Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[Texashiker]

That's assuming that there no mechanism to shut off the flow of oil in the event of disaster.

Shutting off the flow is not the issue, its the oil already in the pipeline that is the problem.

Lets say its 20 miles between pump stations, a blowout occurs halfway, that is a lot of oil to leak out.

In some places, the water table is only about 30 - 40 feet below the surface. The well at my parents camp is only about 40 feet deep. The pipeline is buried, a leak happens, the oil leaks straight into the water table.

 

[First]

Non-story is non-story.

lol 'huge job producer".

 

[Texashiker]

lol 'huge job producer".

Not sure if trolling or serious?

 

[IGBT]

your obama. Steward of a declining economy. Doubling down on failure. Appeasing his eco-KOOK base.

 

[kage69]

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.

I didn't say it builds or runs itself, but I do take issue with the notion that projects like this create and maintain a large number of jobs. The Transcontinental Pipeline is a perfect example. Long term maintenance involves a large deal of automation, and the numbers of the employed go down, not stay static or increase. I don't feel the risks involved are worth short term employment, certainly not for such an inefficient method of production that by the way produces energy that we need to wean ourselves off of.

Oil companies have proven in spades lately that they can't be trusted to do the right thing (forgoing necessary precautions to save a paltry 2million in the Gulf being a great example), I really don't expect them to change.

If republicans want to help the economy they shouldn't be derailing bills that give tax incentives to businesses that keep operations in this country, as well as removing loopholes and subsidies for those that are offshore businesses.

If this project represented a method that wasn't so environmentally damaging and maybe even was built around a energy source that was sustainable and more cost-effective I doubt you'd see any disagreement from the White House.

 

[Genx87]

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.

Look at your own link for starters if you want to see a current pipeline. It shows the current keystone pipeline and the proposed expansion. We have known about these large aquifers for decades if not longer. That isnt a valid reason to stop this expansion. And by your logic we should be ripping that pipeline up due to its potential for disaster. I doubt all of that infrastructure from canada or the other pipelines were built from 1941-1945. I suspect most of that was done from the late 1960s onward.

 

[Genx87]

Shutting off the flow is not the issue, its the oil already in the pipeline that is the problem.

Lets say its 20 miles between pump stations, a blowout occurs halfway, that is a lot of oil to leak out.

In some places, the water table is only about 30 - 40 feet below the surface. The well at my parents camp is only about 40 feet deep. The pipeline is buried, a leak happens, the oil leaks straight into the water table.

And how do they control this in other pipelines?

 

[kage69]

your obama. Steward of a declining economy. Doubling down on failure. Appeasing his eco-KOOK base.

Someone throw this troll a cookie and a Newsweek.

 

[Texashiker]

And by your logic we should be ripping that pipeline up due to its potential for disaster.

By my logic, we should not be adding risk.

Previous generations made choices that we have to live with. We should not place the same burden on future generations.

And how do they control this in other pipelines?

If there is a blowout, it can burn for days.

http://www.kfdm.com/video/v/1256269003/kfdm-localnews-kfdm

 

[Genx87]

I didn't say it builds or runs itself, but I do take issue with the notion that projects like this create and maintain a large number of jobs. The Transcontinental Pipeline is a perfect example. Long term maintenance involves a large deal of automation, and the numbers of the employed go down, not stay static or increase. I don't feel the risks involved are worth short term employment, certainly not for such an inefficient method of production that by the way produces energy that we need to wean ourselves off of.

Oil companies have proven in spades lately that they can't be trusted to do the right thing (forgoing necessary precautions to save a paltry 2million in the Gulf being a great example), I really don't expect them to change.

If republicans want to help the economy they shouldn't be derailing bills that give tax incentives to businesses that keep operations in this country, as well as removing loopholes and subsidies for those that are offshore businesses.

If this project represented a method that wasn't so environmentally damaging and maybe even was built around a energy source that was sustainable and more cost-effective I doubt you'd see any disagreement from the White House.

Even if this created 10 jobs, it is 10 more jobs and more infrastructure for this country. I thought liberals were all about infrastructure? Or are they only about infrastrcuture when it involves people being paid to dig a ditch and fill it back in again? Damn the possibility of creating a long term sustainable good paying job that doesnt rely on a politician to play god.

 

[Genx87]

By my logic, we should not be adding risk.

Previous generations made choices that we have to live with. We should not place the same burden on future generations.

What is more risky, older pipeline or a newer one? What I am getting from you is to halt all progress in the name of risk? Everything has risk.

If there is a blowout, it can burn for days.

That doesnt anwser my question. What do they have in place right now to stop such a disaster? Or are you saying they dont have anything and a blowout in an older pipeline is risky?

 

[Genx87]

Someone throw this troll a cookie and a Newsweek.

