# XL Pipeline Runs Right Through Obama's Ass



## Samson

Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=28304
Copyright 2011 Toronto Star Newspapers Limited





> Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.
> 
> The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.
> 
> Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........
> 
> 
> On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.
> 
> Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.
> 
> "Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."



I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?


----------



## Care4all

why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline?  Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?  

haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?  

i know, i know, read the article....


----------



## Care4all

samson.......give a link please!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Samson said:


> Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.
> 
> The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.
> 
> Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........
> 
> 
> On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.
> 
> Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.
> 
> "Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...


Inadvertently sammieboy made a point.  Redford does not need job so those with an open mind will listen more carefully to his argument than one offered by those who have a financial interest.

Of course, this thread is one of many partisan threads begun by an Obama hater whose vision is 'colored'.  Why that is so is open to debate, but I digress.  The issue is protecting the environment, nothing in the thread offers an explanation of the objections of Redford or others whose special interest is in protecting our environment.

Reasonable people will take the time to examine all aspects of such a proposal and seek a win-win solution.  Odd-balls will always engage in zero sum games.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> samson.......give a link please!



Oh...sorry...

DownstreamToday.com - News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline?  Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?
> 
> haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?
> 
> i know, i know, read the article....



"We" are not paying for the pipeline.

It is being built by TransCanada and ConocoPhillips.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems.   And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.  

In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition.   It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having  the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.


----------



## Care4all

Baruch Menachem said:


> Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems.   And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.
> 
> In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition.   It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having  the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.


home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing?  isn't that a bit of a stretch B?


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems.   And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.
> 
> In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition.   It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having  the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing?  isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
Click to expand...


Actually you are both streching.

A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!


----------



## Care4all

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems.   And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.
> 
> In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition.   It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having  the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing?  isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually you are both streching.
> 
> A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
> B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
Click to expand...

your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing?  isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are both streching.
> 
> A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
> B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
Click to expand...


Indeed it does (actually it paraphrases a NYT article). But you are implying that anyone is blaming Obama for point, which is not mentioned:



> The newspaper [NYT] also carried a report about TransCanada's aggressive land acquisition practices along the route of the proposed pipeline, raising questions about whether a foreign company can use the U.S. eminent domain legislation to force their pipeline on private property.
> 
> The report said TransCanada has already started more than 50 court actions against landowners who refused to allow access to the pipeline on their property and the newspaper quoted landowners in Texas saying they had never seen a company act so aggressively.



In fact, the reason the article includes this is because the Obama Administration's opinion in the eminent domain matter is MISSING: They are not rising to side with the homeownes OR the XL pipline.


----------



## Care4all

Samson said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you are both streching.
> 
> A. Obama's problem is that he is NOT objecting to the XL Keystone.
> B. Where are these homeowner's who are objecting to anyone buying their home, Care? These days, I wish like hell anyone would pay anything like above market price for my home!
> 
> 
> 
> your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed it does (actually it paraphrases a NYT article). But you are implying that anyone is blaming Obama for point, which is not mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper [NYT] also carried a report about TransCanada's aggressive land acquisition practices along the route of the proposed pipeline, raising questions about whether a foreign company can use the U.S. eminent domain legislation to force their pipeline on private property.
> 
> The report said TransCanada has already started more than 50 court actions against landowners who refused to allow access to the pipeline on their property and the newspaper quoted landowners in Texas saying they had never seen a company act so aggressively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, the reason the article includes this is because the Obama Administration's opinion in the eminent domain matter is MISSING: They are not rising to side with the homeownes OR the XL pipline.
Click to expand...

yes, i get that now, ty, but i was responding to BM's post comment!


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Care4all said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems.   And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.
> 
> In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition.   It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having  the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing?  isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
Click to expand...


supposed to be two different thoughts.  I can see where the confusion would arise.  1) They are pretty darn agressive from what the article says.  This causes resentments.  

2) Totally different topic now....... We have pipelines all over the place.   Building this one has all kinds of positive, in terms of jobs and increased trade with an ally and weaning ourselves from Mid east oil.  There is so much positive I wonder at folks finding the negative to this.   Over the last two and half years we have seen a consistant pattern of Obama being offered a solution that works and a way of making things worse, he usually opts for the latter.    This particular story offers him a trifecta.  He can piss off the canadians, cost jobs and insure our dependence on mid east oil at a single stroke.    For a sensible leader this choice should be obvious.   Since Obama is leaning away from the logical sensible choice, the question arises as to why is leaning that way.


