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.
I don't know why people continue falling for this environmental apocalypticism. We heard the same dire predictions designed to delay construction of the Alaska pipeline. Here in Maine the environMENTALs delayed for 10 years the widening of the turnpike with horror stories of anticpated ecological disaster that would attend adding an additional lane north and southbound for a 20-mile stretch. Well, the widening was finally done and, wonder of wonders, none of the predicted environmental horrors came to pass! No apologies, though, from the usual suspects who cost the state millions of dollars. They just moved on to other targets of opportunity. Right now they are fighting the Public Utilities Commission which authorized Central Maine Power to install so-called smart meters at businesses and homes so that electricity consumption can be read from a central location rather than by unionized meter readers. To hear the crazies tell it we're all going to die of cancer because of these new meters attached to the outside of our homes. They say a broken clock is right two times every 24 hours. Have the environmental nut cases ever been right? No matter.
The concerns over the Alaska pipeline revolved around damage to fragile habitats for wildlife in depopulated areas. If an oil leak happened in the Nebraska Sand Hills, it would pour directly into the drinking water for 90% of the state. Sometimes apples really aren't the same as oranges. If you lived here, would you be willing to take that risk, especially since the easy way to solve the problem is move the line to another, safer part of the state? Remember--the temp jobs they're creating aren't going to Nebraskans either. Think about it.
Apparently yes. As you yourself pointed out, there were more than a quarter million of them... just on the one side.
That's why they have public comment periods.
The comment period usually begins and ends before final decisions are made. I'm just saying we need to know when the comment periods are taking comments.
The comment period usually begins and ends before final decisions are made. I'm just saying we need to know when the comment periods are taking comments.
That's just it. If there was a spill on the initial route path, the damage would be done--no amount of clean up could fix it. We'd have an entire state with undrinkable water for both animals and humans, and potentially unusable water for irrigation. Even on the "safe" route, they'd better bury this thing in 15 feet of concrete or do whatever they need to do to make it spill proof. Why should we threaten our drinking water (and give up our land) for a foreign company that's going to create 6000 temporary jobs that won't even be going to Nebraskans? This whole deal has been a real eye opener.
Obama wants to be seen as a green president to get the college educated democrats vote while not looking like a wacko when gas hits $5 a gallon this summer
This pipeline has nothing to do with energy independence. First off, it will be carrying oil from Canada (OMG SOCIALISTS!)... to where? To the Gulf so they can get it on the open market. Wake up people, the big oil lobbyists and their GOP shills are lying to you again...
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
You're a very nice person, so I don't want to say this harshly. It's just that I'm sure the people who built the gulf pipeline thought it was perfectly safe too. We want to make SURE this one isn't going to break, and that if there is a problem, it's in an area that won't destroy our water supply.
Thank you--I don't understand why this issue is so hard for people to understand, unless they just don't want to understand. The crazy part is that the R's here are the ones who fought to move the line. We don't have enough democrats outside of Lincoln and Omaha to shake a stick at. It's a sad day when people--no matter which side they're on--are so locked into a political "agenda" that they can't deal with common sense.
Thank you... I am generally a nice person. Believe me when I say, I want it to be safe too! I don't like the fact that my husband goes out there day in and day out doing work that in itself is dangerous. And that's I guess is where I'm coming from. You being a NE resident have every right to be concerned. Myself, having had an oil/gas wildcatter as a grandfather, a father who for 40 years worked for Texaco and Shell Oil companies, and being married to a pipeline contractor for 30 years have a vested interest in this project. We both are looking at both sides of the issue, or at least trying. Why would we want to damage your water supply? To do so is both irresponsible, unethical, and in the long run would do nothing but ruin the industry down the line...
What is most aggravating to me is that I'm betting 75 to 80% of the people who come in this thread, have only one idea. To incite the other side. To give their opinion. They post links and maps (that to be honest.. I've seen dozens of times) from whatever side they "believe" to be the truth. And for every link they post, I could if I really cared to do so, find an equal and opposite one for. They heard on the radio, saw on the nightly news, or heard a politician say...*insert comment here*. They know nothing. If they actually knew what they were saying they would know the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle on this issue and would be willing to learn and see the other side, instead of proclaiming all of a sudden to be the next great expert. For someone to come into this thread and tell me how "bad" the pipeline is, was, or "could" be without actually knowing what a pup joint is, the diameter of the pipe, the side-wall thickness, coating procedures, etc., is like me telling them how to do their job because I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Obama administration to reject Keystone pipeline. Will he flip after the elections? Will the job loss affect his standing? He's a devious little feller ain't he.
In a phone conversation that came as little surprise, President Barack Obama called Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wednesday afternoon to explain why he had rejected the Keystone oil sands pipeline project.
In a statement released by Harper's office, the president is quoted as saying that the decision was not a decision based on the "merits of the project" and that TransCanada, the company looking to build the pipeline, could reapply for permission after a new route had been developed.
Yes, we know that. It was a political calculation based on putting his re-election chances against JOBS.
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.
