Page 9 of 83 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 821

Thread: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

  1. #81
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,742

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    The accurate jobs number is 4500 to 5000 temporary construction jobs not 20,000. The oil won't be used to reduce our imports or lower our costs. Most of the benefits go to Canada and abroad while all of the risk and pollution are ours to keep. It's a bad deal all around and even the Republicans knew it. Otherwise they would not have put that deadline so that studies could not be completed.

    How about if I dump 20,000 gallons of crude in your front yard...don't worry its "hardly an ink dot".
    How much water does an inground swimming pool hold? - Yahoo! Answers

    Apparently its enough to fill a 15x30 swimming pool. Maybe you need to re-examine how much oil you think that is. Cause its not as much as you are making it out to be.

  2. #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Temporal View Post
    Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected - Jan. 18, 2012



    The story is just starting to break, but this is great news for people living in the regions that would be affected by this. The pipeline would have moved through very ecologically sensitive areas and the public was not consulted on this.

    Looks like the protesting paid off. It might still get the nod in further applications - and probably after the election - but at least for now the environment is that much safer.
    This issue will harm Obama in the election.

    We could have had 10,000 to 50,000 more jobs, greater energy security, and lower gas prices if this project were underway.

    Instead, Obama bowed to the environmentalists, and showed that he doesn't care about the economy or jobs growth.

    That will not play well with the American public.

  3. #83
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    A couple observations:

    One thing I like about this pipeline is that it could supply 0.7mbd (million barrels per day). Currently we import 1.096mbd from Saudi Arabia.
    How much petroleum does the United States import? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
    I understand this oil is not intended for domestic use, which I don't like, but once the pipeline is in place we could always change our mind. In my view paying oil money to Saudi Arabia is the equivalent of giving some of that money to terrorists, which I positively despise. This pipeline (according to the link in the OP) could be expanded to 3.0mbd which could go a long way to eliminating ALL imports from the ME, which I would love to see.

    I would prefer to see that the US works with Canada who is an ally and a major business partner, than force them to work with China. We may need much more oil in the future. So if we establish a better business relationship with them now, when we aren't really planning that oil for ourselves, it will be far easier to change strategic policy later with a pipeline already in place. The pipeline will NOT insure cheaper gas or cheaper oil. All it does is insure a stable supply from a reliable business partner, something we certainly are not finding in the ME. In short, I'd much rather work with Canada than ANY nation in the Middle-East.

    If anyone has followed my posts much at all, you'd know that I'm a profound supporter of alternative energy. In fact, I'd like to eliminate all oil consumption for energy purposes. But let's face facts. Changing our infrastructure from an oil economy to a primarily electric and nuclear economy is a DECADES-long project. With people's uncertainty and even resistance to alternative energies the changeover could take many decades instead of the mere 30 to 40 years that I'm hoping for. In the meantime, we'll still need a LOT OF OIL to keep our economy going. Building thousands of windmills and hundreds of solar plants and maybe a hundred nuclear plants, and installing all of these systems is going to trigger consuming MORE oil, not less. Afterward, we'll see a substantial dip in demand, but not to begin with.

    So as it stands now, we need to insure we have a steady supply of oil from a reliable country, not only for now but in the decades to come. Canada fits this bill perfectly. This pipeline is generally a good idea, but lets not get stupid about it. Build around the aquifer. From the map posted earlier, I see the pipeline only covers the north-eastern corner of the aquifer, so it's not a crazy suggestion to build around it. Cease with the cattle-baron mentality over people's land. Offer them double or even triple for their land if that's what it takes. That would cost less than a detour, but still detour if necessary and get on with it.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  4. #84
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    This issue will harm Obama in the election.

    We could have had 10,000 to 50,000 more jobs, greater energy security, and lower gas prices if this project were underway.

    Instead, Obama bowed to the environmentalists, and showed that he doesn't care about the economy or jobs growth.

    That will not play well with the American public.
    LOL The only ones hurt are the Reps. who have egg on their face AGAIN. It was their ridiculous deadline that nixed this application. Transcanada was invited to reapply and accepted. I still don't like the whole idea. Tar sands are the dirtiest and most expensive oil on the planet to produce, we have lots of real crude we can just pump out all over the world. Those tar sands should be saved for when we are REALLY running out of real crude.

    Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- TransCanada Corp.’s $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline still will move ahead with an alternate route after President Barack Obama’s decision to deny a permit, investors, public officials and analysts say.
    Obama blamed congressional Republicans yesterday for imposing a deadline on his decision, which he said left no time to approve the project. His administration invited TransCanada to reapply, an overture the Calgary-based company promptly said it would accept.
    Denying the permit pushes a final decision on the pipeline into 2013, safely past this year’s presidential election.

    Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route - Businessweek
    Last edited by iguanaman; 01-19-12 at 06:41 PM.

  5. #85
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,373

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    How much water does an inground swimming pool hold? - Yahoo! Answers

    Apparently its enough to fill a 15x30 swimming pool. Maybe you need to re-examine how much oil you think that is. Cause its not as much as you are making it out to be.
    That's plenty of crude to pollute millions of gallons of water if leaked into an aquifer. You also want it dumped in your front yard?

  6. #86
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Have you ever been to, or flown over, the Canadian Rockies? I don't think they're building any pipeline to their western shore.
    However, this is exactly what they are now looking at doing... and if environmentalists think the environmental impact of such a pipeline won't be greater than the proposed pipeline to Texas, they are kidding themselves... besides the fact that if the pipeline IS built, the oil will then be shipped to Asia for processing, creating an even greater environmental impact on the oil
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #87
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Gill View Post
    This will cost Obama at least 500,000 votes, so in one sense this was a good decision. In one fail swoop, he killed jobs, hurt our energy dependence, and pissed off our closest neighbor and ally.
    But the votes will mostly be in states he is going to lose anyway. He can't afford to alienate his environmentalist support base on the two coasts... even though putting the pipeline through to the Rockies will be WORSE environmentally, not better...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #88
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    What I really find so hypercritical from Republicans is they shouted "Drill, baby, drill" under expanding domestic energy policies, yet they're so damned gungho over Canadia oil.

    Northern neighbor/ally or not, it's still foreign oil no matter how you try to it, i.e., "job growth" indeed.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    What I really find so hypercritical from Republicans is they shouted "Drill, baby, drill" under expanding domestic energy policies, yet they're so damned gungho over Canadia oil.

    Northern neighbor/ally or not, it's still foreign oil no matter how you try to it, i.e., "job growth" indeed.
    We should be drilling our own oil.

    Canada is not anything like an unstable Middle East, nor is it ruled by a whacky dictator like Venezuela.

    This project is good for American jobs, for American oil security, and it would lower gas prices.

  10. #90
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    However, this is exactly what they are now looking at doing... and if environmentalists think the environmental impact of such a pipeline won't be greater than the proposed pipeline to Texas, they are kidding themselves... besides the fact that if the pipeline IS built, the oil will then be shipped to Asia for processing, creating an even greater environmental impact on the oil
    I've seen no evidence that they're considering a western route through Canada. I've seen a few western routes mentioned, but they all pass through the US.

Page 9 of 83 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... 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
  •