Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: Obama administration Rejects Keystone pipeline permit

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4337708]The case could be made that the GOP didn't really want a pipeline. They just wanted to complain about it.

    someone who really wanted a pipeline wouldn't put an arbitrary deadline on the decision.[/QUOTE]

    Bingo.

    These idiots really suck at politicking ever since Rove jumped ship.

    It's really very very sad. They got their a**es handed to them by a "rabble rousing (LMFAO) commie" who likes cocaine.

    And then the guy did a piss poor job and he is poised to beat them again.

    LOLZ...

  2. #42
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4337696]Actually, it is. This (unlike so many things attached to it these days) is a clear-cut case of Federal Commerce Clause power, regulation on Inter-State and Inter-National commerce. To claim it's not a Federal Fiat is blame-shifting, because it absolutely is, just like say, Immigration enforcement.

    Let me be clear here, I don't care about the pipeline, and it's failure to come to fruitition I blame on both sides, not (D) alone. Pipeline or not, I can afford my energy bills no sweat, so means nothing to me.

    I also support States rights, and if Nebraska has a good case, they can (like other States on other issues) take the Feds to court, and I'd root for them to win. If the aquifer is indeed a huge risk, then I'd support the State in defeating it.

    But claiming the env. review wasn't primary a Federal responsabillity, or that the decision is not primarily a federal decision is simply dishonest protectionism of the President from potential political fallout. It absolutely was (in the end) a Federal decision.

    If they had come out and said "We've looked for three years, it's too dangerous to the environment because of X, Y and Z", I'd have no issue.

    It's the "well, we didn't have enough time" that is, frankly, a crock of crap, and as I said earlier, one reflection of whats so wrong with the U.S. these days.[/QUOTE]

    Well, here's the blurb from TransCanada. Doesn't look to me like anybody was planning to ram a project down a state's throat against their protests based on the Commerce Clause. That would have been truly stupid.

    Keystone Pipeline Project
    [URL="http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html"][IMG]http://www.transcanada.com/media/keystone_map_thumbnail.gif[/IMG][/URL]
    [LIST][*][URL="http://www.transcanada.com/keystone_pipeline_map.html"]View map...[/URL][/LIST]
    [B]TransCanada Working with State of Nebraska and Department of State to Finalize New Route for Keystone XL through Nebraska
    [/B]On Nov. 14, TransCanada announced it supports proposed legislation within the State of Nebraska to move the Keystone XL pipeline project forward. If passed, this legislation, introduced the same day in the State legislature, will ensure a pipeline route will be developed in Nebraska that avoids the Sandhills.
    TransCanada is pleased with the positive conversations it is having with Nebraska leaders, which have resulted in legislation that respects the concerns of Nebraskans and supports the development of the Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada at the same time confirmed to state leaders that the route for Keystone XL will be changed and reaffirmed that Nebraskans will play an important role in determining the final route.
    These developments in Nebraska follow the Nov. 10 announcement by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) that further assessment of alternative routes for Keystone XL was needed in Nebraska to move forward with the National Interest Determination. The proposed state legislation in Nebraska is a critical first step in that process.
    Working together with the State Department, Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality will conduct an environmental assessment to define the best location for Keystone XL in Nebraska. TransCanada will work closely with these agencies and provide them with the information they need to complete a thorough review that addresses concerns regarding the Sandhills region.

  3. #43
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mianus CT
    Posts
    7,674
    Post Thanks / Like
    This is a good thing why would we want to let canada run a pipeline through here to sell their oil to japan. They say it would create thousands of jobs but I doubt it is really that high and that even sucks. If this thing goes through as it is now our gas would go even higher.

  4. #44
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=ucrenegade;4338856]This is a good thing why would we want to let canada run a pipeline through here to sell their oil to japan. They say it would create thousands of jobs but I doubt it is really that high and that even sucks. [B]If this thing goes through as it is now our gas would go even higher.[/B][/QUOTE]

    What?

    You do understand that as world supply increases, costs come down, right?

  5. #45
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,476
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;4336773]Why not build more refineries on their west coast? Easier trip to China too?[/QUOTE]

    Because TransCanada is not in the refinery business (not to mention pesky things like anti-trust laws and their impact on vertical integration).

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have read through some of the responses here and it complicating an issue which is not complex at all. Here are the facts. We already have pipelines running from Canada through the US. This one is a Private enterprise fully paid for by private companies. This proposed Keystone Pipeline would bring 800,000 barrels of oil per day in from Canada. This would further reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. The construction would create some jobs. The real benefit however is the former. Any reduction in our dependence on middle eastern oil is a great thing for our national security.

    This garbage about not having enough time to study the impact is complete BS. Three years was plenty of time. This was about appeasing environmentalists and left wingers at the expense of energy independence and national security. The Republican candidate should hammer on this issue all year. As a matter of fact if I was advising Romney or Gingrich (i suppose) I would have them make definitive statements that once elected they would approve the pipeline.

  7. #47
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,900
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4339278]I have read through some of the responses here and it complicating an issue which is not complex at all. Here are the facts. We already have pipelines running from Canada through the US. This one is a Private enterprise fully paid for by private companies. This proposed Keystone Pipeline would bring 800,000 barrels of oil per day in from Canada. This would further reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. The construction would create some jobs. The real benefit however is the former. Any reduction in our dependence on middle eastern oil is a great thing for our national security.

