Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[michal1980]

He didn't shut it down. Just prolonged it to allow rerouting of part of it. Typical spidey bs.

he shut it down so that the tree huggers can be happy.


When will the left wake up and reliaze a socialist is in office. They should be happy.


Once again I have been proved true.

socialists like Obama want people dependent on government. He said himself he would rather have people be on unemployment, then working on the pipeline.

 

[umbrella39]

When will the left wake up and reliaze a socialist is in office. They should be happy.


Once again I have been proved true.

socialists like Obama want people dependent on government. He said himself he would rather have people be on unemployment, then working on the pipeline.

Stop marginalizing yourself. While I didn't last time nor ever will vote Obama, continuing to use the word "socialist" to describe Black Bush in most of your posts just shows you either partisan blind or stupid you are. Seriously... grow up. Minds like your assure his reelection. Find another word that carries some truth...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I agree with everything up until your last line. I do imagine the GLI study underestimates jobs while the Keystone pitch overstates them. I also noticed the significant number of environmentalist talking points in parts of the report. What I'm most interested in, however, are the specific, factual points made by GLI, refuting claims made by Keystone. Those points should be "refutable" (if that's a word) if they are inaccurate. If they are accurate, on the other hand, they need to be considered as part of the overall conversation on the pipeline.

That's why I reject your last line, that the report is garbage. That has yet to be shown.

Facts directly related to the conclusions are hard to come by in this study.

For example, TransAmerica has stated that 75% of the steel pipe will be manufactured in Little Rock, AR.

Skinner states otherwise "based on the experience of Phases 1 and 2, the final processing work for KXL will probably be performed in the US with most of the steel and pipe sourced from oustide of the US (notably India and South Korea)."

Who are we to believe?

Crap like this is littered throughout this "independent study". Most everything I read is highly biased speculation. I call it garbage.

 

[K1052]

socialist

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[sm625]

We really dont need another pipeline. By every metric, both US oil production and consumption are both in decline. Oil infrastructure buildout is clearly a malinvestment at this point. There are much cheaper ways to get tar sand crude to our refineries. It will just take a few years for the current decline rates to free up pipeline capacity. But its not like a new pipeline can be built before then. I do advocate building shorter spans where it makes sense.

 

[spidey07]

We really dont need another pipeline. By every metric, both US oil production and consumption are both in decline. Oil infrastructure buildout is clearly a malinvestment at this point. There are much cheaper ways to get tar sand crude to our refineries. It will just take a few years for the current decline rates to free up pipeline capacity. But its not like a new pipeline can be built before then. I do advocate building shorter spans where it makes sense.

Obviously there is a need for it, otherwise a private company wouldn't be building it with their own money. It sounds like a slam dunk investment of their own money with guaranteed return. I honestly think there's still a good percentage of liberals (majority likely) out there that are just too stupid to realize this isn't being built with government money. In the mind of a liberal, only benevolent master government builds energy infrastructure.

Look back in this thread of all the posts by liberals who still think it's Obama being wise not to spend the money to build it.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Obviously there is a need for it, otherwise a private company wouldn't be building it with their own money. It sounds like a slam dunk investment of their own money with guaranteed return. I honestly think there's still a good percentage of liberals (majority likely) out there that are just too stupid to realize this isn't being built with government money. In the mind of a liberal, only benevolent master government builds energy infrastructure.

Look back in this thread of all the posts by liberals who still think it's Obama being wise not to spend the money to build it.

Even if you are in favor of the project, why wouldn't you try and get the best plan for the project before approving it? Seems foolish to approve such a massive and critical project without looking at all the considerations, environmental and otherwise.

Do people not realize that environmental concerns are also economic concerns??? Did we learn nothing from the BP oil spill?

 

[umbrella39]

wonders when that Pinocchio nose is finally going to grow long enough to open the basement door... 8 arms can't do it, 8 eyes can't help him see, maybe a few more lies will... This is the conservative mind in action... plagued with lies and stupidy.

 

[slayernine]

We really dont need another pipeline. By every metric, both US oil production and consumption are both in decline. Oil infrastructure buildout is clearly a malinvestment at this point. There are much cheaper ways to get tar sand crude to our refineries. It will just take a few years for the current decline rates to free up pipeline capacity. But its not like a new pipeline can be built before then. I do advocate building shorter spans where it makes sense.

