Obama officials back oil pipeline from Canada

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#1
Obama officials back oil pipeline from Canada

Groups warn of danger to environment

August 27, 2011|
By John M. Broder and Clifford Krauss, New York Times

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s administration gave a crucial green light yesterday to a proposed 1,711-mile pipeline that would carry heavy oil from Canada across the Great Plains to terminals in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, saying the project would provide a secure source of energy without significant damage to the environment.

In reaching its conclusion that the Keystone XL pipeline from the oil sands deposits in Alberta would have minimal environmental impact, the administration dismissed criticism from environmental advocates who said that extracting the oil would have a devastating impact on the climate and that a leak or rupture in the 36-inch-diameter pipeline could wreak ecological disaster.

Opponents also said the project would prolong the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, threaten sensitive lands and wildlife, and further delay development of clean energy sources.

The State Department said in an environmental impact statement that the pipeline’s owner, TransCanada, had reduced the risks of an accident to an acceptable level and that the benefits of importing oil from a friendly neighbor outweighed the potential costs.

Final approval of the $7 billion project will not come before the end of the year, after public hearings and consultation with other federal agencies. But the State Department report gave every indication that the administration was prepared to see Keystone proceed. The pipeline is expected to open in 2013 unless delayed by lawsuits or other challenges.

For many in the environmental movement, the administration’s apparent acceptance of the pipeline was yet another disappointment, after recent decisions to tentatively approve drilling in the Arctic Ocean, to open 20 million more acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil leasing and to delay several major air quality regulations. The movement is still smarting from the administration’s failure to push climate change legislation through Congress.

Analysts and environmental advocates said these decisions had opened a wide and perhaps unbridgeable breach between the Democratic president and environmentally minded voters.

Michael Brune, president of the Sierra Club, urged Obama to veto the project despite the State Department’s willingness to see it proceed.

“The decision-making authority is solely the president’s,’’ he said. “Keystone XL is a huge issue for our young leaders at the Sierra Club, but they’re also watching the president’s actions on other critically important environmental and public health protections. It will be increasingly difficult to mobilize the environmental base and to mobilize in particular young people to volunteer, to knock on thousands of doors, to put in 16-hour days, to donate money if they don’t think the president is showing the courage to stand up to big polluters.’’

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline extension would connect Canada’s oil sands to several vital refineries around Houston and the Gulf Coast that are designed to refine heavy crude oils. Keystone XL would also connect the synthetic fuel to a vast pipeline network that snakes out from the Gulf of Mexico to several large metropolitan areas around the Eastern Seaboard.

Kerri-Ann Jones, assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental, said in a telephone news briefing that the environmental impact statement released yesterday was not the last word on the project.

The president must make a final determination that the project is in the nation’s economic, political, energy security and environmental interest, she noted.

But the report does conclude, she said, that “there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the pipeline’s corridor’’ if the project’s operator follows all relevant laws, although she said that some American Indian cultural resources and the habitat for some plants and wildlife could be adversely affected.

TransCanada has insisted that its pipeline will be as safe as any in North America.

It has refused to change its application in the face of critics who say the half-inch thick pipe wall in the pipeline is insufficiently sturdy for maximum flow pressures, a claim the company denies.

TransCanada agreed to 57 conditions set by the Department of Transportation last spring, including burying the pipeline 4 feet below the surface, committing to frequent aerial and ground monitoring and setting the maximum distance between shut-off valves at 20 miles.

“We believe we are building the safest pipeline in North America,’’ said Terry Cunha, a TransCanada spokesman.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-27/news/29935949_1_keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-oil-sands
The environazis are pissssed...

 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#2
Well they do have the pipeline mapped out going right over the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. If the pipeline ruptured (and they do from time to time) it would destroy the aquifer and render millions of acres of farmland unusable because there wouldn't be any irrigation water available.

