Page 14 of 83 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    why?
    tell us how the benefits outweigh the negatives
    Creates jobs, helps international trade, helps the oil industry, and pisses off hippies.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #132
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,175

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Yeah, no problem.........screw all the construction jobs, restaurant jobs, hotel jobs, supply jobs, refinery jobs, welder jobs, support industry jobs, shipping jobs, etc, etc, etc.
    yep. we would have to forego the $1 billion in wages that would otherwise be generated by a route thru the USA

    Not to mention, China needs the oil more than us, right ???
    china will have as much right to the resulting oil as the USA
    we would not be entitled to do anything other than buy it from the world market just like china
    in short, you have no point

    We can get all we need from the middle east. Screw Canada, who needs them.
    canada will be able to put its oil in the world oil market using a pipeline thru its own territory
    makes no difference to us whether the oil comes from the middle east, venezuela, nigeria, mexico or canada. it is imported oil
    again, you have no point
    other than we will have to forfeit $1 billion our American workers would have otherwise earned had the pipeline gone thru the USA
    i am willing to bet the study, once completed, will indicate that the cost of environmental abatement of the additional emissions for 300-500 years will far exceed that dollar amount
    then we will also not have to sustain any damage to our nation's aquifers, or disturb the wildlife habitat
    nor will we subject our citizens to the forced loss of use of their real properties so that a canadian pipeline can be built to further enrich the oil industry

    By the way, you posted an awful lot just to admit you were wrong. Now I know why you "once owned" a surveying and drafting business.
    yep, as soon as mechanical plotters were available i saw the writing on the wall and shut down my business while i could still walk away with a profit, at age 23. it was also the date i passed my PE
    only to later retire at 51
    so wrong
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #133
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    Are you actually comparing 20,000 gallons to the Exxon Valdez ???? I hope you know how absurd that is. The Exxon Valdez spilled between 10.5 million gallons and 31 million gallons.

    You fixed nothing, except in your own mind.
    Looks like this went way over your head. The point here, it doesn't matter if a spill is an ink dot, 20,000 gallons, the Exxon Valdez, or the leak the size of Baltimore. You people would say the same damn thing in every case.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #134
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    yep. we would have to forego the $1 billion in wages that would otherwise be generated by a route thru the USA


    china will have as much right to the resulting oil as the USA
    we would not be entitled to do anything other than buy it from the world market just like china
    in short, you have no point


    canada will be able to put its oil in the world oil market using a pipeline thru its own territory
    makes no difference to us whether the oil comes from the middle east, venezuela, nigeria, mexico or canada. it is imported oil
    again, you have no point
    other than we will have to forfeit $1 billion our American workers would have otherwise earned had the pipeline gone thru the USA
    i am willing to bet the study, once completed, will indicate that the cost of environmental abatement of the additional emissions for 300-500 years will far exceed that dollar amount
    then we will also not have to sustain any damage to our nation's aquifers, or disturb the wildlife habitat
    nor will we subject our citizens to the forced loss of use of their real properties so that a canadian pipeline can be built to further enrich the oil industry


    yep, as soon as mechanical plotters were available i saw the writing on the wall and shut down my business while i could still walk away with a profit, at age 23. it was also the date i passed my PE
    only to later retire at 51
    so wrong
    yeah, the hell with American jobs, right ??? Can't wait to paste your post in the next thread that you lambaste Republicans for "killing" jobs.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  5. #135
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,401

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I can't for the life of me, figure out why it is that in an election year, that a project that is a no brainer as far as jobs, oil supply from a friendly ally, and union support of the project is anything but a win, win, win for this administration. It doesn't make sense that this is rejected.

    j-mac
    It was not rejected, only the current proposal with it's ridiculous House mandated deadline was. Transcanada can and will simply submit a new plan for approval after the proper studies are done. There is no rush and it seems we could at least get them to use American steel this time. It seems rude to use Russian Steel, don't you think?

  6. #136
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Looks like this went way over your head. The point here, it doesn't matter if a spill is an ink dot, 20,000 gallons, the Exxon Valdez, or the leak the size of Baltimore. You people would say the same damn thing in every case.
    If you think that the damage is the same from any oil spill, no matter the size, then the entire subject went WAAAY over your head.

    "You" people don't know what the hell you're talking about. Generalizations don't win you any points.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  7. #137
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    But rejecting the pipeline won’t reduce global carbon emissions or the risk of environmentally destructive spills.


    Canada’s government — and rising world petroleum prices — guarantee that the country will extract the oil from its tar sands, and that Asia will take it if America doesn’t. That means using pipelines to transport Canada’s heavy crude hundreds of miles to the West Coast and then shipping it abroad, burning fossil fuels and risking ocean spills along the way. China already has a large stake in Canadian oil production. Plans are already in the works to build the necessary pipelines.


    Critics fall back on the allegation that petroleum companies want to export much of the Canadian oil abroad after refining it in Gulf Coast facilities. With access to the world oil market, they can and should have that option. But if export markets are that attractive, Canadian crude will reach them without transiting the United States, and American refineries will get their low-grade crude from somewhere else. The bottom line remains: The more American refineries source their low-grade crude via pipeline from Canada and not from tankers out of the Middle East or Venezuela, the better, even if not every refined barrel stays in the country.


    Producing energy is a dirty business, and it will remain so for a long time, even with the right policies. Part of facing this reality is admitting that how the world produces energy must change over time. But another part is accepting that oil production will continue for decades and clear-headedly managing the risks — not pretending we can wish them away.
    Keystone XL pipeline is the wrong target for protesters - The Washington Post

    Even the liberal Washington Post believes the pipeline should be built.

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  8. #138
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,043

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    It was not rejected, only the current proposal with it's ridiculous House mandated deadline was. Transcanada can and will simply submit a new plan for approval after the proper studies are done. There is no rush and it seems we could at least get them to use American steel this time. It seems rude to use Russian Steel, don't you think?
    You realize this project was proposed in 2008?
    You realize that the project has gone through the NEPA process?
    Where was the objections at the start of the proposal, or even by the President during the NEPA process?
    Buying American steel would be better.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  9. #139
    Sage
    Gill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    The Derby City
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    8,686

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    It was not rejected, only the current proposal with it's ridiculous House mandated deadline was. Transcanada can and will simply submit a new plan for approval after the proper studies are done. There is no rush and it seems we could at least get them to use American steel this time. It seems rude to use Russian Steel, don't you think?
    Wrong...... base on construction of the other Keystone pipeline, about half of the pipe would be manufactured in the U.S. The rest would come from India and South Korea.

    I wonder what the truckers that had hoped to transport the steel pipe from the coast to the construction site think about this delay???

    • "The America Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." -- Alexis de Tocqueville





  10. #140
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,764

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    If you think that the damage is the same from any oil spill, no matter the size, then the entire subject went WAAAY over your head.

    "You" people don't know what the hell you're talking about. Generalizations don't win you any points.
    Like I said, my point went way over your head.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

Page 14 of 83 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •