greely during a scheduled shutdown. A relief valve control circuit failed during a test of the fire control system, and oil poured into a tank and overflowed onto a secondary containment area. [170]

A leak was discovered on Jan 8, 2011, in the basement of the booster pump at Pump Station 1. For more than 80 hours, pipeline flow was reduced to 5 percent of normal. An oil collection system was put in place, and full flow resumed until the pipeline was again shut down while a bypass was installed to avoid the leaking section.[171][172][173]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8363024.stm

"The chemical composition of water samples we have taken from oil well drilling pits is nearly the same as we found in the contaminated water boreholes the people are using for drinking water supply," Klaus Stieglitz said.

If the local community cannot find alternatives, Mr Stieglitz said the effects on their health could be devastating.


Again, fault me for looking at the long term impact - i live in a state where frac'ing is going on - and has an impact in the water systems already.

Water is going to be a big time resource, without it - well - we're kinda screwed.

[pricejj]

Water is going to be a big time resource, without it - well - we're kinda screwed.

You're right, I can just imagine leftist terrorist groups like "Occupy" blowing holes in the pipeline to shut it down...

Quite the dilemma...which is safer oil by land or by sea?

[ant1999e]

yeah,the red state of Nebraska is bastion of environmentalist. you do realise nebraska(which the pipeline was going through)was against it regardless of wether it was approved.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/19/nebraska-gov-heineman-expects-to-ask-obama-for-keystone-decision-before/


AP
Jan. 12, 2012: Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman delivers his State of the State address in Lincoln, Neb.
President Obama might be compelled to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline before the election after all.

Though the president just rejected a permit for the controversial project, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman told Fox News that he expects to send the Obama administration a new proposed route for the pipeline well before Election Day.

"I fully expect we could get it done certainly in the early September, August time frame," the governor told Fox News on Thursday. "I would send the letter back to the president of the United States saying we approve it and if he were decisive, he could turn around and approve it shortly thereafter, well before the November election."

The White House, in justifying its decision to turn down the permit, blamed Republicans for forcing a decision in a tightened time frame. Congressional Republicans had attached a provision to last year's short-term payroll tax cut extension requiring a presidential decision on Keystone in 60 days, a time frame administration officials warned would not be sufficient.

But all along, administration officials have also invoked the concerns over the pipeline of Nebraska officials, including Heineman, in justifying their handling of the issue.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, in reviewing the history of the dispute Wednesday, said "concerns were raised about the environmental impacts on the air and water quality in Nebraska."

Yet while those concerns contributed to the State Department decision late last year to delay the federal review process, top Nebraska officials were not on board with the president's decision Wednesday to reject the permit.

"Right now, I think they're looking for a convenient excuse to get it beyond the election. Let's do what's right for the country. Let's put America back to work," Heineman said.

Nebraska lawmakers had earlier raised concern about the impact the initial pipeline route, which runs from Canada to Texas, would have on an important and vast underground water source in Nebraska. In November, the governor signed a bill that would pay for a new state-run environmental study of a new route that TransCanada agreed to pursue.

But Heineman disputes any suggestion that the federal government needs lots of time to review his state's new study. He said the project already received initial approval from the State Department for the earlier route, before the department backed off upon objections from environmentalists.

As Obama rejected the permit for Keystone saying there wasn't enough time to review at the federal level, Heineman questioned why -- since the state and the company have already agreed to reroute the pipeline through a less sensitive area.

"So again, the State Department had already approved the route that was much more environmentally sensitive, and so in my view, he should have said 'yes' to allow this to move forward. There's so much at stake for this country," he said.

Heineman said his state will have completed the new study by about August, and sees no reason for further delay.

"I would send a letter to the Department of State saying in Nebraska, we approve," he said. "At that stage, all they've got to then say it's in the national interest. And again, I think you could say that today. They've been at this for three years."

Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns echoed Heineman's concerns in a statement Wednesday. He said Obama's decision was a sign he "lacks faith" in Nebraska's ability to choose a new route.

"By arguing that the Nebraska route could force them to deny the permit, he's implying Nebraska can't get it right. There is no legitimate justification for the delay. To suggest a few dozen miles of the route in Nebraska -- which will be identified by the governor, consistent with the law -- affects the overall public interest for more than 1,600 miles of pipeline is laughable and reeks of political gamesmanship," he said.