A quick lesson about the aquifer is that it's a huge underground lake that spans several states and provides vital irrigation to the country's most productive farmland. In addition to providing 83% of irrigation water it also provides 78% of the drinking water for the high plains states.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#3
A quick lesson about the aquifer
How about this:at least have a time consuming, detailed lesson about the fucking aquifer before you decide that a ruptured oil pipeline would destroy American agriculture as we know it.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#4
Well they do have the pipeline mapped out going right over the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. If the pipeline ruptured (and they do from time to time) it would destroy the aquifer and render millions of acres of farmland unusable because there wouldn't be any irrigation water available.

I wouldn't be surprised if Little Barry wants it to rupture and destroy the farm land. He's destroyed manufacturing in this country so it would make sense that his next target is farming.
 

Fustercluck

Registered User
Jul 25, 2005
2,357
300
563
FEMA Region 9
#5
I wouldn't be surprised if Little Barry wants it to rupture and destroy the farm land. He's destroyed manufacturing in this country so it would make sense that his next target is farming.
there's a little kirk in all of us
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#6
How about this:at least have a time consuming, detailed lesson about the fucking aquifer before you decide that a ruptured oil pipeline would destroy American agriculture as we know it.
Better to keep it simple. Oil goes into water, stuff that needs water to live doesn't like oil. It dies. Oil - good for gasoline, bad for drinking and growing food. Will a small rupture contaminate the entire aquifer?Some say yes, some say no. I only ask if it's worth the risk. A spoon full of motor oil can fuck up 10,000 gallons of drinking water, at least that what I was told when I was in the Air Force.
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#7
Better to keep it simple.
It's not simple. It's very, very complicated. People spend years studying engineering, and decades gaining experience, before being allowed anywhere near the room where they decide what the best route is for a pipeline like this.

If you're not going to do the research, that's fine. But then you really shouldn't try to get involved with any aspect of the decision making process.

I only ask if it's worth the risk.
That question has a complicated answer, and requires knowledge and experience in the oil business to even begin to understand it. If you don't have that knowledge, asking it is pointless.

And before you call me arrogant again, I'm not trying to pretend to know anything about this. All I know is that it is not a political issue, it's a business and engineering problem. Politicians should stay out of it, and so should the general public. If someone gets actual proof that this is going to harm them, they can present it in a Court of Law, not in the media or on websites. Then a Court can ask all the necessary questions and, with the help of expert testimony, can make an objective evaluation on the merits of any such claims of risk.

You can't, and you shouldn't try to until you can.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#8
It's not simple. It's very, very complicated. People spend years studying engineering, and decades gaining experience, before being allowed anywhere near the room where they decide what the best route is for a pipeline like this.

If you're not going to do the research, that's fine. But then you really shouldn't try to get involved with any aspect of the decision making process.


That question has a complicated answer, and requires knowledge and experience in the oil business to even begin to understand it. If you don't have that knowledge, asking it is pointless.

And before you call me arrogant again, I'm not trying to pretend to know anything about this. All I know is that it is not a political issue, it's a business and engineering problem. Politicians should stay out of it, and so should the general public. If someone gets actual proof that this is going to harm them, they can present it in a Court of Law, not in the media or on websites. Then a Court can ask all the necessary questions and, with the help of expert testimony, can make an objective evaluation on the merits of any such claims of risk.

You can't, and you shouldn't try to until you can.
Reminds me of:

A guy was seated next to a 10-year-old girl on an airplane. Being bored, he turned to the girl and said, "Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The girl, who was reading a book, closed it slowly and said to the guy, "What would you like to talk about?"

Oh, I don't know," said the guy. "How about nuclear power?"