----------



## Samson

Care4all said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> your article dear, mentioned homeowners in Texas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it does (actually it paraphrases a NYT article). But you are implying that anyone is blaming Obama for point, which is not mentioned:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newspaper [NYT] also carried a report about TransCanada's aggressive land acquisition practices along the route of the proposed pipeline, raising questions about whether a foreign company can use the U.S. eminent domain legislation to force their pipeline on private property.
> 
> The report said TransCanada has already started more than 50 court actions against landowners who refused to allow access to the pipeline on their property and the newspaper quoted landowners in Texas saying they had never seen a company act so aggressively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, the reason the article includes this is because the Obama Administration's opinion in the eminent domain matter is MISSING: They are not rising to side with the homeownes OR the XL pipline.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, i get that now, ty, but i was responding to BM's post comment!
Click to expand...


I'm still highly suspicious of the NYT article's claim that there are TX (or ANY) homeowners complaining about selling their homes in a terribly depressed real estate market, and would really be interested to know exactly who they were.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Well, since the Kelo decision a while ago eminent domain can be up to ever higher levels of abuse.

I have to admit I got suckered into an ADD part of the story that really wasn't all that relavent to the story but always bugs me.   Main thing is Obama is offered a really cool way of making all  kinds of things go right, and seems to be deliberately making the wrong choice.


----------



## Samson

Baruch Menachem said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pipelines have the right of eminent domain it seems.   And TransCanada is kind of agressive about how it acquires land.
> 
> In the current political climate where jobs are the over reaching issue, I wonder why they are getting so much opposition.   It does seem sometimes that Obama really preferes having  the problem of the depression to having any kind of non state solution.
> 
> 
> 
> home owners having objections to using eminent domain to take their land away for a pipeline for Canada is Obama's doing?  isn't that a bit of a stretch B?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> supposed to be two different thoughts.  I can see where the confusion would arise.  1) They are pretty darn agressive from what the article says.  This causes resentments.
> 
> 2) Totally different topic now....... We have pipelines all over the place.   Building this one has all kinds of positive, in terms of jobs and increased trade with an ally and weaning ourselves from Mid east oil.  There is so much positive I wonder at folks finding the negative to this.   Over the last two and half years we have seen a consistant pattern of Obama being offered a solution that works and a way of making things worse, he usually opts for the latter.    This particular story offers him a trifecta.  He can piss off the canadians, cost jobs and insure our dependence on mid east oil at a single stroke.    For a sensible leader this choice should be obvious.   Since Obama is leaning away from the logical sensible choice, the question arises as to why is leaning that way.
Click to expand...


1. The article that claims the pipeline company is aggressive comes from the NYT which also ran the ad from Robert Redford: Consider the source.

2. Actually, Obama is NOT leaning away from _*either*_ choice: That's the issue. As he straddles both sides of the issue, it will run right through his, um, "middle."


----------



## Old Rocks

Best read on what the effects of the processing of the tar sands are on the environment. Just another way of stretching out the time we are dependent on resources that are not ours, resources that diminsh the environment and create a lessor future for the children and grandchildren of this nation.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Old Rocks said:


> Best read on what the effects of the processing of the tar sands are on the environment. Just another way of stretching out the time we are dependent on resources that are not ours, resources that diminsh the environment and create a lessor future for the children and grandchildren of this nation.



Suggesting some read up on an issue is good advice but rarely taken.  And, who are we to trust on such matters?  I suspect there are opinions from authorities on both sides of this and every issue, and the pros and cons are easily manipulated by those who have a stake in the decision.

At first look it seems a no brainer, why not go forward and build the pipeline.  But as asked above, who pays and who benefits?  It's always a good strategy to follow the money.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?

And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Kiki Cannoli said:


> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.



Interesting post; I suppose the Alaskan Pipeline project is the best source to predict how many permanent jobs will such a project create.  Anyone know?


----------



## Samson

Kiki Cannoli said:


> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.



Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?

I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."

If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.


----------



## bripat9643

Care4all said:


> why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline?  Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?
> 
> haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?
> 
> i know, i know, read the article....



Taxpayers aren't paying a dime for the pipeline.  the oil company is paying for everything.  They just need permission from the government to build it.


----------



## bripat9643

Samson said:


> I'm still highly suspicious of the NYT article's claim that there are TX (or ANY) homeowners complaining about selling their homes in a terribly depressed real estate market, and would really be interested to know exactly who they were.



I am also highly suspicious of that since pipelines are seldom built in populated areas.  It's very easy for the builder to divert around towns and cities.  Why would they want to pay for very expensive land in the city when they can just move the pipeline to the side a few miles?


----------



## GWV5903

Build the pipeline, it is really that simple, they are every where...

