Political Move Cave-In

Status
Not open for further replies.

rolling7

New Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
3,327
Reaction score
1
President Obama has struck again at the future expense of the American taxpayers by deferring a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast.
I think this Obama administration had made a wrong decision on this case, and this administration is leading this country in the wrong direction. A decision to delay the pipeline project until after the 2012 election is obviously a political move. It must be seen, by even the most ardent of his supporters, as an absolute cave-in to the liberals in the Sierra Club.
Whereas Obama and his minions claim to want to create jobs, they have absolutely rejected job creation by knuckling under to pressure from the radical left. Even their labor union supporters are in favor of moving ahead with the project. People all along the route of the pipeline who would have found employment because of this project should stand up in revolt against this most blatant political manipulation.
Obama obviously cares little about the welfare of America, as he had constantly shown during his tenure, and is not bothered by the serious possibility that this oil will be sent to Canada's west coast and sold to the Chinese. This is an absolute outrage and can only be characterized as such.
 
I'll rather not share our natural resources with the Americans. They have plenty for themselves. Keep your straws out of our milkshakes.
 
129096271380862718.jpg
 
Pretty lame. He should have made one decision one way or another, preferably against. The Keystone pipeline is already an environmental disaster just waiting to happen, and the XL addition would only increase the chances of that exponentially.
 
Pretty lame. He should have made one decision one way or another, preferably against. The Keystone pipeline is already an environmental disaster just waiting to happen, and the XL addition would only increase the chances of that exponentially.

Hardly.

Across the United States, there are about 55,000 miles of crude oil (glossary term) trunk lines that connect to regional markets, and there are some 30,000 to 40,000 miles of gathering (glossary term) lines in Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming, and a number of other oil-producing states that gather oil from many small wells and connect to the larger trunk lines. The system of smaller gathering pipelines (glossary term) and the larger trunk (or transmission) pipelines deliver the crude oil from producing areas to refineries.
Energy Transmission in the United States

The Keystone pipeline with a total length is 2,148 miles where 1,379 total miles of new pipeline was already built in the U.S. Adding another 2,148 miles to some 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines will hardly increased any risk exponentially-wise. That's a 3.5% increase on the number of miles of pipeline added to an existing 55,000 miles of pipeline.

We have pipelines that move oil and gas going all across the United States. Most of them are mostly buried.
 
A 3.5% increase in pipeline is going to raise the risk exponentially? What are they using whiffle pipe? :lol:
 
Hardly.


Energy Transmission in the United States

The Keystone pipeline with a total length is 2,148 miles where 1,379 total miles of new pipeline was already built in the U.S. Adding another 2,148 miles to some 55,000 miles of crude oil trunk lines will hardly increased any risk exponentially-wise. That's a 3.5% increase on the number of miles of pipeline added to an existing 55,000 miles of pipeline.

We have pipelines that move oil and gas going all across the United States. Most of them are mostly buried.

A 3.5% increase in pipeline is going to raise the risk exponentially? What are they using whiffle pipe? :lol:

Ah, but what you two fail to mention is that the the XL addition will just about double the amount of oil. More oil = more potential catastrophe.
 
Ah, but what you two fail to mention is that the the XL addition will just about double the amount of oil. More oil = more potential catastrophe.

Ah, but you forget, the 55,000 miles of existing trunk pipeline (plus 30,000 miles of gathering pipelines) pumps 7.6 billion barrels of crude oil a year. The Keystone would pump 328 million barrels of oil a year which represent a 4.2% increase in oil volume. As for comparison with the Alaskan oil pipeline which covers 800 miles worth pumps and supply the 328 million barrels of oil per year, which, btw, celebrated their 15th billionth barrels of oil just this year ever since 1977 when oil first flowed thru that.

Yeah, "exponentially".:lol:
 
Ah, but what you two fail to mention is that the the XL addition will just about double the amount of oil. More oil = more potential catastrophe.

just like oil tanker ship that got supersized
 
oh my! lotsa of quibbling in here
 
Ah, but what you two fail to mention is that the the XL addition will just about double the amount of oil. More oil = more potential catastrophe.

