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.
OK, environmental concerns withstanding there are huge property rights issues with this pipeline that should have so called conservatives riled-up. The private company building this is already asking states to evoke eminent domain against property owners who are not agreeing with their offered land-lease terms. Thanks about that, a foreign owned private company is looking to take property for private use via the power of the state. That's a huge deal in my book.
This pipeline isn't about lessening our dependence on foreign oil, it's about getting Canadian owned crude to refiners and shipping tankers in the Gulf. But don't let the facts get in the way of blaming 'lefties, libs, and Nobama," as you like to do.
THat you are correct about. I havn't read a lot about this pipeline situation but was responding to the green weenies in my thread. The many articles I've seen are always yelping about the agallalla being forever destroyed and on and on.
The landowners can work out a deal I'm sure with the company to lease the land. Last resort of course would be eminent domain which isn't such an easy task going across multiple states and jurisdictions. It would behoove the company to pay up and if somebody wants to not allow it then route is elsewhere or if that can't be done let the courts decide. If I owned acres and acres and somebody wanted to pay me to run a pipeline across it I'd say where do I sign myself.
Jobs are great. Jobs that involve polluting the environment or exposing our waterways to risk of permanent damage are worth considering carefully. You believe that such things are ignorable in this instance. I don't and I never will. Your surgical line-by-line dissection of my post involved ridiculous comparisons and unrelated items that only convinced me that the whole point of your post was to emphasize the zeal of your opposition and, unfortunately for you, it exposed the simplicity of your thinking. A quick solution to this issue and the condemnation of alternatives or delays is not appropriate here.
The project was proposed in 2005.
On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canadian border.
The pipeline, however, has faced strong opposition from the environmental community. In its March 2010 report, the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a CLEAN ENERGY economy".
On June 23, 2010, 50 Members of Congress spoke out against the Keystone XL pipeline. In their letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, they warned that "building this pipeline has the potential to undermine America's clean energy future and international leadership on climate change." On July 21, 2010, the EPA said the draft environmental impact study for Keystone XL was inadequate and should be revised,indicating that the State Department's original report was "unduly narrow" because it didn't fully look at oil spill response plans, safety issues and greenhouse gas concerns.
The final environmental impact report was released on August 26, 2011. It stated that the pipeline would pose "no significant impacts" to most resources if environmental protection measures are followed.
The alternative is oil that will be brought in by tanker, a mode of transportation that produces higher greenhouse-gas emissions and that puts the environment at greater risk.
You don't say yes to jobs until the work being done is proven safe. This pipeline puts our water supply in danger and is environmentally destructive in every mile of its path. If you are willing to forgo safety to people and the environment just so you can have a job, then you are insane. Let's all club baby seals! Let's all slash-and-burn the forests! Why? Because there's jobs, I tell ya, J-O-B-S! I'm goin' to Californy for gold!
We should be fixing roads, building and repairing bridges, restoring neighborhoods, fixing schools, teaching children, ALL the things that we need before we focus one dime on an ill-conceived and destructive for-profit pipeline that will ultimately only benefit corporations that don't pay taxes. Another fine example of government and corporations colluding to privatize the profits and socialize both the real and potential losses.
Aaah yes; clubbing baby seals has an evironmental impact while a slaughter house doesn't; there's a stirling argument with merit on the issue.
People are prepared to ignore the facts that pipelines are operating and have operated for many years in many countries without the number of catastrophic incidents associated with tankers on the high seas or even your basic transport truck rear-ending a mini-van.
Of course all those trucks and tankers aren't polluting. They're perfectly green in their operation with absolutely no carbon footprint whatsoever.
I'm left wondering how you would be collecting all those operating taxes on tanker ships flagged in Nigeria or some other third world country to avoid registration in the U.S.
Building roads fixing bridges is TAXPAYER money! You're, at best, revenue nuetral with thos projects. No NET GAIN in either jobs creation or taxes collected from the pay cheques of the workers. A pipe line built by a private company however.....?
Obama is weighing his bet ( just like on half a billion dollars to Solyndra ) that if he doesn't approve 50,000 private sector jobs, his base of tree huggers will come through for him on Nov. 2012.
Jobs are great. Jobs that involve polluting the environment or exposing our waterways to risk of permanent damage are worth considering carefully. You believe that such things are ignorable in this instance. I don't and I never will. Your surgical line-by-line dissection of my post involved ridiculous comparisons and unrelated items that only convinced me that the whole point of your post was to emphasize the zeal of your opposition and, unfortunately for you, it exposed the simplicity of your thinking. A quick solution to this issue and the condemnation of alternatives or delays is not appropriate here.
So, point by point he destroyed your flimsy arguement, and you don't like it...?
I simplified it for you...
You don't say yes to jobs until the work being done is proven safe. This pipeline puts our water supply in danger and is environmentally destructive in every mile of its path. If you are willing to forgo safety to people and the environment just so you can have a job, then you are insane. Let's all club baby seals! Let's all slash-and-burn the forests! Why? Because there's jobs, I tell ya, J-O-B-S! I'm goin' to Californy for gold!
We should be fixing roads, building and repairing bridges, restoring neighborhoods, fixing schools, teaching children, ALL the things that we need before we focus one dime on an ill-conceived and destructive for-profit pipeline that will ultimately only benefit corporations that don't pay taxes. Another fine example of government and corporations colluding to privatize the profits and socialize both the real and potential losses.
Why is a greater step towards energy independence via buying from Canada ill-conceived?
Unless your name is Ed Begley and you are peddling a bicycle to create the energy to run your computer and posts I suspect there is hypocrisy in practice by you even being "on grid" to post.
Solyndra wasn't a bet, it was KNOWN by his advisers to be a bad deal, but they had investment firms invested in the company, so pushed him to go for it
I don't think this is as much about tree hugging as much as it is about getting America off of imported energy, which drains our economy.
Why is a greater step towards energy independence via buying from Canada ill-concieved
I'd ask if you knew what a fungible commodity was, but I'm pretty sure you may know but won't admit that oil is one and it doesn't matter where you drill. So, what do you think about the property rights issues associated with this?
Obama will probably approve the pipeline project after the review process is exhausted. The only thing I really see holding back the decision is the possible negative outcome of an oil spill polluting the huge aquifer that the pipeline would be on top off. That aquifer supplies a lot of water to many people and a large area of farmland.
Obama should play towards the center and okay the project and make the announcement in Texas.
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.