Let's see, depressed economy, roughly 14 million unemployed and somehow we are now supposed to be worried about eminent domain issues? 

At this pace we will continue down this miserable road for sometime to come...

I am sorry, but why would anyone listen to what Robert Redford has to say? Did he invent or discover our replacement yet for oil & gas?


----------



## Samson

GWV5903 said:


> Build the pipeline, it is really that simple, they are every where...
> 
> Let's see, depressed economy, roughly 14 million unemployed and somehow we are now supposed to be worried about eminent domain issues?
> 
> At this pace we will continue down this miserable road for sometime to come...
> 
> I am sorry, but why would anyone listen to what Robert Redford has to say? Did he invent or discover our replacement yet for oil & gas?



Apparently, Obama listens to Redford, because The Community Organizer's approval of the XL project has been paralyzed by the prospect of disappointing Robert Redford.

Interestingly, the DOS, lead by Hillary Clinton, has given the project the Green Light.

The EPA has been the obstruction: apparently preferring increased deep water wells in the GOM and relying on tanker traffic from Venezuela to supply American refiners.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Samson said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?
> 
> I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."
> 
> If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.
Click to expand...


I have no doubt you think concrete, but that's another matter.  Shovel ready such a pipeline is not, environmental impact reports will be needed for every inch of the projected line.  Seems to me such studies are necessary, but what is sufficient?  This type of regulation needs to be streamlined but not entirely tossed out as the far right hopes.  Of course the far left needs to compromise and recognize not every tree frog or spotted owl should be a road block.  We've seen in recent years how wildlife is resilient - lions and bears and coyotes have all begun to return and survive on our garbage, pet cats and small dogs, even in urban environments (San Francisco now has a coyote problem).


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

Samson said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?
> 
> I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."
> 
> If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.
Click to expand...


Samson - my post was not combative nor partisan.  It was a question regarding economy scales and large projects which promise to deliver jobs, but are increasingly not the jobs the USA needs - industry growth - not more mini malls.

Chillax.

ETA: there is more to life than go political team.  my brain actually processes more than one complex concept regularly.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

Wry Catcher said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?
> 
> I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."
> 
> If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no doubt you think concrete, but that's another matter.  Shovel ready such a pipeline is not, environmental impact reports will be needed for every inch of the projected line.  Seems to me such studies are necessary, but what is sufficient?  This type of regulation needs to be streamlined but not entirely tossed out as the far right hopes.  Of course the far left needs to compromise and recognize not every tree frog or spotted owl should be a road block.  We've seen in recent years how wildlife is resilient - lions and bears and coyotes have all begun to return and survive on our garbage, pet cats and small dogs, even in urban environments (San Francisco now has a coyote problem).
Click to expand...


Precisely, this is a large scale project which will require years to develop and for the USA to benefit.


----------



## Samson

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?
> 
> I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."
> 
> If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Samson - my post was not combative nor partisan.  It was a question regarding economy scales and large projects which promise to deliver jobs, but are increasingly not the jobs the USA needs - industry growth - not more mini malls.
> 
> Chillax.
> 
> ETA: there is more to life than go political team.  my brain actually processes more than one complex concept regularly.
Click to expand...


Niether was my post "combative or partisan:" I merely addressed your rather vague post.

For example; What are these "projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths." I'm not aware of any jobs offered in the energy sector paying less than $15/hr (double the minimum wage).

And how on earth can anyone predict, "percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?" Who cares?


----------



## Samson

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?
> 
> I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."
> 
> If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt you think concrete, but that's another matter.  Shovel ready such a pipeline is not, environmental impact reports will be needed for every inch of the projected line.  Seems to me such studies are necessary, but what is sufficient?  This type of regulation needs to be streamlined but not entirely tossed out as the far right hopes.  Of course the far left needs to compromise and recognize not every tree frog or spotted owl should be a road block.  We've seen in recent years how wildlife is resilient - lions and bears and coyotes have all begun to return and survive on our garbage, pet cats and small dogs, even in urban environments (San Francisco now has a coyote problem).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Precisely, this is a large scale project which will require years to develop and for the USA to benefit.
Click to expand...




Yes, Large-Scale Projects, by definition, take longer periods of time to complete.

And your point is that .....what?