This statement is weak. It is like saying the more actions you take in life the more
catastrophe your life will be. Of course, you have to take precautions every moment of your life but you also have live life to the fullest. Having you giving thought that by making sure precautions are taken Obama would create extra jobs? Unless you are of opinion that the people of USA are willing to be oil-free, this is a win-win for us.

BTW: QUESTION for our Canadian members on AD, if you are so opposed to sharing does that mean the oil will NOT go to any other country (i.e. China)?
 
No concern for the environmentally vulnerable areas involved or the sky rocketing gas prices that would result?

Regarding the creation of jobs:

•In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline.
•Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanada that estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada.
•According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor.
•Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/
 
QUESTION for our Canadian members on AD, if you are so opposed to sharing does that mean the oil will NOT go to any other country (i.e. China)?

Every country should be responsible for its own natural resources. They should not have to rely on the others.
 
Every country should be responsible for its own natural resources. They should not have to rely on the others.

Not every country has that same kind of natural resources in other countries that are rich in. If a country is willing to sell their natural resources to other countries that are poor or lacking any natural resources (e.g. oil) then let them. North American happens to be sitting on the most richest natural resources on planet Earth. And the U.S. has the capacity, the means to drill for our own oil and gas to sustain ourselves, and sell abroad our natural resources. You see, "Drill, baby, drill" is working in Canada. Proof positive it works just as it working very well in the Bakken shale in North Dakato and the Marcelleus shale in the Pennsylvania area on helping the economy and creating jobs.
 
That oil is going to be drilled and sent somewhere. If not to the US, probably to China. That will involve a pipeline out west rather than down south and shipping across the Pacific. Is that really any safer for the environment?

Also, we in the US will get oil from somewhere. If it doesn't come from Canada, it will come from unstable regimes in the middle East in tankers.

There is no perfect risk-free option, just trade-offs between several imperfect options. Taking this pipeline off the table only leaves us with worse options.
 
That oil is going to be drilled and sent somewhere. If not to the US, probably to China. That will involve a pipeline out west rather than down south and shipping across the Pacific. Is that really any safer for the environment?

Also, we in the US will get oil from somewhere. If it doesn't come from Canada, it will come from unstable regimes in the middle East in tankers.

There is no perfect risk-free option, just trade-offs between several imperfect options. Taking this pipeline off the table only leaves us with worse options.

Good points, but increasing oil production in any way should not even be an option anymore. This country needs to start getting very serious about alternative, clean, renewable energy. So far, it's just been lip service and small pork barrel deals. We need a massive campaign to start weaning ourselves off oil within the next 10-20 years. Any increase in oil production is just a delay of the inevitable.
 
Not every country has that same kind of natural resources in other countries that are rich in. If a country is willing to sell their natural resources to other countries that are poor or lacking any natural resources (e.g. oil) then let them. North American happens to be sitting on the most richest natural resources on planet Earth. And the U.S. has the capacity, the means to drill for our own oil and gas to sustain ourselves, and sell abroad our natural resources. You see, "Drill, baby, drill" is working in Canada. Proof positive it works just as it working very well in the Bakken shale in North Dakato and the Marcelleus shale in the Pennsylvania area on helping the economy and creating jobs.

No. Our natural resources belong to us, not you. Keep your straws out of our milkshakes.
 
That oil is going to be drilled and sent somewhere. If not to the US, probably to China. That will involve a pipeline out west rather than down south and shipping across the Pacific. Is that really any safer for the environment?

Also, we in the US will get oil from somewhere. If it doesn't come from Canada, it will come from unstable regimes in the middle East in tankers.

There is no perfect risk-free option, just trade-offs between several imperfect options. Taking this pipeline off the table only leaves us with worse options.

Excellent post, now this is reality
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top