"OK," she said. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a deer all eat the same stuff... grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

The guy thought about it and said, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the girl replied, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit?"
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#9
How often do these things leak? There's thousands of miles of pipeline throughout this country yet you rarely hear about major problems. I remember there was one that sprung a leak during the BP spill somewhere in Utah I think and they got it taken care of pretty quick. And I'd imagine a modern-built one would have all kinds of safety features and sensors that could determine if there was a drop in oil pressure somewhere along the line.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#10
How often do these things leak? There's thousands of miles of pipeline throughout this country yet you rarely hear about major problems. I remember there was one that sprung a leak during the BP spill somewhere in Utah I think and they got it taken care of pretty quick. And I'd imagine a modern-built one would have all kinds of safety features and sensors that could determine if there was a drop in oil pressure somewhere along the line.
Yup, they don't leak often. $85 a barrel pays for lots of quality engineering to insure you don't lose any.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,322
8,507
693
Silverdale, WA
#11
So let me guess, the people complaining about pipelines possibly rupturing and spoiling their aquifer are the same ones who believe we need to set up hundreds more platforms in the Gulf and Pacific to drill and pump oil from. You know, those structures that have an impeccable record for never spilling a drop of oil into the ecosystem.
 

Ballbuster1

In The Danger Zone...
Wackbag Staff
Aug 26, 2002
102,749
16,579
839
Your house, behind the couch
#12
Same shit, new scenario.

By me they were building a highway to connect 2 major interstates.
The people whined that it would kill the wetlands and forced the road
to drop to 2 lanes in each direction to save the marsh.

Now it's a constant back up with cars and trucks idling for long times
in rush hour traffic. I'm sure that's great for the environment. They delayed
the construction for years but it finally went thru and now they whine about
the air quality from the stalled traffic that would have never been a problem
if they would have let the road go thru with the extra lane that really didn't
pose a threat to any thing. Fucking fools.
 

MetalBender

I like fistables.
Dec 20, 2009
1,308
111
198
New Orleans....Iowa
#13
How often do these things leak? There's thousands of miles of pipeline throughout this country yet you rarely hear about major problems. I remember there was one that sprung a leak during the BP spill somewhere in Utah I think and they got it taken care of pretty quick. And I'd imagine a modern-built one would have all kinds of safety features and sensors that could determine if there was a drop in oil pressure somewhere along the line.
Far more often than there are spills, and oil sand settles and seeps for years causing far more damage and costs alot more to clean up. Think of it like sand paper going threw a pipeline with toxic chemicals to make it flow. Great stuff.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#14
So let me guess, the people complaining about pipelines possibly rupturing and spoiling their aquifer are the same ones who believe we need to set up hundreds more platforms in the Gulf and Pacific to drill and pump oil from. You know, those structures that have an impeccable record for never spilling a drop of oil into the ecosystem.
Not sure if trolling, but those platforms do actually have an impeccable record. Deepwater Horizon is the first major incident in the history of Gulf Coast drilling, and you and I both know that was the fault of a few beurocrats pressing engineers to stay on budget rather than some far-reaching safety protocol discrepancy.

If you were joking, ok. If you were serious, you should fucking know better.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#15
Far more often than there are spills, and oil sand settles and seeps for years causing far more damage and costs alot more to clean up. Think of it like sand paper going threw a pipeline with toxic chemicals to make it flow. Great stuff.
There are far more advanced anti-corrosion systems available now vs the pipelines that were laid decades in the past. I'm actually working with an engineer right now attempting to get his new corrosion controls system marketed on a grand scale. It's a huge part of the business.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#16
Top NASA climate scientist arrested at White House

By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, August 29th, 2011 -- 4:06 pm



One of the nation's foremost experts on climate change was arrested outside the White House on Monday morning after he joined a protest against a planned Canadian tar sands pipeline.

Dr. James Hansen (pictured), who runs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was arrested along with 139 other protesters taking part in a series of demonstrations against the planned $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 500,000 barrels of crude per day from America's neighbor to the north all the way to the Gulf coast of Texas.

So far, 521 activists have been arrested since their first protest on Saturday, Aug. 21. Also included in Monday's arrests were Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford, president of CREDO Mobile Michael Kieschnick, 350.org Executive Director May Boeve and many others.

