Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[spidey07]

Obama to kill a huge job producer. This project has win/win written all over it, and the only thing standing in the way of jobs is Obama. The good news is he can be slammed over this incredibly short sighted stupid move AND it will turn the unions against him.

Word on the street is the real reason he opposes it is it would harm exports from his pal Chavez.

Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket - Barrack Hussein Obama.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...eject-transcanada-s-keystone-xl-pipeline.html

The Obama administration will announce rejection of TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline as soon as today, according to two people familiar with the matter.

 

[monovillage]

He's a fucking idiot for that move. The only good thing out of his choice is it'll cost him votes in the election.

 

[CanOWorms]

Good for Obama. He should be opposing any further exploitation of the Canadian tar sands, one of the world's environmental disasters. Hopefully this is only the first step of a comprehensive offensive.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What an f'ing dumbass!

 

[spidey07]

What an f'ing dumbass!

I bet China is laughing all over themselves.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Good for Obama. He should be opposing any further exploitation of the Canadian tar sands, one of the world's environmental disasters. Hopefully this is only the first step of a comprehensive offensive.

So Obama is now responsible for Canada? Are they part of our new "white man's burden?"

No reasonable objection to this has been presented whatsoever. This isn't deep sea drilling, the jobs are high paying and real. This is entirely a decision for political expediency sake at the cost of genuine benefit to the US.

 

[kage69]

Smart move by Obama. The jobs argument is empty rhetoric, and protecting exports from Venezuela is just the usual hogwash from the usual suspects.

Hearing Obama haters whine about "short sightedness," lol god that's good stuff.
I guess all those jobs created by the Transcontinental pipeline are still there huh?

Oil from tar sands is a stupid idea, good riddance.

 

[Anarchist420]

So Obama is now responsible for Canada? Are they part of our new "white man's burden?"

No reasonable objection to this has been presented whatsoever. This isn't deep sea drilling, the jobs are high paying and real. This is entirely a decision for political expediency sake at the cost of genuine benefit to the US.

Actually, it's a violation of private property rights. That should be enough of a reason to be against it. If you owned property that was in the way of the proposed pipeline, would you want to be forced to sell it for less than you deem it to be worth?

This is another reason why I hate the Republican Establishment. They don't respect private property any more than the man in the moon.

 

[Texashiker]

No reasonable objection to this has been presented whatsoever.

Wrong. The pipeline was supposed to go over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people.

If the pipeline leaked, or worse had an explosion, the oil could contaminate a major source of safe drinking water.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/pipeline-45689-texas-canada.html

 

[tydas]

Word on the street is the real reason he opposes it is it would harm exports from his pal Chavez.

Are you kidding me with that comment? hope you wore your tinfoil hat while typing that or Obama might be paying you a visit..

Also, not such a slam dunk when it is analyzed...

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=544

 

[monovillage]

It's a shame, but it's true that there's going to be posters here from the left/progressive/Democrat side that are going to lie and misinform people about this issue. Take a little time (just a little) and read up on Canada's oil policies and environmental policies. No links, but you'll have an easy time finding factual information on your own from accurate sources.

 

[CanOWorms]

So Obama is now responsible for Canada? Are they part of our new "white man's burden?"

No reasonable objection to this has been presented whatsoever. This isn't deep sea drilling, the jobs are high paying and real. This is entirely a decision for political expediency sake at the cost of genuine benefit to the US.

No, but it is an environmental disaster that can have repercussions in the United States, and as such he should be trying to deal with it.

Obama is the first president to make America his primary interest. It's so refreshing to see it in action.

 

[kage69]

I bet China is laughing all over themselves.

Their too busy pissing and moaning that they don't get the love from Saudi Arabia that we do.

 

[michal1980]

And the left will claim that Obama is a moderate.

LOL.

Nothing but a tree hugging liberal.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's a shame, but it's true that there's going to be posters here from the left/progressive/Democrat side that are going to lie and misinform people about this issue. Take a little time (just a little) and read up on Canada's oil policies and environmental policies. No links, but you'll have an easy time finding factual information on your own from accurate sources.

Yes, I highly recommend this, but I suggest that readers be prepared for a shock. Remember, Canada is the country that allowed its corporations to practice slavery in Sudan for oil. Unfortunately, Canada has changed for the worse over the years.

 

[MovingTarget]

Obama to kill a huge job producer. This project has win/win written all over it, and the only thing standing in the way of jobs is Obama. The good news is he can be slammed over this incredibly short sighted stupid move AND it will turn the unions against him.

Word on the street is the real reason he opposes it is it would harm exports from his pal Chavez.

Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket - Barrack Hussein Obama.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...eject-transcanada-s-keystone-xl-pipeline.html

I disagree with Obama about the pipeline, but the China/Chavez/etc scaremongering that you posted here is pure hogwash.