He has a point. Obama is presiding over a faltering economy and when given the opportunity to allow for an infrastructure upgrade with the potential to create long term good paying jobs. He blocked it. He doubled down on failure.

 

[Texashiker]

What is more risky, older pipeline or a newer one? What I am getting from you is to halt all progress in the name of risk?

Reroute the pipeline so it poses less risk to aquifers.

Regardless of what you do, there is always a risk.

Personally, I think the pipeline is a good idea. But not at the cost of safe drinking water to millions of people.

 

[Genx87]

Reroute the pipeline so it poses less risk to aquifers.

Regardless of what you do, there is always a risk.

Personally, I think the pipeline is a good idea. But not at the cost of safe drinking water to millions of people.

There is always a well somewhere.

 

[sunzt]

There is always a well somewhere.

now THAT is risk mitigation.

 

[kage69]

Even if this created 10 jobs, it is 10 more jobs and more infrastructure for this country.

Curious how you can take both sides of the debate when it comes to jobs Genx87, very interesting.
The pubbies scuttle the Bill I mentioned just now and you poo poo the economic benefit and number of jobs as being inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Cut to today, and even 10 jobs is a step in the right direction and damn everyone that isn't on board!

I won't speak for the diehard liberals you've convinced yourself are out to get you, but as a conservationist I'd be happy to expound on the conservative qualities of that viewpoint.
Interested, or should I just skip it and cut to the thread link that shows you to be a disingenuous hack?

 

[tydas]

Isn't it amazing that this 7 billion dollar project will create over 100 thousand jobs but the 787 billion dollar stimulus didn't create any jobs?

A few things I've gathered about the pipeline:

1. As far as the environmental risk, I'd imagine this could be managed and the risk be at an acceptable level. We'd never build anything if we worried about worst case scenarios all the time.

2. This is a private enterprise project and they deserve that the true facts be looked at and with negotiaion there should eventually be a agreeable outcome. All the politics on both sides is bad. I'm not sure if Obama should have blocked it but I'd like to see more details on why.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

LOL. Conservatives now support imminent domain, because in this case it's to help out their buddies in the oil industry.

 

[Throckmorton]

You guys know this is a pipeline to let Canada ship their oil to the Gulf right? It doesn't benefit us...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If this project represented a method that wasn't so environmentally damaging and maybe even was built around a energy source that was sustainable and more cost-effective I doubt you'd see any disagreement from the White House.

The first part is something that would need to be addressed. As I've said regulations that would stop the flow in short order isn't a great feat. That could (and should) have been addressed, but I would disagree that it's within the proper role of the government to decide for a business what it sees as profitable assuming the proper safety mechanisms are in place. That's a great deal of power to grant an institution driven by the Beltway mentality.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You guys know this is a pipeline to let Canada ship their oil to the Gulf right? It doesn't benefit us...

What happens once it gets there?

 

[xBiffx]

You guys know this is a pipeline to let Canada ship their oil to the Gulf right? It doesn't benefit us...

Thousands of jobs to build, maintain, and operate this pipeline. No benefit there, you are right.

Also, I highly doubt this oil makes it way to China from a US port. You can guarantee that if they don't go to the gulf coast, they are going to take it west to their own coast. Then, every bit of this oil gets sold to China. That's sure gonna help us out.

 

[Genx87]

Curious how you can take both sides of the debate when it comes to jobs Genx87, very interesting.
The pubbies scuttle the Bill I mentioned just now and you poo poo the economic benefit and number of jobs as being inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Cut to today, and even 10 jobs is a step in the right direction and damn everyone that isn't on board!

How am I taking both sides of the debate? I made no comment on anything other than the pipeline.

I won't speak for the diehard liberals you've convinced yourself are out to get you, but as a conservationist I'd be happy to expound on the conservative qualities of that viewpoint.
Interested, or should I just skip it and cut to the thread link that shows you to be a disingenuous hack?

Oh sure why not. You obviously have been waiting to unleash this on me for weeks or months and are great at degenerating a conversation into personal insults.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is good news. I would be fine with a pipeline, but not one that carries Canadian oil. They are trying their best to destroy the earth, which is pretty typical of Canadians. They are probably the most selfish nation out there in terms of net benefits vs. net negatives. The US should not be supporting anything Canadian.

 

[Franz316]

Let's not forget where the oil is actually coming from.

Everything about it - from the clear cutting on forest, to large scale excavation, to the mass usage of water, to the toxic tailings lakes, and ultimately transporting it out of Alberta reeks of desperation. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I see it pretty absurd to destroy an area the size of Florida and then build a 2000+ mile pipeline to Texas.

And that doesn't even include the eminent domain or American water issues. We can do better than this.