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

Samson said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now its not good enough that jobs are "shovel ready," they also must be proven to "not dissipate" at a certain arbitrary rate (less rapidly than those at Solyndra)?
> 
> I suppose under these criteria, the US automobile industry never should have pursued US operations because a large percentage of jobs have "dissipated," and not created "substantive career paths."
> 
> If I was Obama, I think I'd concentrate on projects like this: Creating Jobs. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson - my post was not combative nor partisan.  It was a question regarding economy scales and large projects which promise to deliver jobs, but are increasingly not the jobs the USA needs - industry growth - not more mini malls.
> 
> Chillax.
> 
> ETA: there is more to life than go political team.  my brain actually processes more than one complex concept regularly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Niether was my post "combative or partisan:" I merely addressed your rather vague post.
> 
> For example; What are these "projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths." I'm not aware of any jobs offered in the energy sector paying less than $15/hr (double the minimum wage).
> 
> And how on earth can anyone predict, "percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?" Who cares?
Click to expand...


Decision making support analysts can predict such statistics.  Not a vague post, a share my thinking post.  

I never mentioned the energy sector specifically, I am saying (for the third time) large scale projects.  Example of such might be city convention centers, ball parks, new malls... all of which are sold to the public with the promise of bringing jobs.  What jobs you ask?  Soda fountain jerks, sweepers, popcorn vendors, retail sales - but never new engineering outfits, local technical support - ya know the kind of stuff that great nations are built on....INDUSTRIES.


----------



## Samson

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samson - my post was not combative nor partisan.  It was a question regarding economy scales and large projects which promise to deliver jobs, but are increasingly not the jobs the USA needs - industry growth - not more mini malls.
> 
> Chillax.
> 
> ETA: there is more to life than go political team.  my brain actually processes more than one complex concept regularly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Niether was my post "combative or partisan:" I merely addressed your rather vague post.
> 
> For example; What are these "projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths." I'm not aware of any jobs offered in the energy sector paying less than $15/hr (double the minimum wage).
> 
> And how on earth can anyone predict, "percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?" Who cares?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Decision making support analysts can predict such statistics.  Not a vague post, a share my thinking post.
> 
> I never mentioned the energy sector specifically, I am saying (for the third time) large scale projects.  Example of such might be city convention centers, ball parks, new malls... all of which are sold to the public with the promise of bringing jobs.  What jobs you ask?  Soda fountain jerks, sweepers, popcorn vendors, retail sales - but never new engineering outfits, local technical support - ya know the kind of stuff that great nations are built on....INDUSTRIES.
Click to expand...


Um.......ok sweetie....a pipeline won't require any soda fountain jerks or popcorn vendors.

Better now?


----------



## Kiki Cannoli

Don't patronize me you fool.


----------



## Samson

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Don't patronize me you fool.



Now, now, now.......don't get upset: Your masquera will run......


----------



## Metzor

Will this pipeline cross the mississippi? If so, I'm against it. All the oil east of the river comes in plastic bottles labeled "10W30". Any deviation from this highly complex, alpha numeric system will upset the equilibrium established by the TVA and the Kudzu Council for the Arts. Such a drastic change would necessarily force the entire state of Ohio into a mad search for 3-in-1 oil and WD40 and we all know you can't cook with that stuff. People will die, man!


----------



## flacaltenn

Old Rocks said:


> Best read on what the effects of the processing of the tar sands are on the environment. Just another way of stretching out the time we are dependent on resources that are not ours, resources that diminsh the environment and create a lessor future for the children and grandchildren of this nation.



For Baruch Menachem --- That there ABOVE is what the Dear Leader Obama is thinking.. 
Forget about logical or rational triage.... It's to save the children... 
He just can't help it. Too much Daily Kos...


----------



## TruthSeeker56

ANYTHING written in the New York Times should be held in great suspicion.  Most of what the NYT produces are OPINION pieces passed off as "news reporting".

As for Robert Redford, he has been a crackpot for as long as I can remember.  ANY cause that makes the United States look bad, and ANY cause that taints and embarrasses our history, is a cause that Redford supports.  Redford has made his millions by ridiculing and fabricating lies about the country that made him rich.  He's just another Hollywood bottom feeder.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Care4all said:


> *why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline?*  Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?
> 
> haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?
> 
> i know, i know, read the article....



We're not.


Read the article.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Metzor said:


> Will this pipeline cross the mississippi? If so, I'm against it. All the oil east of the river comes in plastic bottles labeled "10W30". Any deviation from this highly complex, alpha numeric system will upset the equilibrium established by the TVA and the Kudzu Council for the Arts. Such a drastic change would necessarily force the entire state of Ohio into a mad search for 3-in-1 oil and WD40 and we all know you can't cook with that stuff. People will die, man!



No it won't cross the Mississippi.