Canada wants to utilize infrastructure in place in Texas to produce oil based products which will create jobs in both countries. This in turn reduces the reliance on crude oil from countries in the middle east. This will create lower and more stable prices for oil based commodities and will reduce the amount of money the US spends in countries ruled by dictators.

There currently no pipelines that go straight from the Alberta oil sands to Texas and certainly none that can carry the required capacity. There are pipelines that go to Edmonton and transport partially processed crude but not up North and none with efficient routes.

This is not a "malinvestment"[sic]. The oil sands production continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

 

[Pens1566]

he shut it down so that the tree huggers can be happy.


When will the left wake up and reliaze a socialist is in office. They should be happy.


Once again I have been proved true.

socialists like Obama want people dependent on government. He said himself he would rather have people be on unemployment, then working on the pipeline.

Is this what the voices in your head are telling you?

 

[monovillage]

Canada wants to utilize infrastructure in place in Texas to produce oil based products which will create jobs in both countries. This in turn reduces the reliance on crude oil from countries in the middle east. This will create lower and more stable prices for oil based commodities and will reduce the amount of money the US spends in countries ruled by dictators.

There currently no pipelines that go straight from the Alberta oil sands to Texas and certainly none that can carry the required capacity. There are pipelines that go to Edmonton and transport partially processed crude but not up North and none with efficient routes.

This is not a "malinvestment"[sic]. The oil sands production continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

I'm sorry that we have a bunch of ignorant political sluts here in the U.S. that can't see the difference between the ethical Canadian oil industry that pays taxes, uses the best technology and maintains the highest environmental standards as opposed to the environmental nightmares of Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola or Saudi Arabia.

 

[Bitek]

he shut it down so that the tree huggers can be happy.

When will the left wake up and reliaze a socialist is in office. They should be happy.

Once again I have been proved true.

socialists like Obama want people dependent on government. He said himself he would rather have people be on unemployment, then working on the pipeline.

As I said pages ago, this pipeline will get approved down the line. The "treehuggers" are just starting to wake up to this fact and feel the butthurt.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71665.html

“Administration will reject Keystone pipeline, for now,” reads the cautiously written title of one Daily Kos post.​

“Far from embracing the coalition opposing the pipeline, President Barack Obama has indicated that the permit is primarily a State Department affair,” ​

“The official rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from the President has some interesting framing … the nature of this rejection does suggest that a future plan could get approval down the road, given the proper amount of time for environmental review and routing,” writes David Dayden of FireDogLake.

“There’s a lot of reassurances there that the oil will keep flowing, just not out of this particular pipeline. And indeed, the Obama administration has presided over record growth in oil production, which has predictably had no discernible effect on oil prices,” Dayden added.

The Pres is not on the same page as those guys. He will approve the pipeline, once the permit is reworked and resubmitted, which will happen to be after the election.​

Those that think he'll hold this up indefinately are going to be disappointed again. Once a proper plan is in place, there will be no good justification to hold this up. He won't do it. That's never been his style.​

There is no reason we want to piss off Canada for this. This is a privately funded project, that will have some (altho dubious #) job benefits, and running a pipeline is hardly a novel project. They absolutely need to engineer and plan it right, but after that its a go.​

If people don't like tar sands oil, they should bitch to the Canadians. There is no way the POTUS is going to make it US Policy to disrupt their operations on pollution grounds when we are the largest polluter in the world already.​

 

[monovillage]

China is so far ahead of the U.S. in the pollution sweepstakes it's not even funny. You need to update your database.

 

[Bitek]

I would say, when is the Right and Left going to wake up and realize we have a Pragmatic Moderate Centrist in office?

For all the bluster over this and his other decisions, any other interpretation of him requires a lot of illogical thinking and ignorance of fact, let alone of having little reliability of predicting his actions.

When critics on the Right drone on that Obama did this b/c he hates American jobs and love Chavez, it serves as a perfect example of Andrew Sullivan's point that so many of Obama's critics are dumb. (or at least always say stupid shit)

 

[Bitek]

China is so far ahead of the U.S. in the pollution sweepstakes it's not even funny. You need to update your database.

Guess how you define it. China may have passed us finally in Co2, but US is still higher per capita, and we are both enormous and hardly beacons of virtue.

Regardless, its a quibble and missing the point. How on Earth is the Pres of the world's 2nd largest emitter of CO2 going to tell its strong ally, close neighbor and 9th largest emitter we're going to undermine your project b/c we don't like all your CO2? Never going to happen. Not by this president.

