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.
Obama can and should continue to block it as an example of what happens to foreign companies when they attempt to threaten Americans with Eminent Domain.
"On Tuesday, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who previously hesitated at approving the project, sent Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a letter saying he is now satisfied with the pipeline’s new routing. The potential environmental risks, he says, are lessened."
I believe that was the issue: the route, with the original one endangering (so it was claimed) critical underground water supply should an incident happened.
Hence, a new route was planned out, which, it appears, the Governor does not object to. I do not recall President Obama being 'against' the pipeline, per se, but he agreed that the original route put the water table in potential danger (note that many farmers, etc, were against the original route).
Obama can and should continue to block it as an example of what happens to foreign companies when they attempt to threaten Americans with Eminent Domain.
Naw, he has to concentrate on confiscation of guns and then worry about the pipeline after he gets the guns.
"On Tuesday, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who previously hesitated at approving the project, sent Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a letter saying he is now satisfied with the pipeline’s new routing. The potential environmental risks, he says, are lessened."
I believe that was the issue: the route, with the original one endangering (so it was claimed) critical underground water supply should an incident happened.
Hence, a new route was planned out, which, it appears, the Governor does not object to. I do not recall President Obama being 'against' the pipeline, per se, but he agreed that the original route put the water table in potential danger (note that many farmers, etc, were against the original route).
Yes, many irrigating farmers were worried about the pipeline going through the Sand hills. However, many communities in that part of the world also depend on the same aquifer for their water. I guess Obama will have to depend on them to hold the pipeline back although the new route doesn't go through the sand hills.
Your post is typical of the ignorant nonsense you wingnuts tends to post ("Dear Leader" - give me a break! ). Obama has never been AGAINST the pipeline - he even visited the southern part of the pipeline last March to urge speedy construction of that section. What he was AGAINST was the ROUTE it was slated to take through that particular part of Nebraska (there were GROUNDWATER CONCERNS). Now that the route has been changed - for GOOD REASON (even the GOP governor of the state did a defacto admission of that) there's likely to far less (if any) resistance by the administration and the pipeline will move forward.
Your post is typical of the ignorant nonsense you wingnuts tends to post ("Dear Leader" - give me a break! ). Obama has never been AGAINST the pipeline - he even visited the southern part of the pipeline last March to urge speedy construction of that section. What he was AGAINST was the ROUTE it was slated to take through that particular part of Nebraska (there were GROUNDWATER CONCERNS). Now that the route has been changed - for GOOD REASON (even the GOP governor of the state did a defacto admission of that) there's likely to far less (if any) resistance by the administration and the pipeline will move forward.
Ken
Trying to get some of these folks to understand nuance is like Sisyphus and that rock.
Pointless.
Your post is typical of the ignorant nonsense you wingnuts tends to post ("Dear Leader" - give me a break! ). Obama has never been AGAINST the pipeline - he even visited the southern part of the pipeline last March to urge speedy construction of that section. What he was AGAINST was the ROUTE it was slated to take through that particular part of Nebraska (there were GROUNDWATER CONCERNS). Now that the route has been changed - for GOOD REASON (even the GOP governor of the state did a defacto admission of that) there's likely to far less (if any) resistance by the administration and the pipeline will move forward.
Ken
Dear Leader was very careful not to publically take a stand against the XL pipeline but delayed making a final decision on it until after the election, thus risking (and probably hoping) that it would never be built in the US at all, despite broad support from republicans and democrats alike to have it built. The greens in his party are against it being built in the US at all (just continues our addiction on fossil fuels). We shall see where he comes down, if he makes a decision at all (which would be another way of making the decision- simply delaying it)
As usual, his public pronouncements on the subject are so much sleight of hand. He would have you believe he is pro-drilling, while his policies have thwarted efforts to drill on public lands, yet he takes credit for increased drilling on private lands and on private off-shore leases that have increased largely due to improved technology. Heck, is EPA has been held in contempt of court for slow permitting of drilling the gulf -- yet publically he claims he's pro drilling.
Just because he fools you, doesn't mean he fools all of us.
I'm a Nebraskan, originally from the edge of the Nebraska Sand Hills. The problem with the first pipeline was that it ran directly through the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies all of the drinking water, and irrigation water for agriculture (the core of our state economy) to most of Nebraska and other surrounding states as well. The aquifer isn't an underground lake--it's deep deep sand (hence the name "Sand Hills" for that area) with the water flowing through it, sometimes as close as inches below the surface. There's no pipe of any kind currently running through the Sand Hills for good reason--the ground isn't stable, and any kind of spill there would immediately go into the ground water. A major spill could potentially make the state uninhabitable, plus destroy our agricultural base--no amount of cleanup by TransCanada could fix that. The other factor here was the way that Trans Canada handled the first plan--they walked in and told farmers and ranchers here that they were taking their land without the pipeline being approved by either the state of Nebraska or the State Department, and they actually came in with mowers and bulldozers to start clearing on privately owned land without approval from the landowners. The Sand Hills are very fragile grazing land--if you disrupt the grass cover you create huge holes or "blow outs" where the area literally blows away and becomes unusable. As you can imagine, that didn't go over well with ranchers, who tend to be a pretty independent group, and tend to get really ticked off if you destroy their grazing lands.
All of those factors are why our very Republican state did its best to block the pipeline until TransCanada could come up with a mutually acceptable plan that bypassed the Sand Hills and relocated to an area with dense soil that would cause less widespread contamination in the event of a spill.
I have mixed feelings about the pipeline, as do many here. If the new route protects our water, I'm not opposed in theory. I've grown to become more concerned about tar sands though--I don't they're the answer, and the last thing we need to do is to dump yet more crap into our air and water. Some of you are saying that it's an energy supply for the US that will reduce prices, but it looks like it's all going to be shipped straight to China instead. The job impact in Nebraska will be extremely minimal--a couple of hundred construction jobs, mostly from people coming in from out of state, for a few months. Since we only have 3.7% unemployment, that's not much of a motivator compared to the risk we're taking with relatively little benefit. I'll be interested to see what the President does with this.
Last edited by mb1547; 01-24-2013 at 11:20 AM..
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.
). Obama has never been AGAINST the pipeline - he even visited the southern part of the pipeline last March to urge speedy construction of that section. What he was AGAINST was the ROUTE it was slated to take through that particular part of Nebraska (there were GROUNDWATER CONCERNS). Now that the route has been changed - for GOOD REASON (even the GOP governor of the state did a defacto admission of that) there's likely to far less (if any) resistance by the administration and the pipeline will move forward.