 

[Genx87]

Wrong. The pipeline was supposed to go over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people.

If the pipeline leaked, or worse had an explosion, the oil could contaminate a major source of safe drinking water.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/pipeline-45689-texas-canada.html

There are already older less safe pipelines crossing over this source of drinking water. Should we immediately shut them down due to this risk? Your own link shows the current pipeline running right over a lot of the same ground.

 

[PokerGuy]

How surprising, Obama following through on his promise to raise the costs of electricity, while at the same time destroying jobs and helping ol' Hugo. True colors showing, I guess.

Good thing it's done in an election year, hopefully the people will realize their mistake and fix it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Smart move by Obama. The jobs argument is empty rhetoric, and protecting exports from Venezuela is just the usual hogwash from the usual suspects.

Hearing Obama haters whine about "short sightedness," lol god that's good stuff.
I guess all those jobs created by the Transcontinental pipeline are still there huh?

Oil from tar sands is a stupid idea, good riddance.

Will you explain how this builds and runs itself? The jobs are real and there will be a long term need for maintenance. It brings oil to US soil. It doesn't pose any substantial risk.

Your objection seems to be based on the fact that many think this to be a bad decision on Obama's part. You think it's not yet you have no effective counter to the substance of the issue.

 

[alphatarget1]

Wrong. The pipeline was supposed to go over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people.

If the pipeline leaked, or worse had an explosion, the oil could contaminate a major source of safe drinking water.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/pipeline-45689-texas-canada.html

I think the concerns are valid but it isn't exactly an insurmountable engineering challenge to limit damage in case of leakage/blowout. It's not on the bottom of the sea floor, for one. As long as it's well designed and they have a good response plan, I think the risks are managable.

 

[kage69]

Wrong. The pipeline was supposed to go over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people.

If the pipeline leaked, or worse had an explosion, the oil could contaminate a major source of safe drinking water.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/pipeline-45689-texas-canada.html

Aw c'mon, it's not like these oil companies take risks and ignore environmental protections to save paltry amounts of money.


Oh, wait...

 

[Anarchist420]

Obama to kill a huge job producer. This project has win/win written all over it, and the only thing standing in the way of jobs is Obama. The good news is he can be slammed over this incredibly short sighted stupid move AND it will turn the unions against him.

Word on the street is the real reason he opposes it is it would harm exports from his pal Chavez.

Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket - Barrack Hussein Obama.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...eject-transcanada-s-keystone-xl-pipeline.html

So you care more about job creation than private property rights?

 

[Texashiker]

There are already older less safe pipelines crossing over this source of drinking water. Should we immediately shut them down due to this risk? Your own link shows the current pipeline running right over a lot of the same ground.

Some of those pipelines (dont know exactly which ones you are referring to) were built 1, before we understood how large those aquifers are and their exact location; 2, were built during times of war and were a matter of national security.

Then there is the capacity of the older pipelines compared to the newer pipelines.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wrong. The pipeline was supposed to go over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people.

If the pipeline leaked, or worse had an explosion, the oil could contaminate a major source of safe drinking water.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/pipeline-45689-texas-canada.html

That's assuming that there no mechanism to shut off the flow of oil in the event of disaster. Remember that the Gulf oil spill wasn't damaging because it happened at all, but rather there was no means of stopping the leak once it happened. Pipelines should be designed with the possibility of something up to and including an act of terrorism, but that is merely a technical consideration which has no insurmountable problems.

 

[Bowfinger]

So Obama is now responsible for Canada? Are they part of our new "white man's burden?"

No reasonable objection to this has been presented whatsoever. This isn't deep sea drilling, the jobs are high paying and real. This is entirely a decision for political expediency sake at the cost of genuine benefit to the US.

Are you sure about that?

Let me preface this by saying I don't really know that much about this proposed pipeline. I've read a little about it, but didn't dig into it in depth. Therefore, understand that I am asking for information, not stating a position. I'm asking you specifically, rather than certain others in this thread, because you've consistently shown yourself to be well-informed and well-reasoned.

That said, it is my understanding that environmental opposition to the Keystone pipeline centers on the link across Nebraska. Nebraska apparently draws its drinking water from a fairly shallow aquifer, which means it is especially vulnerable to pollution. The concern is that a pipeline leak could easily pollute Nebraska's main source of drinking water. If this is a valid concern, it certainly seems like a reasonable objection to me.

Again, per my limited understanding, the environmentalists want a different route for the pipeline, one the avoids the sensitive areas in Nebraska. The Obama administration agreed and was studying one or more possible alternative routes, attempting to find a better solution. Republicans in Congress preempted this, however, by requiring a yes/no decision within 60 days. Therefore, "Obama" said no.

That's my understanding in a nutshell. What parts are right? What parts are wrong? Why is it unreasonable to seek a route that doesn't threaten Nebraskans' drinking water?