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.
whoever has been greased or will profit is for it... no matter what party...Bipartisan leaders from Northern Plains states joined the oil industry in calling for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline for national security's sake.
And those who will profit from it's delay (or not getting built at all) will be opposed. Warren Buffet, for one (BNSF Railroad).
Apart from your money interests, there is no good reason to oppose the XL Pipeline. It is good for America. Unfortunately, we have too many people today who don't give a damn about America.
Remember, 25% of the pipeline capacity is reserved for oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota and Montana.
Much is being said about the safety of the rail cars now being used to transport that crude oil. there is more than a little wailing and gnashing of teeth about the 100 tank car trains that are running on the Northern tier of tracks, and the many tank trucks on the highways. The Bakken crude is unusually volatile, hence the disaster in Canada when the train derailed and nearly wiped a town off the map, and the massive fire in North Dakota, which was luckily outside of town.
the pipeline will take much of that truck and train traffic away, greatly enhancing safety.
Building the pipeline will put many people to work. So what if it is temporary work, it is WORK that they need and paychecks that they need!
As for Bundy, I support him because of the SWAT tactics used against him. The BLM snipers were very lucky somebody didn't take a shot at them. There was absolutly no need for the tactics the BLM used. Yes, Bundy made some mistakes. Those mistakes did not justify what the government did!
itsmostly local and often libertians that I read about. I am conservative and he needs to pay for federal land use like others like oil and gas. but he isn't the only one that wants stuff free as individual; far from it.
The risk of pipeline leaks are nearly nil, but the risk of train derailments high, or highway accidents involving tankers carrying the oil.
Those who would benefit from the jobs it would create certainly care (and they don't care that "it won't create many" [your words]). It provides needed work for a significant length of time. If you are in need of work, you aren't going to turn your nose up at it, even if it is temporary, are you?
Most of these construction workers go from one job to the next anyway. That is the way of life for them.
Even the Unions are upset with Obama's delay tactics on this.
The risk of pipeline leaks is NOT nearly nil. It's 100%--- every pipeline leaks.
And those who will profit from it's delay (or not getting built at all) will be opposed. Warren Buffet, for one (BNSF Railroad).
Apart from your money interests, there is no good reason to oppose the XL Pipeline. It is good for America. Unfortunately, we have too many people today who don't give a damn about America.
Really? Its good for us HOW exactly.
Who owns it?
Whose oil is moving through it primarily?
That 25% reserved...how much is actually planned on being used?
Are they a competitor?
Who and where are all the jobs that aren't temporary?
Are we seizing lands via eminent domain for this?
Given all of that, even if we ignore any potential spills etc....how exactly is this about giving a damn about America? Cause if you look at those questions I dont think you will like the answers.
And those who will profit from it's delay (or not getting built at all) will be opposed. Warren Buffet, for one (BNSF Railroad).
Apart from your money interests, there is no good reason to oppose the XL Pipeline. It is good for America. Unfortunately, we have too many people today who don't give a damn about America.
Let me get this straight-- You're a conservative but you support government seizure of private land for development by a private Canadian company, if it's good for America (based on the assumption that any business activity is good for America)?
Last edited by Ibginnie; 04-28-2014 at 04:35 PM..
Reason: hotlinking
The risk of pipeline leaks is NOT nearly nil. It's 100%--- every pipeline leaks.
The risk of a pipeline leak is MUCH lower than the risk of the derailment of a 100 car train loaded with the highly volatile Bakken crude in the middle of some town.
YOU can explain to those people why that train was in their town, instead of that oil being sent down a pipeline.
The risk of a pipeline leak is MUCH lower than the risk of the derailment of a 100 car train loaded with the highly volatile Bakken crude in the middle of some town.
YOU can explain to those people why that train was in their town, instead of that oil being sent down a pipeline.
Here's my explanation: Not every rancher and farmer along the route wanted to sell their rightfully owned land to build a pipeline. If they did, this wouldn't be an issue.
I'd really like an explanation of this incongruity.
Conservatives are painting Cliven Bundy as a little guy being oppressed by the government, when the land he has grazed on for 20 years without paying is not his and never his, but instead belongs to the American people and is managed by the Department of the Interior, just like every federal national forest, oil field, and mineral deposit-- all of which you pay royalties to exploit commercially.
But at the same time, conservatives support the use of eminent domain by the government to forcibly take private land that actually does belong to farmers and ranchers in order to allow TransCanada, a foreign company, to build a pipeline to ship Canadian tar sands oil to Nebraska for refining.
Not only that, but conservatives are actually attacking President Obama for not forcibly taking these farmers' land to hand over to the foreign company.
Is it simply that conservatives don't have respect for property rights and simply support business interests, whether it's a millionaire rancher without a ranch, or a massive energy company?
Eminent domain is used to get right of way to build telegraph, railroad lines, roads, bridges, electrical transmission lines, pipelines etc...
Eminent domain is not supposed to be used to take property from one citizen to give it to another citizen because the county or state can get more tax revenue from a shopping mall and condos, nor to take someone's land just because some bureaucrat wants more "open space."
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.
