Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is my question as well, we have thousands of pipelines in this country already. Moving gas, oil, water, etc. They would seem to be a contemporary transporting necessity, and yes they do break from time to time and pollute things, nothing is perfect, even mother nature. XL has an existing pipeline in the midwest and the proposed line was going to expand their capacity and they agreed to also allow some onloading of Bakken Basin production. Is sures seems to me that there are already too many trucks in the Bakken and moving some product by pipeline would help reduce traffic there for years to come.
Then do it safely and correctly! But instead we get idiots posting threads blaming Obama for opposing job creation.
On second thought...pipeline creates temporary jobs, not permanent ones. I'm sure taxpayers will pay for some of this and the profits will all go to big oil. And the price of gas won't be impacted at all. How is that acceptable? Are you a industry plant posting here to impact public sentiment?
The pipeline is lose-lose. The entire planet loses if this thing gets built, extracting oil from tar sands is the most environmentally destructive process known to man. When you have a large segment of the population that does not believe mankind is causing a warming planet (ignorance) and the most profitable industry on the planet (oil) with unlimited resources to spend on telling everyone what a great idea this is (propaganda) you get the simple mathematical equation I posted.
The pipeline is lose-lose. The entire planet loses if this thing gets built, extracting oil from tar sands is the most environmentally destructive process known to man. When you have a large segment of the population that does not believe mankind is causing a warming planet (ignorance) and the most profitable industry on the planet (oil) with unlimited resources to spend on telling everyone what a great idea this is (propaganda) you get the simple mathematical equation I posted.
OK, thanks. I missed that. We're on the same page then.
Obama really dropped the ball since now it is pretty clear that the oil will be going to China now instead of the US and the Enbridge pipeline out of Kitimat B.C. and Kinder Morgan pipeline out of Port Moody B.C.
Those to pipelineswhen finished will have a total combined capacity to ship 925,000-950,000 barrels per day overseas with options to expand Capacity to 1.2 Million barrels per day by 2016-2017. right now at current capacity Canada ships 1.6 Million barrels per day to the US. which also supplies the largest amount of oil to the US.
Obama messed up this deal just to get a few green votes at the expense of both Canadian and American jobs and Billions of dollers in joint investments in both our countries and the increased North American Energy security it had with it.
So now Canada second largest oil buyer will be China and the US will be still stuck on ME oil and this will kill alot of jobs in Texas gulf coast Region which was why ther Keystone XL was being built in the first place which was to get oil to Texas Gulf Coast Refineries up and running and preventing layoffs.
Here is an article From the Houston Chronicle:
The Obama administration's decision to postpone a ruling on the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline till 2013 is a poorly disguised political punt. The ruling has 2012 presidential politics written all over it, despite the environmental reasons given.
By delaying a decision on the $7 billion project, which is "shovel-ready" and would immediately produce an estimated 20,000 well-paying jobs in this country, Obama has avoided offending environmentalists on his party's left, a key fund-raising and voting bloc. We understand that. In a close election, these votes could make a crucial difference for the president. But the administration's attempts to cover this self-evident situation with a variety of fig leaves are utterly disingenuous.
We are among those who have had environmental questions about the project, which would bring heavy oil from Canada for refining on the Texas Gulf Coast. But over the weeks and months, those have been well and exhaustively addressed and satisfied. In our view, the response to the pipeline by the environmental community has been a myopic overreaction; it was wrong to put the president in this political vise.
Several weeks ago, it appeared the administration had answered its own concerns about the pipeline's potential environmental impact when Energy Secretary Steven Chu publicly indicated his support for the project. Chu's status as a Nobel Prize-winning physicist had given the pipeline an added measure of credibility.
In the meantime, however, the White House has come under heavy pressure from environmental groups, including demonstrations at its Pennsylvania Avenue gates. Clearly, that has carried the day.
This decision to delay is a calculated bet that alienating green voters is a bigger risk than putting off the construction of what is a key component in reaching eventual national energy independence while lessening exposure to resources controlled by unstable governments.
As experts have pointed out, its potential impact on the environment is nil. If the heavy oil is not allowed to flow into this country, it will be shipped to the West Coast for transit to the energy-omnivorous Chinese. And it creates friction with another influential constituency, organized labor.
Many of those 20,000 jobs on the construction of the pipeline would have been filled by skilled union members. Eventually, the completed pipeline was expected to result in as many as 130,000 jobs, many of them on the upper Texas Coast, where the heavy oil would be refined into 700,000 barrels of oil daily.
Postponement of a decision on Keystone is an opportunity missed for this administration to create needed jobs and enhance energy security. It is a shortsighted call.
Crude oil is sold on the world market, it will only be sold overseas if they get a higher price for it than the refineries on the gulf coast will pay. you *******s need to learn how the process works instead of making stupid statements on the internet.
Your ignorance on climate change, as well as the risks this pipeline poses to natural resources in the event of a spill, is either ignored by you or not understood.
I'm almost positive it is the latter.
I do not think Man is the Major Cause of Climate Change. Rather IMO it is just the natural cycle of earth to go through Warming and Cooling periods. Since, that they have Happend many times on Earth long before Mankind even Existed.
it isnt a matter of how many jobs it will create, its a matter of "ol' Nutless in chief" not making a decision.
Yea or Nea, its rather simple.
No--the adminstration is acting in response to the Nebraska general assembly calling a special session to set up regs dealing with where pipelines can be located. Evidently states have the right to control that process, but Nebraska never enacted legislation to create that process. They're doing it now, and they're going to force Keystone to move the pipe to a safer location. The state department has no choice to but to delay the project.
Most people in Nebraska aren't opposed to the pipeline--there's another keystone pipeline running along the eastern edge of the state. They just don't want the pipeline running through the sandhills directly over the Ogallala aquifer. Other pipes run over portions of the aquifer, but the soil type there is more like concrete and a spill would do minimal damage. The sandhills are deep sand covered with prairie grass--any type of spill would go directly into the ground water. There's no pipe or drilling in that region now for exactly that reason. The Ogallala aquifer provides the drinking water to 85% of the state, and all the water used for pivot irrigation and livestock there--if the aquifer is contaminated, it would make most of the state uninhabitable, and shut down it's largest industry--agriculture. Moving the pipeline east, near the existing one, is much safer.
I don't know where all of these big jobs numbers are coming from, but I've never heard more than 5,000 new jobs (or fewer) out of Nebraska news. That's why the R governor, congressional delegation, and state assembly are really skeptical about this--why should they let a for profit pipeline run through an area that could cause huge problems, when the state isn't getting a huge cost benefit from it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