    This garbage about not having enough time to study the impact is complete BS. Three years was plenty of time. This was about appeasing environmentalists and left wingers at the expense of energy independence and national security. The Republican candidate should hammer on this issue all year. As a matter of fact if I was advising Romney or Gingrich (i suppose) I would have them make definitive statements that once elected they would approve the pipeline.[/QUOTE]

    From my understanding, the vast majority of this oil would be destined for exportation so your point about energy independence is fairly moot.

    The environmental risks should not be taken lightly. There is no such thing as a faultless pipe, and its path would be directly over a major aquifer which feeds the vast majority of the population within its boundaries as well as a significant portion of the country's agriculture.

    The risks associated with a worst case scenario would make this pipeline a prime target for terrorist attacks. This forces the permanent use of American resources for the benefit of refined oil exported to other countries.

    Given the recent incident involving BP, do you honestly trust the construction, operation, and maintenance of this pipeline in the hands of a non-American private corporation? Personally, I do not. It's been proven time and time again that a private entity's focus is on its bottom line, not on quality construction and critical maintenance which minimizes risk to the surrounding environment and its population.

    The fact is it's very debatable whether the benefits of this pipeline to the United States outweigh the inevitable risks it generates. If this oil is so important to our country, why are its supporters pretending like there are no other alternatives to its transportation? Freight is effective and safer.
    Last edited by parafly; 01-20-2012 at 01:03 PM.

  8. #48
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,648
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;4339382]From my understanding, the vast majority of this oil would be destined for exportation so your point about energy independence is fairly moot.

    The environmental risks should not be taken lightly. There is no such thing as a faultless pipe, and its path would be directly over a major aquifer which feeds the vast majority of the population within its boundaries as well as a significant portion of the country's agriculture.

    The risks associated with a worst case scenario would make this pipeline a prime target for terrorist attacks. This forces the permanent use of American resources for the benefit of refined oil exported to other countries.

    Given the recent incident involving BP, do you honestly trust the construction, operation, and maintenance of this pipeline in the hands of a non-American private corporation? Personally, I do not. It's been proven time and time again that a private entity's focus is on its bottom line, not on quality construction and critical maintenance which minimizes risk to the surrounding environment and its population.

    The fact is it's very debatable whether the benefits of this pipeline to the United States outweigh the inevitable risks it generates. If this oil is so important to our country, why are its supporters pretending like there are no other alternatives to its transportation? Freight is effective and safer.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure where you are getting your information. The Oil is not for export. Some may be in the first few years but long term the heavier oil is all that there will be. As for freight the concept of freighting 800,000 barrels of a day is silly. These pipelines should be built safely with sensors that detect leaks and shut off valves. I would imagine that they are built that way. I'm no expert. The technology certainly exists. Regardless can anyone point to disasterous pipeline spills? I've certainly never heard of one. Seems like a bunch on malarkey to me.

  9. #49
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,900
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4339402]I'm not sure where you are getting your information. The Oil is not for export. Some may be in the first few years but long term the heavier oil is all that there will be.[/QUOTE]

    Just about everything I have read about this pipeline says the oil would be used for exporting. Either it's a fact or the vast majority of sources are misinformed.

    [QUOTE]As for freight the concept of freighting 800,000 barrels of a day is silly.[/QUOTE]

    Why? Instead of building a pipeline, build a rail system which can handle this type of volume. Certainly doable.

    [QUOTE]These pipelines should be built safely with sensors that detect leaks and shut off valves. I would imagine that they are built that way. I'm no expert. The technology certainly exists.[/QUOTE]

    [b]Should[/b] be built safely is the key. The alternative will be cheaper.

    [QUOTE]Regardless can anyone point to disasterous pipeline spills? I've certainly never heard of one. Seems like a bunch on malarkey to me.[/QUOTE]

    [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents[/URL]

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=parafly;4339435]
    [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents[/URL][/QUOTE]

    thats a damn big list

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4339278] This was about appeasing environmentalists and left wingers at the expense of energy independence and national security. [/QUOTE]

    it should be noted that labor is routinely considered part of the left wing, and they lost union jobs in this decision. So it's not entirely a partisan move. Obama is selecting the principles of environmentalism over the short term benefit of jobs. It's an interesting play politically and might appeal to voters who like their Presidents to stand for something.

  12. #52
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    It seems to me balancing the country's dependence on clean water and oil has to have government oversight. Can't say one way or another if this was the right or a wrong decision.

  13. #53
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,695
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4339513]It seems to me balancing the country's dependence on clean water and oil has to have government oversight. Can't say one way or another if this was the right or a wrong decision.[/QUOTE]

    +1

    Mu issue is with the length and difiuclty and red tape hurdles of EIS's, not with the specific decision one way or the other. If it'stoo dangerous, fine, prove it and move on.

    Environmental Protection is, IMO, worthy.

    A system that taked 15 years to build something, with 13 of it on EIS's, is not.

  14. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,903
    Post Thanks / Like
    With Democrats in charge, high gas prices aren’t a bug; they are a feature. The point is to “nudge” us into powering the economy with windmills, algae, and unicorn farts.

    Back on earth, high gas prices are driving employers out of business, exacerbating the senseless misery that was marketed as “Hope & Change.”

    [url]http://www.moonbattery.com[/url]

  15. #55
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,772
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4382476]With Democrats in charge, high gas prices aren’t a bug; they are a feature. The point is to “nudge” us into powering the economy with windmills, algae, and unicorn farts.

    Back on earth, high gas prices are driving employers out of business, exacerbating the senseless misery that was marketed as “Hope & Change.”

    [url]http://www.moonbattery.com[/url][/QUOTE]

    UCMJ coming to your IP address

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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

Follow Us