But Obama and his team said Republicans forced his hand. Obama said in a statement Wednesday that his call was "not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."

Carney said Thursday it is a fallacy to suggest that anything other than the insistence by House Republicans to impose the 60-day deadline is responsible for the decision.

TransCanada has already announced that it will seek a new permit at the federal level.
Republicans in Congress also said they would not throw in the towel on the issue. Some called for Obama to reverse his decision.

Yet the debate is steeped in election-year politics. Obama is caught between two factions of his base on the decision over Keystone, a reality that critics claimed contributed to the decision to delay the project in the first place. Unions are clamoring for the pipeline, saying thousands of jobs are at stake, while environmentalists are vehemently opposed to it.

The environmentalists applauded Obama for his announcement Wednesday.

"President Obama has shown bold leadership in standing up to Big Oil and rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said in a statement.

[cutthemdown]

I knew the whole Nebraska doesn't want it was a bunch of BS.

[Tombstone RJ]

BO is so incredibly weak. He's such a friggen joke.

[Bronx33]

the objection that it's a water v oil decision is highly questionable. but this administration is too lazy and unqualified to get their hands dirty and look for a common sense solution to any and all objections. instead, they prefer to punt and lay it at the feet of someone else down the road. sad.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/11/10/obama-rejects-reason-kills-keystone-xl/


This and i highly doubt china has any emissions programs they burn the gas no matter what at least here we have some type of restrictions/emissions programs also the oil will be in tankers ( on the ocean ) yet a potential disaster and not a peep from the eco wacks hypocrisy up the ying yang as usual.

This is just another poor decision by a poor president this will probably hurt him in the elections but thats a good thing.

[cutthemdown]

They say environmentalist happy. But really it changes little for the overall Earth environment. In fact it will be worst. For one it will still hit a pipeline, just not straight to refinement which was a great idea. Now it will be shipped to Texas, and to China, causing more co2. Canada developing this field, so really the only impact is 20 thousand American jobs.

Good job pandering to the left Obama. Sealing your fate IMO.

[Blart]

If you support the pipeline you need to listen to a source that isn't funded by Koch-suckers.

An independent study by Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_School_of_Industrial_and_Labor_ Relations) found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.

Not only would it destroy our environment, but it would raise unemployment. Is that worth a few thousand temp jobs?

Now go back to blocking Obama's jobs bill.

[Missouribronc]

I knew the whole Nebraska doesn't want it was a bunch of BS.

It is. Protecting the aquifer is a real issue. But this pipeline wouldn't have barely affected it, even if there was a leak, and that is a proven fact. The type of crude being transported wouldn't even seep deep enough if it did leak to affect it.

I'd like to see the path moved a little further east, but blocking this does nothing but stall job creation (even if it is temporary) and hinder oil production domestically.

I live in a central Nebraska county in the Sandhills. There are 7 major pipelines that ALREADY run through this county. We have no environmental problems at all.

[Missouribronc]

If you support the pipeline you need to listen to a source that isn't funded by Koch-suckers.

An independent study by Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_School_of_Industrial_and_Labor_ Relations) found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.

Not only would it destroy our environment, but it would raise unemployment. Is that worth a few thousand temp jobs?

Now go back to blocking Obama's jobs bill.

That's bull****.

And what's this "we" ****. You, according to your profile live 2,000 miles away.

[Blart]

That's bull****.

And what's this "we" ****. You, according to your profile live 2,000 miles away.

Sorry Cornell University, all that research is worthless, as Missouribronc has declared it's "bull****".



In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-sweeney/theres-no-arguing-with-co_b_126805.html

[Missouribronc]

The unemployment blather is useless fear tactics. The environmental part of it is, frankly, untrue.

And you quote **** about misinformation...that's funny.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Credit where due...

Americans Against the Tea Party (https://www.facebook.com/NoTeaParty)


The Obama Administration says they will reject the Keystone XL Pipeline!


https://s-external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQC98CI0fPramKCw&w=90&h=90&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addictinginfo.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F01%2Ftyranny-of-oil1.jpg (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/18/obama-makes-the-right-call-in-rejecting-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline/)Obama Makes the Right Call in Rejecting the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/18/obama-makes-the-right-call-in-rejecting-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline/)

The Obama Administration today called the GOP's bluff by rejecting the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, a 1,750 mile, $7 billion proposed pipeline that would carry more than 700,000 barrels of crude oil from the boreal forests of the Canadian province of Alberta to the oil refineries of Texas...

