Political Move Cave-In

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by rolling7, Nov 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rolling7

    rolling7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Banjo

    Banjo Expelled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    11,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'll rather not share our natural resources with the Americans. They have plenty for themselves. Keep your straws out of our milkshakes.
     
  3. Jiro

    Jiro If You Know What I Mean Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    69,117
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    The Soprano State
  4. TWA

    TWA New Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. kokonut

    kokonut New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,007
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. TXgolfer

    TXgolfer Dream Weaver Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    19,032
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    Everywhere
    A 3.5% increase in pipeline is going to raise the risk exponentially? What are they using whiffle pipe? :lol:
     
  7. TWA

    TWA New Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. kokonut

    kokonut New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,007
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  9. Jiro

    Jiro If You Know What I Mean Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    69,117
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    The Soprano State
    just like oil tanker ship that got supersized
     
  10. Jiro

    Jiro If You Know What I Mean Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    69,117
    Likes Received:
    51
    Location:
    The Soprano State
    oh my! lotsa of quibbling in here
     
  11. rolling7

    rolling7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    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)?
     
  12. jillio

    jillio New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    60,239
    Likes Received:
    6
    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/
     
  13. Banjo

    Banjo Expelled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    11,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    Every country should be responsible for its own natural resources. They should not have to rely on the others.
     
  14. kokonut

    kokonut New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,007
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  15. darkdog

    darkdog New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    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.
     
  16. TWA

    TWA New Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Banjo

    Banjo Expelled Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    11,620
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. Our natural resources belong to us, not you. Keep your straws out of our milkshakes.
     
  18. rolling7

    rolling7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. rolling7

    rolling7 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,327
    Likes Received:
    0
    Excellent post, now this is reality
     
  20. jillio

    jillio New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    60,239
    Likes Received:
    6
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Looking to buy hearing aids online? Check out Hearex.com