 

[hal2kilo]

Canada wants to utilize infrastructure in place in Texas to produce oil based products which will create jobs in both countries. This in turn reduces the reliance on crude oil from countries in the middle east. This will create lower and more stable prices for oil based commodities and will reduce the amount of money the US spends in countries ruled by dictators.

There currently no pipelines that go straight from the Alberta oil sands to Texas and certainly none that can carry the required capacity. There are pipelines that go to Edmonton and transport partially processed crude but not up North and none with efficient routes.

This is not a "malinvestment"[sic]. The oil sands production continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

I call BS. The whole point of sending it all the way to the Gulf is to get a higher price on the world market. This isn't going to do a damn thing about keeping us less dependent on foreign sources of oil.

 

[monovillage]

Guess how you define it. China may have passed us finally in Co2, but US is still higher per capita, and we are both enormous and hardly beacons of virtue.

Regardless, its a quibble and missing the point. How on Earth is the Pres of the world's 2nd largest emitter of CO2 going to tell its strong ally, close neighbor and 9th largest emitter we're going to undermine your project b/c we don't like all your CO2? Never going to happen. Not by this president.

Hopefully he won't be the President next term, I sure agree with you on that.

 

[actuarial]

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.

Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_pol_car_dio_per_cap-pollution-carbon-dioxide-per-capita

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm sorry that we have a bunch of ignorant political sluts here in the U.S. that can't see the difference between the ethical Canadian oil industry that pays taxes, uses the best technology and maintains the highest environmental standards as opposed to the environmental nightmares of Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola or Saudi Arabia.

You left out BP and Exxon.

 

[soundforbjt]

I'm going out on a limb here and betting the Koch bros stand to make a killing on this deal, should it happen.

 

[Dominato3r]

Where in western Canada would they send it? The pipleline would have to cross through Greater Vancouver which is a no-no and I really doubt if the port can handle the volume of oil that will be going though.

 

[Thump553]

Where in western Canada would they send it? The pipleline would have to cross through Greater Vancouver which is a no-no and I really doubt if the port can handle the volume of oil that will be going though.

Here's a NPR article discussing the other proposed pipeline as well, which apparently is nowhere as near a done deal as the GOP chicken littles would lead us to believe. The proposed western pipeline (to deliver crude to Red China) is facing another two years of public hearings:

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/12/145107435/pro-pipeline-canada-to-americans-butt-out-eh

 

[michal1980]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I'm afraid I do. You however do not

"Angelo S. Rappoport in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924) analyzed forty definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital - as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

[michal1980]

I would say, when is the Right and Left going to wake up and realize we have a Pragmatic Moderate Centrist in office?

For all the bluster over this and his other decisions, any other interpretation of him requires a lot of illogical thinking and ignorance of fact, let alone of having little reliability of predicting his actions.

When critics on the Right drone on that Obama did this b/c he hates American jobs and love Chavez, it serves as a perfect example of Andrew Sullivan's point that so many of Obama's critics are dumb. (or at least always say stupid shit)

because he's not.

did you read andrews sullivans piece?

A vast majority of it is written about how liberal Obama is.

 

[CanOWorms]

As someone who has actually seen the tar sands up in Northern Alberta to call them an environmental disaster is far from true. Much of this land is swampy and sandy.

Did you know that the sand up there actually has oil in it? Did you know that the environment is naturally "polluted" with oil in this area? Extracting oil using modern processes leaves the area cleaner than it was before.

LOL. How can you call the natural state dirty? I wonder what types of propaganda they're feeding you there.

This is one of the largest man-made environmental disasters in the world right now.

The second item I must discuss is that the delivery and transportation of Canadian crude oil is highly regulated and handled in a much safer manner than the current methods used to transport Middle Eastern oil. How many oil tankers need to dump their load in the Ocean before you start to care? The farther you transport something the more potential problems, more so when you must travel through pirate infested waters.

Sorry, but I don't trust Canadian regulation. It's not very stringent, and especially when they're all gung-ho about trading mass environmental damage for money under George W. Bush's clone Harper. The Canadian government is basically owned by various natural resource based corporations. I wouldn't expect them to seriously try to regulate themselves.

Also did you know there are already multiple pipelines going to the US from Canada? In fact both countries have pipelines all over the place. Why are you idiots raising such a fuss about another one? Getting your oil from Canada could mean the end of pointless military excursions into the Middle East. Dare I call you a war monger to put your environmental bullshit above the lives of real people.

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_pipelines_map.jpg

The pipeline involves the lives of real people in a very negative fashion.