[cutthemdown]

If you support the pipeline you need to listen to a source that isn't funded by Koch-suckers.

An independent study by Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_School_of_Industrial_and_Labor_ Relations) found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.

Not only would it destroy our environment, but it would raise unemployment. Is that worth a few thousand temp jobs?

Now go back to blocking Obama's jobs bill.

BS its more like 14000 jobs

[alkemical]

You're right, I can just imagine leftist terrorist groups like "Occupy" blowing holes in the pipeline to shut it down...

Quite the dilemma...which is safer oil by land or by sea?

Short term thinking solves nothing, neither does your insistence to keep interjecting your own bias into a conversation.

[alkemical]

If you support the pipeline you need to listen to a source that isn't funded by Koch-suckers.

An independent study by Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University_School_of_Industrial_and_Labor_ Relations) found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.

Not only would it destroy our environment, but it would raise unemployment. Is that worth a few thousand temp jobs?

Now go back to blocking Obama's jobs bill.


SHORT TERM THINKING!

It's crazy how nobody wants to look 10, 20, 30 years down the road to see what the investments are.

[Blart]

BS its more like 14000 jobs

The unemployment blather is useless fear tactics. The environmental part of it is, frankly, untrue.

Well you two have shown conservative's unique ability for emotion-based thinking and knee-jerk reactions.

Now please back up your claims with an independent, scientific, peer-reviewed study. (hint: it doesn't exist)


Please stop getting your information from sources funded by energy companies. It's like going to Bob for objective information on the Chiefs.

[Rohirrim]

At some point...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/1/1283345404241/Exhibition-on-the-tar-san-001.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/2/1283444863504/Tar-Sands-Alberta-Canada-002.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/1/1283345405386/Exhibition-on-the-tar-san-002.jpg

Somebody just has to step up and say, "Enough!"

[pricejj]

Short term thinking solves nothing, neither does your insistence to keep interjecting your own bias into a conversation.

Would you rather have access to the oil, or pay $5.00 at the pump? Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change the dynamics of human life. A Canada-U.S. pipeline is not the environmental disaster you attempt to portray it as.

As you may or may not notice, the Obama administration is the only one in the world who is not scrambling for natural resources right now. See how that works out for you and your $1.3T annual deficit (which has to be payed back with interest, if you didn't know).

Make your check payable to:

Hu Jintao
111 Qickingyoass Rd.
Beijing, China

Nee how! :yayaya:

[alkemical]

Would you rather have access to the oil, or pay $5.00 at the pump? Hiding your head in the sand is not going to change the dynamics of human life. A Canada-U.S. pipeline is not the environmental disaster you attempt to portray it as.

As you may or may not notice, the Obama administration is the only one in the world who is not scrambling for natural resources right now. See how that works out for you and your $1.3T annual deficit (which has to be payed back with interest, if you didn't know).

Make your check payable to:

Hu Jintao
111 Qickingyoass Rd.
Beijing, China

Nee how! :yayaya:


So, you aren't factoring the cost associated with cleaning up these messes? Or are you just choosing to ignore the facts and data that upset your applecart? I've seen this before from you: You present a point, but have no data and information to back up the long term impact.



First you tell me there's no problem, then you tell me the problems aren't to be concerned about. Yet...i've seen someone's tap water light on fire (firsthand!) due to a corrupted water supply.

The Industry has shown that their concern for profits, lets them cut corners on safety & security of food & water. I'd rather find new ways to do things, than use a platform that is going to go critical when the finite resource starts hitting the bottom of the barrel.

[Blart]

First you tell me there's no problem, then you tell me the problems aren't to be concerned about. Yet...i've seen someone's tap water light on fire (firsthand!) due to a corrupted water supply.


I'm not surprised. I watched Gasland and nearly every other home is from Colorado or Wyoming,

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dZe1AeH0Qz8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[alkemical]

It's crazy too. I saw Gasland and was like "damn, they pulled that off".

As it turns out, a friend of mine - his family owns a cabin and they now have to run a reverse osmosis setup for water due to the corrupted well. Seeing the tap light in person, was an eye opener.