Hansen, a 44-year veteran of the nation's space agency, is perhaps the best-known climate scientist in the world. He was the center of a years-long controversy in the last decade, after he claimed that NASA had tried to censor his findings about earth's climate on behalf of the Bush administration. He's also the author of "Storms of My Grandchildren," a book that calls for radical action to combat climate change. He's also been arrested before, protesting against mountaintop mining.

A U.S. State Department environmental impact study released last week claimed the pipeline would have a minimal effect on the environment, and officials maintained that even if the U.S. refuses the pipeline, Canada will just sell their oil elsewhere.

Climate protesters preparing to be arrested on Monday. Photo credit: Josh Lopez, Tar Sands Action

Canadian tar sand is seen as a horribly inefficient form of hydrocarbon energy due to the separation process, which requires more energy than the finished product puts out. Production methods also put off 3-5 times more greenhouse emissions than typical oil production.

"If Obama chooses the dirty needle it will confirm that the President was just green-washing all along, like the other well-oiled coal-fired politicians, with no real intention of solving the addiction," Hansen said, according to an advisory.

Proponents argue that the pipeline would bring hundreds of new jobs to the U.S. and help the nation achieve greater energy independence.

President Obama has not issued a decision on the pipeline, but one is expected before the end of this year.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/29/top-nasa-climate-scientist-arrested-at-white-house/
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,425
27,301
898
Seattle
#17
One of the nation's foremost bullshitters who continues to lie out of both sides of his mouth so he can sell books got himself arrested as part of a publicity stunt that will likely lead to additional book sales.
Fixed.

/story
 

Norm Stansfield

私は亀が好きだ。
Mar 17, 2009
15,949
4,075
328
#18
Top NASA climate scientist arrested at White House
Brilliant. Meanwhile, they might have to just let the ISS fall into the ocean, because they forgot to plan for a way to get to it for the next ten years.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#19
Daryl Hannah Arrested At Keystone XL Pipeline Protest

The Huffington Post
James Gerken
First Posted: 8/30/11 02:07 PM ET Updated: 8/30/11 02:31 PM ET


Actress Daryl Hannah has joined the over 500 people who have been arrested since August 20 for a sit-in protest outside the White House.

The "Splash" and "Wall Street" star was one of nearly 100 people who were arrested on Tuesday for protesting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, according to a press release from Rainforest Action Network.

The Associated Press reports that Hannah sat by the White House sidewalk and refused to move under orders from U.S. Park Police.

According to Financial Post, Hannah shouted, “No to the Keystone pipeline” as she was being handcuffed.

The planned pipeline will run from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta to refineries on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. It is currently waiting on approval from the White House.

In a HuffPost blog piece, Philip Radford and Daryl Hannah wrote:
This week, President Obama will find hundreds more people in front of the White House -- us included -- willing to go to jail for peacefully protesting the President's short-sighted decision to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama's decision on this enormous fossil fuel project will not be a quiet deal with oil industry lobbyists; it will be witnessed by millions of voters who had hoped that President Obama would have the vision to get America off of oil with a moonshot program for oil-free cars by the next decade. Instead, oil profits have been pitted against the world that our children will live in, hooking America to some of the highest polluting oil without moving America quickly to a foreign oil-free future.​
On Friday, the State Department found that the pipeline would have "no significant impact" on the environment and suggested that the project move forward. Over the weekend, an interview aired of a former State Department official saying that Clinton would likely approve plans for the pipeline.

Earlier this month, an editorial in The New York Times opposed the pipeline, reading, "We have two main concerns: the risk of oil spills along the pipeline, which would traverse highly sensitive terrain, and the fact that the extraction of petroleum from the tar sands creates far more greenhouse emissions than conventional production does."

Tar Sands Action protest leader Bill McKibben said “It’s clear that this message is spreading out of Washington fast. This has become the test for the president to show the country and the global community that he’s serious about climate change.”

