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.
Tom Steyer, major Obama donor and environmentalist will profit from the blockage of the Keystone pipeline.
Where did this billionaire make his money? With a rival oil pipeline. The Keystone is competition.
Hope and Change = More Crony Capitalism?
We already know that Canada will get the oil out of the ground and sell it -- this has been determined.
We can get the oil or China can -- there are 2 options.
If China gets the oil, it will travel farther, be at risk of more spills, and be refined in a country that will pollute more in refining it.
Or the US can get it, help the environment by getting it as opposed to farther away - less regulated China and then get the money and jobs from refining it.
Tom Steyer, major Obama donor and environmentalist will profit from the blockage of the Keystone pipeline.
Where did this billionaire make his money? With a rival oil pipeline. The Keystone is competition.
Hope and Change = More Crony Capitalism?
We already know that Canada will get the oil out of the ground and sell it -- this has been determined.
We can get the oil or China can -- there are 2 options.
If China gets the oil, it will travel farther, be at risk of more spills, and be refined in a country that will pollute more in refining it.
Or the US can get it, help the environment by getting it as opposed to farther away - less regulated China and then get the money and jobs from refining it.
I'm sure there are Obama donors who would profit from approving the pipeline. That's politics.
There isn't a bigger donor that would take a hit from approving it. Also Warren Buffett would take a hit if it is approved.
Obama made an illogical argument recently in regards to the keystone pipeline. Why? The US getting the pipeline would be better for the environment, as the alternative is shipping it a longer distance to a country with less environmental regulations to be refined - China.
There isn't a bigger donor that would take a hit from approving it. Also Warren Buffett would take a hit if it is approved.
Obama made an illogical argument recently in regards to the keystone pipeline. Why? The US getting the pipeline would be better for the environment, as the alternative is shipping it a longer distance to a country with less environmental regulations to be refined - China.
I'm pretty sure Obama is approving the pipeline, but even if he doesn't and a few Obama donors do gain from the project not being approved are you suggesting Obama is the first politician to something like this?
I'm pretty sure Obama is approving the pipeline, but even if he doesn't and a few Obama donors do gain from the project not being approved are you suggesting Obama is the first politician to something like this?
No.
This wouldn't be Obama's first, or second, or third or etc.... act of crony capitalism.
The only logical choice for Obama is to approve of the pipeline, I couldn't believe the illogical fantasy statement from his lips the other day.
"Hope and Change" was a gimmick catch line for suckers.
We can get the oil or China can -- there are 2 options.
It's not "either/or". Canada has enough oil to sell to both China and the US. The 2 proposed pipelines across the Rockies to Pacific ports face fiercer opposition than Keystone and are a long way down the road before one or the other gets approved - if ever.
In case you didn't know - Alberta already supplies the US, via pipelines, with 15% of it's crude oil imports. Keystone XL is just an additional pipeline to the US.
Obama made an illogical argument recently in regards to the keystone pipeline. Why? The US getting the pipeline would be better for the environment, as the alternative is shipping it a longer distance to a country with less environmental regulations to be refined - China.
The Keystone XL oil isn't for US consumption. It's just a way to get Canadian oil to Gulf of Mexico ports for export.
As I noted above it's not an "alternative", Canada has enough oil to export via Keystone and the proposed Pacific pipelines.
It's not "either/or". Canada has enough oil to sell to both China and the US. The 2 proposed pipelines across the Rockies to Pacific ports face fiercer opposition than Keystone and are a long way down the road before one or the other gets approved - if ever.
In case you didn't know - Alberta already supplies the US, via pipelines, with 15% of it's crude oil imports. Keystone XL is just an additional pipeline to the US.
It by its very definition is an either or. Either the US will get that specific oil Canada is trying to sell to us or China will.
If that specific oil doesn't go to the US, it will go to China. China has already shown interest and Canada has already said that it will look that way if the US rejects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw
The Keystone XL oil isn't for US consumption. It's just a way to get Canadian oil to Gulf of Mexico ports for export.
As I noted above it's not an "alternative", Canada has enough oil to export via Keystone and the proposed Pacific pipelines.
You are ignoring a key aspect that your Green friends are not ignoring. Refineries in the US would get that oil. Jobs and money. Or...Chinese refineries will get that oil. Jobs and money.
America is a net importer or oil, but a net exporter of refined oil. Refining oil is a major industry in the US.
Once again, it is an either or for this specific oil, as even the Prime Minister has lobbied the US and then recently said that Canada will have to look to Asia to pick up this slack.
There isn't a bigger donor that would take a hit from approving it. Also Warren Buffett would take a hit if it is approved.
Obama made an illogical argument recently in regards to the keystone pipeline. Why? The US getting the pipeline would be better for the environment, as the alternative is shipping it a longer distance to a country with less environmental regulations to be refined - China.
You had a link to prove your first point, but not one for the second.
The Keystone XL oil isn't for US consumption. It's just a way to get Canadian oil to Gulf of Mexico ports for export.
As I noted above it's not an "alternative", Canada has enough oil to export via Keystone and the proposed Pacific pipelines.
Besides, we already get oil from Canada with the current pipeline.
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.