[pricejj]

So, you aren't factoring the cost associated with cleaning up these messes? Or are you just choosing to ignore the facts and data that upset your applecart? I've seen this before from you: You present a point, but have no data and information to back up the long term impact.



First you tell me there's no problem, then you tell me the problems aren't to be concerned about. Yet...i've seen someone's tap water light on fire (firsthand!) due to a corrupted water supply.

The Industry has shown that their concern for profits, lets them cut corners on safety & security of food & water. I'd rather find new ways to do things, than use a platform that is going to go critical when the finite resource starts hitting the bottom of the barrel.


First of all, there is always necessary maintenance and upkeep on any technology, whether it be oil pipelines, automobiles, or computers. If the pipleline were to be allowed to not be maintained for 30 years, of course there would be problems. Domestic terrorists could also present a problem (like in Alaska), that need to be factored in.

I am not going to do a cost-basis analysis on this subject for you, if that's what you want. Are there going to be significant costs associated with this pipeline? Yes. There we're significant costs associated with the BP cleanup in the gulf as well. I don't see any reduction in deep water exploration and drilling in the near future. I'm also quite positive that any opportunity costs of NOT piping Canadian oil to Oklahoma are far greater than any "possible" cleanup costs that may happen if a domestic terrorist blows a small hole in the structure. Of course, a safe route, not directly over the Ogallala would be preferred, and that is what they are working on now.

There are pipelines all over the place, in and out of Cushing, Oklahoma that don't present any major environmental problems. Keystone XL presents the same dangers that any domestic pipelines already face, no more, no less. For you and your wacko cronies to attempt to portray it's approval as Armageddon is downright laughable. Your attempts at character defamation are weak and absurd, as well.

You ought to be more concerned of the environmental hazards of having hundreds of Chinese Oil Tankers making a continuous bee line across the Pacific, which would pose a FAR greater risk to the U.S. and global environment, than any contained pipeline.

[pricejj]

Now go back to blocking Obama's jobs bill.

Good luck to you, Harry Reid, and all your Democrat Senator buddies in passing SOPA. That ought to work out well for you.

[Requiem]

why can't we just harness the power from the moons off endor!!!

[Blart]

First of all, there is always necessary maintenance and upkeep on any technology, whether it be oil pipelines, automobiles, or computers. If the pipleline were to be allowed to not be maintained for 30 years, of course there would be problems. Domestic terrorists could also present a problem (like in Alaska), that need to be factored in.

I am not going to do a cost-basis analysis on this subject for you, if that's what you want. Are there going to be significant costs associated with this pipeline? Yes. There we're significant costs associated with the BP cleanup in the gulf as well. I don't see any reduction in deep water exploration and drilling in the near future. I'm also quite positive that any opportunity costs of NOT piping Canadian oil to Oklahoma are far greater than any "possible" cleanup costs that may happen if a domestic terrorist blows a small hole in the structure. Of course, a safe route, not directly over the Ogallala would be preferred, and that is what they are working on now.

There are pipelines all over the place, in and out of Cushing, Oklahoma that don't present any major environmental problems. Keystone XL presents the same dangers that any domestic pipelines already face, no more, no less. For you and your wacko cronies to attempt to portray it's approval as Armageddon is downright laughable. Your attempts at character defamation are weak and absurd, as well.

You ought to be more concerned of the environmental hazards of having hundreds of Chinese Oil Tankers making a continuous bee line across the Pacific, which would pose a FAR greater risk to the U.S. and global environment, than any contained pipeline.


Hrm let's see... in this thread, the lefties are using independent, peer-reviewed, scientific (http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf) studies to back up their opinions (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf).

But conservatives are using the bold tag! I'm sold!

[Rohirrim]

Tar Sands development has attracted investment capital from
oil multinationals—with Chinese corporations’ stake getting bigger all the time.1 If
approved, KXL will be almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working
with steel made in Canada and India. Much of the Tar Sands oil will be refined in Port
Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned
oil company of Saudi Arabia.2 And a good portion of the oil that will gush down the
KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond
the territorial United States.3 Indeed, the oil industry is also trying to build another
pipeline, Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway, to carry Tar Sands oil across British
Columbia for export to Asian markets, although this pipeline also faces serious public
opposition. Clearly, Tar Sands oil and energy independence really do not belong in
the same sentence. (ibid)

Oops.