Check out this infographic suggesting that the proposed pipeline is "Built to Spill."

The slideshow below shows a number of protestors, including religious leaders, who have been arrested outside the White House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/daryl-hannah-arrested-keystone-protest_n_942072.html
Mostly typical hippies found on HuffPo's slideshow from the protest.



This chick definitely seems doable though...

 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#20
Well they do have the pipeline mapped out going right over the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. If the pipeline ruptured (and they do from time to time) it would destroy the aquifer and render millions of acres of farmland unusable because there wouldn't be any irrigation water available.
Your governor agrees...

GOP governor urges Obama to reject proposed Keystone oil pipeline

By Andrew Restuccia - 08/31/11 11:07 AM ET

Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) urged President Obama on Wednesday to reject a pending permit application for a controversial pipeline that would carry Canadian oil sands through his state.

In a letter to Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Heineman stressed that he is not opposed to oil pipelines generally. But he blasted TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline because it would cross part of Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which provides water for the state’s farmers and ranchers.

“Maintaining and protecting Nebraska’s water supply is very important to me and the residents of Nebraska,” Heineman said in the letter. “This resources is the lifeblood of Nebraska’s agriculture industry.”
Heineman’s letter lends a high-profile Republican voice to ongoing efforts by environmentalists, ranchers, public lands groups and many Democrats to scuttle the project, which would carry Canadian oil sands from Alberta to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

The Republican governor rejected the State Department’s final environmental impact statement, which said a pipeline spill would “affect a limited area of the aquifer around the spill site.”

“I disagree with this analysis, and I believe that the pipeline should not cross a substantial portion of the Ogallala Aquifer,” Heineman said.

The State Department, in the environmental impact statement released late last week, said there would be “no significant impacts to most resources” along the proposed route if the company adheres to conditions and mitigation measures that pipeline regulators and environmental agencies demand.

Environmental groups and others blasted the analysis, arguing it did not adequately analyze the potential for spills and the high levels of greenhouse gas emissions that result from oil sands production.

Environmental groups have ratcheted up political pressure on President Obama to reject TransCanada’s permit application in recent months, arguing that the final decision will be a “bellwether” for the White House on environmental policy. They staged a two-week protest in front of the White House, during which hundreds of people have been arrested.

Many Republicans and the oil industry are pressing the administration to approve the pipeline, arguing it will boost the economy and make the country less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

The Obama administration is expected to make a final decision on the pipeline proposal by the end of the year, after a three-month public comment period and further analysis aimed at determining whether the project is in the national interest.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/67...r-urges-obama-to-reject-proposed-oil-pipeline
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,304
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#21
Problem Obama?

:trollol:
TransCanada Re-Envisions Keystone XL Pipeline After Obama Rejects Original Proposal

By Emily Knapp

January 19 2012

TransCanada Corp. (NYSE:TRP) may shorten its Keystone XL pipeline so as to bypass the need for federal approval after being rejected by the Obama administration on Wednesday.

TransCanada’s original proposal for the $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline would bring crude from Canada’s oil sands to the Gulf, but after the Obama administration rejected the proposal, the company has said it will consider shortening the pipeline so that it stretches from Montana’s Bakken Shale to refiners in the Gulf of Mexico.

The project only required U.S. approval because the original proposal would have had the pipeline crossing the border with Canada. The company may still go ahead and build the segment from Montana to the Gulf without permission. Changing the project would allow TransCanada to use existing pipe materials and rights-of-way, and apply again later for federal permission to connect the pipeline to Canada.

The Bakken shale-rock formation in Montana and North Dakota is estimated to hold up to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. Oil production in North Dakota increased by 42 percent in November to 510,000 barrels a day — that exceeds the daily output for all of Ecuador. Production could reach as many as 750,000 barrels a day this year.