[cutthemdown]

It doesn't really matter where oil comes from. The more supply the cheaper it will be. We happen to get a lot of oil from Africa which is also not a bad idea. The real point is that there is money to made building this pipeline. Sure in todays world it gets spread around to different countries who make different things. It's called competition.

There really is no logic to not letting the pipeline go through. It's radical leftist opposition. This a Calif politics on a national scale.

[cutthemdown]

why can't we just harness the power from the moons off endor!!!

On star trek they would just tap the planets core for energy. How hard could it be?

[pricejj]

It doesn't really matter where oil comes from. The more supply the cheaper it will be. We happen to get a lot of oil from Africa which is also not a bad idea. The real point is that there is money to made building this pipeline. Sure in todays world it gets spread around to different countries who make different things. It's called competition.

There really is no logic to not letting the pipeline go through. It's radical leftist opposition. This a Calif politics on a national scale.

Just like SOPA. The only remaining support for this insane bill stems from Harry Reid and Democrat Senators, who are bought out by the L.A. entertainment industry.

[pricejj]

Hrm let's see... in this thread, the lefties are using independent, peer-reviewed, scientific (http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf) studies to back up their opinions (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf).

But conservatives are using the bold tag! I'm sold!

Let's examine your report (by a university professor), and the history of the Trans-Alaska pipeline shall we?

The facts:
1. The Trans-Alaska pipeline has had 4 minor accidents in its 35 year history (2 by domestic terrorist, 2 from a lack of proper maintenance).
2. The largest oil spill relating to the Trans-Alaska pipeline, was when the Exxon Valdez breached, causing contamination much worse than any of the minor spills associated with the pipeline itself.

Your professor's report:
1. Predicts 91 major spills in the 50-year lifespan of the Keystone XL pipeline (citing higher corrosivity, increased temperature, and pressure). The "91" spill total is highly exaggerated, and not based on actual field studies, or evidence.
2. The professor goes on to include a "worst-case" scenario, which is a necessary component of any case study, whereas 8 million barrels of oil would go into the Platte River. What do you think the chances are of that happening?

So answer this one question for me would you Blarty boy: what had a bigger environmental impact, the Exxon Valdez, or the 4 minor leaks of the Trans-Alaska pipeline perpetrated by two domestic terrorists, and a lack of oversight by government officials who are paid to inspect and flag pipeline problems?

Don't get me wrong, oil WILL be extracted from Canada. The only question is, do you want hundreds of Chinese Exxon Valdez's traversing the Pacific Ocean (we all know how environmentally conscious the Chinese are), or do you want a well maintained, much safer, contained pipeline running across uninhabited parts of the midwest? The choice is yours.

[pricejj]

Blarty boy: don't complain when oil from Chinese tankers starts washing up in San Fransisco bay.

[Missouribronc]

Well you two have shown conservative's unique ability for emotion-based thinking and knee-jerk reactions.

Now please back up your claims with an independent, scientific, peer-reviewed study. (hint: it doesn't exist)


Please stop getting your information from sources funded by energy companies. It's like going to Bob for objective information on the Chiefs.

And you and your bull**** studies are just another example of liberal west and east coast elitists that don't have even a remote idea of what reality is. Look at Rohirrim flashing unlinked pictures...that's classic. You do realize the pipeline would not cause that, right? It's not like they put the pipeline in the ground and the trees die on the west side of it. That's not even using common sense...

[alkemical]

First of all, there is always necessary maintenance and upkeep on any technology, whether it be oil pipelines, automobiles, or computers. If the pipleline were to be allowed to not be maintained for 30 years, of course there would be problems. Domestic terrorists could also present a problem (like in Alaska), that need to be factored in.

I am not going to do a cost-basis analysis on this subject for you, if that's what you want. Are there going to be significant costs associated with this pipeline? Yes. There we're significant costs associated with the BP cleanup in the gulf as well. I don't see any reduction in deep water exploration and drilling in the near future. I'm also quite positive that any opportunity costs of NOT piping Canadian oil to Oklahoma are far greater than any "possible" cleanup costs that may happen if a domestic terrorist blows a small hole in the structure. Of course, a safe route, not directly over the Ogallala would be preferred, and that is what they are working on now.

There are pipelines all over the place, in and out of Cushing, Oklahoma that don't present any major environmental problems. Keystone XL presents the same dangers that any domestic pipelines already face, no more, no less. For you and your wacko cronies to attempt to portray it's approval as Armageddon is downright laughable. Your attempts at character defamation are weak and absurd, as well.

You ought to be more concerned of the environmental hazards of having hundreds of Chinese Oil Tankers making a continuous bee line across the Pacific, which would pose a FAR greater risk to the U.S. and global environment, than any contained pipeline.

who are you talking too? So again, you've done exactly what i said you'd do. You claim you want freedom, but you aren't responsible enough to be trusted.

/end of story.

[Rohirrim]

And you and your bull**** studies are just another example of liberal west and east coast elitists that don't have even a remote idea of what reality is. Look at Rohirrim flashing unlinked pictures...that's classic. You do realize the pipeline would not cause that, right? It's not like they put the pipeline in the ground and the trees die on the west side of it. That's not even using common sense...

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/18/obama-makes-the-right-call-in-rejecting-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline/

Those are pictures of the boreal forests in Alberta after the mining starts. All the trees are cleared, the land is stripped and then the mining equipment moves in and makes the forest look like this:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/9/1/1283345407801/Exhibition-on-the-tar-san-004.jpg

I guess your argument is that because we would only be benefitting from the pipeline, we really aren't responsible for the destruction of the boreal forests? Yeah. I just snort a little coke. I'm not responsible for all the people getting killed in Columbia by the gangsters who supply me with it.

When do we wake up to the idea that we need to stop trashing the planet? That we are sawing off the branch upon which we are sitting?

[Blart]

It doesn't really matter where oil comes from. The more supply the cheaper it will be.

False. It would raise oil prices for Americans (especially in the Midwest), but if you're worried about Latin America, Europe, and other countries then you're right - it would lower prices for them.

The pipeline allows Transcanada to divert 800,000 barrels per day from the Midwest to Latin America and other countries. This is a great deal for a Canadian corporation, but it screws America from every angle: prices, jobs, and environment. There is zero upside for Americans.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/30203-report-warns-of-higher-us-oil-prices-in-midwest-if-keystone-xl-pipeline-is-built.html

Let's examine your report (by a university professor), and the history of the Trans-Alaska pipeline shall we?

The facts:
1. The Trans-Alaska pipeline has had 4 minor accidents in its 35 year history (2 by domestic terrorist, 2 from a lack of proper maintenance).
2. The largest oil spill relating to the Trans-Alaska pipeline, was when the Exxon Valdez breached, causing contamination much worse than any of the minor spills associated with the pipeline itself.

Your professor's report:
1. Predicts 91 major spills in the 50-year lifespan of the Keystone XL pipeline (citing higher corrosivity, increased temperature, and pressure). The "91" spill total is highly exaggerated, and not based on actual field studies, or evidence.
2. The professor goes on to include a "worst-case" scenario, which is a necessary component of any case study, whereas 8 million barrels of oil would go into the Platte River. What do you think the chances are of that happening?



pricejj,

I'm sorry, your takedown of the pipeline study has been declined by every scientific journal in existence. Here are some tips for next time:

a) Try using a wide range of relevant data, rather than a single comparison of a radically different type of pipeline.

b) Perhaps explain your decision to use the Trans Alaska pipeline as your sole data point. On the surface it's a confusing choice, because The Trans Alaska pipeline is only 800 miles long, it pumps light sweet crude, it requires low pressure, the material isn't very abrasive, and it does not run over a country's most important aquifer. There are more comparable pipelines to the proposed Keystone XL, so a good report should explain why they weren't selected.

c) Be specific. You say Dr. Stansbury exaggerated - can you please tell us where in his calculations he erred? You can find the full report here,
http://watercenter.unl.edu/downloads/2011-Worst-case-Keystone-spills-report.pdf

d) Show us your new calculations, which tell us how many major spills can be expected over a 50 year span.

If you don't improve, I'm afraid your science career will only rise as high as the director of climate research at CATO.

And you and your bull**** studies are just another example of liberal west and east coast elitists that don't have even a remote idea of what reality is. Look at Rohirrim flashing unlinked pictures...that's classic. You do realize the pipeline would not cause that, right? It's not like they put the pipeline in the ground and the trees die on the west side of it. That's not even using common sense...

Yes, Dr. Stansbury, the liberal elitist of east/west coast Nebraska. The corn coast?