TransCanada has originally hoped that the Keystone XL pipeline would carry as much as 830,000 barrels a day from Canada’s oil sands to the Gulf. The company has already spent $1.88 billion on the pipeline project, which CEO Russ Girling still believes could be completed by 2014. The company already owns the rights to 93 percent of the land it needs to build the pipeline along the originally proposed route.

TransCanada agreed in November to re-route the project so as to avoid the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region in Nebraska, but discussions with the state have not yet to produce a new route. The U.S. State Department rejected TransCanada’s permit application yesterday, with Obama saying that the February 21 deadline for a decision, which was set by Congress, did not leave enough time to make a decision on the new Nebraska path.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/trading...e-after-obama-rejects-original-proposal.html/
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,833
5,174
763
Wilmington, NC
#22
Canada seems a bit miffed...

Keystone Cop-Out

U.S. President Barack Obama made a choice last week: He chose Venezuela over Canada.

That’s what he did when he rejected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would have taken oilsands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast of Texas.

That pipeline would have delivered 700,000 barrels of oil every day from Canada (and from a new oilfield called Bakken that straddles the North Dakota-Saskatchewan border).

Which is almost precisely the amount of oil Venezuela now ships to the United States, to those same refineries in Texas.

With one fell swoop, Obama could have replaced conflict oil, from a belligerent, authoritarian OPEC regime, with ethical oil from Canada.

But he didn’t.

Hugo Chavez, the bully ruler of Venezuela, is a serial human rights violator.

He’s a Marxist, too, but that’s a different matter. According to impeccably liberal human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Chavez has shredded civil liberties in Venezuela — crushing independent labour unions, shutting down newspapers and radio stations that disagree with him, corrupting the political system and abusing Aboriginal people.

It won’t surprise you to learn that a ruler who treats his own people that way threatens other countries, too.

Chavez routinely menaces Colombia, a true democracy, even massing troops on the border and giving cover support to narco-terrorists seeking to undermine Colombia’s government.

And Chavez’s new ally is none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — the two men share a hatred for Americans. And they have something else in common: If it weren’t for oil revenues, they’d both have been toppled by now.

Venezuela sells an enormous amount of oil to the U.S. About 800,000 barrels a day. At a hundred bucks a barrel, that’s $80 million a day.

That’s about $30 billion a year America pays to its greatest enemy in the western hemisphere.

It’s not just conflict oil, though. Venezuelan oil is some of the most carbon-intense oil in the world — even more so than Canada’s oilsands.

So by replacing Venezuelan imports with Keystone XL oilsands oil, not only would Obama have been doing the right thing geopolitically, it would have reduced America’s carbon footprint — which Obama claims to care about.

And it’s more than environmental.

Venezuelan oil tankers don’t give a lot of jobs to Americans. A few at the ports, but that’s about it. Whereas a new pipeline coming down from Canada provides a lot of “shovel-ready” jobs for Americans still reeling from the worst recession in that country since the 1930s.

Not only would the pipeline construction create jobs, but Keystone XL would have been the largest property taxpayer in many of the counties through which it flowed.

But Obama made another choice this week: Hollywood celebrities over working men and women.

See, those Hollywood celebrities — mainly airheads, such as Daryl Hannah, or pro-Chavez socialists, such as Sean Penn — will raise tens of millions of dollars for Obama’s re-election now that he nixed Canadian oil.

Whereas the thousands of American construction workers — well, they’re from states like Nebraska that weren’t going to vote Democrat anyways.

Obama’s decision is a disgrace, but it’s America’s business.

So now our business is to sell our oil to Asia.

Not just for our economic success, but to prove we are an independent country.

If Obama doesn’t want our oil, well, the rest of the world does.

Obama’s decisions are bad for America. They’re bad for U.S. jobs, U.S. energy security and U.S. foreign political entanglements.

But they’re bad for us, too. Canadians love America — we did before Obama came along, we do now, and we will after Obama is gone.

But let’s not sit by the phone waiting for Obama to love us in return.