Since you believe science to have a liberal bias, what do you base your environmental opinions on? Perhaps Conservatives should study at Hogwarts, where they can make their non-polluting, price-lowering, job-giving pipeline fairytales come true.

[Bob]

The project -- if allowed to proceed -- would eventually turn northern Alberta into a moonscape the size of Florida.

And we call ourselves man the wise.

Are you still living in India? I assume you are a spokesperson for the rickshaw industry?

[Bob]

No. He doesn't. This state was fully in support of it as long as it went east of the Oglalla Aquifer. It created jobs and it brought this country oil without the Middle East.

This is a huge failure on Obama's Administration.

I kinda depends on what Obama is attempting to do. Does he want cheaper energy, more jobs and greater indpendence? If not, this is a big win for him.

[Blart]

I kinda depends on what Obama is attempting to do. Does he want cheaper energy, more jobs and greater indpendence? If not, this is a big win for him.

What are your sources for this faulty information? If it's not ultimately from a certain Canadian corporation, I'm shocked.

[Missouribronc]

Nothing like idiots from California telling us, here in the middle of the country, how we feel and preaching to us about environmentalist studies they have no clue about...

[Blart]

Nothing like idiots from California telling us, here in the middle of the country, how we feel and preaching to us about environmentalist studies they have no clue about...

Please, enlighten me. Show me a single independent study that shows TransCanada will create jobs, lower prices of oil, or not be an environmental disaster. One single independent source.

Or are you going to take TransCanada for their word?

[lonestar]

He's going to **** can the Canadian oil pipeline. Instead the pipeline goes to the pacific and then to China. The environmentalist say no to it because they think the oil production method causes too much co2. But Canada doing it regardless so really it comes down to Obama making them happy for nothing but support in the election. 20 thousand jobs down the drain. Not to mention its better to buy oil from Canada then Africa, or the mideast.

he is a total moron and this will kill him on election day..Hopefully the Canucs will not commit to china prior to this november..

[lonestar]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/18/obama-makes-the-right-call-in-rejecting-the-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline/

Those are pictures of the boreal forests in Alberta after the mining starts. All the trees are cleared, the land is stripped and then the mining equipment moves in and makes the forest look like this:

I guess your argument is that because we would only be benefitting from the pipeline, we really aren't responsible for the destruction of the boreal forests? Yeah. I just snort a little coke. I'm not responsible for all the people getting killed in Columbia by the gangsters who supply me with it.

When do we wake up to the idea that we need to stop trashing the planet? That we are sawing off the branch upon which we are sitting?


Do you realize that they are going to take the oil out of the ground one way or the other?


Why should we not get those benefits instead of china..

are you really that dumb?

 

[Bob]

Please, enlighten me. Show me a single independent study that shows TransCanada will create jobs, lower prices of oil, or not be an environmental disaster. One single independent source.

Or are you going to take TransCanada for their word?

If you think that having less energy is a good thing you're naive...

[Bob]

Do you realize that they are going to take the oil out of the ground one way or the other?


Why should we not get those benefits instead of china..

are you really that dumb?

 

All to support a president for club purposes I assume...always support your guy, no matter how stupid they are. This should not be about left and right, its common sense, we need jobs and cheap energy from safer sources.

[lonestar]

If you think that having less energy is a good thing you're naive...

blart rhymes with fart ..

now does that help make sense ..

[lonestar]

All to support a president for club purposes I assume...always support your guy, no matter how stupid they are. This should not be about left and right, its common sense, we need jobs and cheap energy from safer sources.

and what would those safer sources be?

and no I'm not supporting anyone in the political field on this.

just calling a spade a spade..

it take a moron to think that allowing that oil to go to china better than using it here in the USA and become less dependent on middle east oil..



Now I'm a firm believer in renewable energy.. But so far that has been a resounding cluster ****..

We need a bridge for that energy until it is not a FUBAR of epic proportions that it is today..

[Blart]

If you think that having less energy is a good thing you're naive...

Less energy for whom? The United States? Then by all means, support the pipeline, which will allow 800,000 barrels a day bypass the midwest and head straight to Latin America.

Do you realize that they are going to take the oil out of the ground one way or the other?


Why should we not get those benefits instead of china..



Please, tell me, what are the benefits of higher oil prices, fewer jobs, and environmental destruction?


I want to know where all the conservatives are getting their information. Please, give me a link, a source, anything. I assure you it's either directly from Transcanada, or paid for by Transcanada.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Please, enlighten me. Show me a single independent study that shows TransCanada will create jobs, lower prices of oil, or not be an environmental disaster. One single independent source.

Or are you going to take TransCanada for their word?

Chirp, chirp, chirp...


Well, at least he didn't try to pass something he heard on Fox News off as an "independent study." Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Tar Sands development has attracted investment capital from
oil multinationals—with Chinese corporations’ stake getting bigger all the time.1 If
approved, KXL will be almost certainly be constructed by temporary labor working
with steel made in Canada and India. Much of the Tar Sands oil will be refined in Port
Arthur, Texas, where the refinery is half-owned by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned
oil company of Saudi Arabia.2 And a good portion of the oil that will gush down the
KXL will, according to some studies, probably end up being finally consumed beyond
the territorial United States.3 Indeed, the oil industry is also trying to build another
pipeline, Enbridge’s proposed Northern Gateway, to carry Tar Sands oil across British
Columbia for export to Asian markets, although this pipeline also faces serious public
opposition. Clearly, Tar Sands oil and energy independence really do not belong in
the same sentence. (ibid)

Oops.

This is precisely what's wrong with the standard right-wing nitwit argument about the tar sands projects and every other oil exploration proposal that comes down the pike.

These simpletons forget these oil companies are multinationals.

The right-wing rubes argue that these projects will result in increased domestic supply --> lower prices when, in fact, the oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder on the global market.

It's all about enriching the shareholders - these companies couldn't give a fiddler's f_ck less how much you have to pay at the pump.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I want to know where all the conservatives are getting their information.

You have to ask?

http://www.nicolearbour.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/fox+news+sheep.jpg

[Rohirrim]

This is precisely what's wrong with the standard right-wing nitwit argument about the tar sands projects and every other oil exploration proposal that comes down the pike.

These simpletons forget these oil companies are multinationals.

The right-wing rubes argue that these projects will result in increased domestic supply --> lower prices when, in fact, the oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder on the global market.

It's all about enriching the shareholders - these companies couldn't give a fiddler's f_ck less how much you have to pay at the pump.

I think all these zombie movies we keep seeing are just metaphors for this era of rigid, dogmatic, uneducated primates who think we can destroy the planet upon which we depend for life, and yet go on living as if there are no consequences.

Here's a clue to all the zombies: The oil companies are making massive profits from drilling oil. In fact, the largest profits ever recorded. They never want to stop drilling, fracking, or mining for oil. If they have to completely wipe out the boreal forests of North America (one of the great carbon sinks on the planet) to do so, then so be it. Profit comes first. They are going to do everything in their power, including buying politicians and legislation, to ensure that we never get off our dependence on oil.

[elsid13]

This is precisely what's wrong with the standard right-wing nitwit argument about the tar sands projects and every other oil exploration proposal that comes down the pike.

These simpletons forget these oil companies are multinationals.

The right-wing rubes argue that these projects will result in increased domestic supply --> lower prices when, in fact, the oil is going to be sold to the highest bidder on the global market.

It's all about enriching the shareholders - these companies couldn't give a fiddler's f_ck less how much you have to pay at the pump.

It is how the free market work. Oil/Gas have such hold on the economy because it is most "economic" portable energy source that mankind has developed. If demand is higher off shore and they are willing to pay the price that were the oil will go.

[Rohirrim]

It is how the free market work. Oil/Gas have such hold on the economy because it is most "economic" portable energy source that mankind has developed. If demand is higher off shore and they are willing to pay the price that were the oil will go.

And it's a great example of why no society should have an ideological reliance on the market making their decisions for them. We know now, beyond any doubt, that the oil culture is deeply damaging the environment upon which we rely for our existence (not to mention the wars we wage in its name). So, do we allow further destruction of our lands and our health to perpetuate the profit of the few, or do we step in, using the collective power we have established in our governments, and take a different road?
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

[Rohirrim]

Anyway, given that the U.S. gives $41 billion a year to oil and gas companies (not to mention how many billions in tax breaks, write offs, exemptions, etc etc), the whole "free market" argument goes right out the window.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year

Meanwhile, we only invest about $6 billion in renewable, sustainable resources.