Let’s open up markets in Asia and grow up as a country — a country with friends and trading partners around the world.

It’s about self-respect — and it will make America respect us more, too.
More hatin on our black President, I see. Racist country. Should've known with your 2.5% black population. :icon_cool
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,322
8,507
693
Silverdale, WA
#23
Six reasons why the pipeline is a bad deal from a lefty blog.:icon_cool

Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along
By Sally Kohn

Published January 18, 2012
| FoxNews.com

In announcing his decision to not grant permission for the Keystone pipeline extension, opponents of President Obama argue the president gave in to pressure from environmental activists.

In reality, the president was resisting an artificial deadline from Republicans trying to force his hand.

But the fact is, for the good of our country and our economy, rejecting the Keystone XL deal was the best decision possible.

Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:

1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency

The oil to be sent through Keystone XL pipeline was never destined for US markets. In its own presentation to investors about the proposed pipeline extension, TransCanada (the company behind Keystone XL) boasted that most if not all of the extracted and refined oil would be exported --- sold in oversees markets where oil fetches a higher price (and thus turns a higher profit for the company).

2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices

Currently, Canadian oil reserves stored in the Midwest help suppress gas prices in the United States, particularly for farmers in our nation’s heartland.

In its permit application for the pipeline, TransCanada noted that the Keystone XL pipeline would allow the company to drain these reserves and export that fuel as well. According to TransCanada’s own statements, this would raise gas prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.

3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created

In 2008, TransCanada’s original permit application to the State Department said the Keystone XL pipeline would create “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” in temporary jobs building the pipeline.

By 2011, now facing growing opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada had inflated these numbers (using undisclosed formulas) to 20,000. Supporters of the proposal, backed by big oil, have since trumpeted these trumped up numbers.

4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year

The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12 times in the last year.

While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as “minor” averaging “just five to 10 gallons of oil” each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.

5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified

Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million Americans plus water that fuels the region’s agriculture industry.

Building the pipeline might have created a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health and safety of millions.

Meanwhile, in Michigan where a similar tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, residents are still complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea while studies continue to look at the long-term effects of just being near such an oil spill when it happens.

6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming

Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.

Mining these reserves would release all of that carbon into the atmosphere, to detrimental effect on our environment. Sure, Canada might go ahead and mine the tar sands anyway, but the United States doesn’t have to help pollute the planet and our own states in the process.

No matter how you look at it, the Keystone XL proposal was a slimy, scam of a deal. America is better than that.

We can create good-paying jobs that build our families and our economy for the future without hurting our environment today.

We can invest in innovative energy technology that not only reduces our dependence on dirty fuel but also puts us in the lead in critical, emerging markets.

We can prioritize good jobs and a competitive economy of the future, with all the upsides of American energy production and innovation and far, far fewer of the downsides that Keystone carried.

Let’s focus on more of those deals going forward.

Sally Kohn is a Fox News Contributor and grassroots strategist. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/
 

Motor Head

HIGHWAY TRASH REMOVAL
Jan 23, 2006
10,385
419
243
Land of hicks and rubes.
#24
Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million Americans plus water that fuels the region’s agriculture industry.
Please note this guy is a hardline conservative Republican, is extremely pro business He has referred to this pipeline as a scam when it comes to jobs.
 
Jun 2, 2005
15,516
4
0
Dallas
#25
Please note this guy is a hardline conservative Republican, is extremely pro business He has referred to this pipeline as a scam when it comes to jobs.
Then I guess we've found an issue that he's an uninformed boob on that he's willing to exploit for votes.

There's hundreds of thousands of miles of oil pipeline already running all across the country. I'm sure there are already smaller pipelines around the exact aquifer these people are working so hard to defend.

Look, this pipeline is bad for me on a personal level as it will reduce the demand for the oil my company produces, but I would be completely dishonest if I said I thought it was in any way a bad idea.