----------



## Trajan

Care4all said:


> why do we have to pay 7 billion for an oil pipeline?  Why do tax payers have to pay for any oil pipeline for any amount of money when the oil industry is already very profitable?
> 
> haven't read the article yet, but is the 7 billion on us or it is just permission to cross state lines or eminent domain issues?
> 
> i know, i know, read the article....



uhm we are not paying a dime..its all Trans Canada money.




some things to remember-

-the greens says hey its a disaster, stop it, don't do it....ok, well as long as you realize we, here will stop NOTHING. Trans Canada, will just railhead  (until the build a pipeline thru British Col. ) the Oil to the coast, so as to sell it to China who has already  expressed an interest. 
 So, the big carbon footprint they say is being created wills till be crated -even if we say no.

- the pipeline is the safest delivery mechanism there is, bar none. 

- the 20K jobs are a dead set certainty, there are another 100K jobs in ancillary services that will spin off for the next 5 years once the project starts.....

- the pipeline has been vetted by;

the state dept. 
the interior dept. 
the dept. of transportation
the dept of eneregy
and of course, the EPA

10,000 pages, not one of them could find a reason to say no, its footprint will be minimal and its safety is not in question. 

-the tar sands are a heavy crude, like Venezuela's, which requires more costly and time consuming refinement, which the gulf refinerys have the capacity for, so I thinkl we should give our money to Canada and ween ourselves of of chavez's..a dollar less in his pocket is a good thing, no? 

No offense but I giggled at questions directed to its job making potential, I wasn't aware we were in [a] position to get picky? I mean seriously folks...come on.....

and as far as any eminent domain issues,a)  they will be minimal, b) you don't build pipelines thru residential neighborhoods, c) Kelo? Hello? not a THING has been built,  those folks were thrown out of their homes by a lib SC, here we are actually building something (pfizer bailed on new london), d) that will benefit everyone in the country, not just one cities tax base and the usual crony insider  real estate moguls who thought Pfizer was going to make them rich. this is exactly what ED was created to address.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Att: Metzor







Notice it doesn't cross the Mississippi.

The company I work for is bidding on a portion of this project and so far it's looking really good. We're expecting to make tons of money!!


----------



## Samson

Lonestar_logic said:


> Att: Metzor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice it doesn't cross the Mississippi.
> 
> The company I work for is bidding on a portion of this project and so far it's looking really good. We're expecting to make tons of money!!



I hear you may need to by-pass Nebraska.

DownstreamToday.com - News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry

WY and CO need the jobs.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Samson said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Att: Metzor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice it doesn't cross the Mississippi.
> 
> The company I work for is bidding on a portion of this project and so far it's looking really good. We're expecting to make tons of money!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear you may need to by-pass Nebraska.
> 
> DownstreamToday.com - News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry
> 
> WY and CO need the jobs.
Click to expand...


We'll see what Nebaraska's legislature says. Personally I think their fears are unfounded.


----------



## Trajan

what interesting is the union that want the jobs and have been lobbying obama are the old heart and soul of the democratic party, PRIVATE Industrial unions.......plus the states the line goes thru won't vote for obama anyway, so I don't think he will approve it....it will be a sense of how desperate he thinks he is if he does..


----------



## Samson

Trajan said:


> what interesting is the union that want the jobs and have been lobbying obama are the old heart and soul of the democratic party, PRIVATE Industrial unions.......plus the states the line goes thru won't vote for obama anyway, so I don't think he will approve it....it will be a sense of how desperate he thinks he is if he does..



Yes that is really the subject of the thread: How will Obama make labor happy, as well as making Robert Redford happy.

So far he seems to have distanced himself from giving any opinion, and the media (including FNC) has let him get away with it.


----------



## Trajan

Samson said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what interesting is the union that want the jobs and have been lobbying obama are the old heart and soul of the democratic party, PRIVATE Industrial unions.......plus the states the line goes thru won't vote for obama anyway, so I don't think he will approve it....it will be a sense of how desperate he thinks he is if he does..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is really the subject of the thread: How will Obama make labor happy, as well as making Robert Redford happy.
> 
> So far he seems to have distanced himself from giving any opinion, and the media (including FNC) has let him get away with it.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree but you see, he has lead form behind since day one, and it has become a belief of mine every step of this was intended. 

he is hoping that Trans Canada says F it, they are tried of waiting, but they won't , this is their first best idea and money maker. he hates it, but, hes going to have to come down on side or another.....


----------



## Samson

Trajan said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> what interesting is the union that want the jobs and have been lobbying obama are the old heart and soul of the democratic party, PRIVATE Industrial unions.......plus the states the line goes thru won't vote for obama anyway, so I don't think he will approve it....it will be a sense of how desperate he thinks he is if he does..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is really the subject of the thread: How will Obama make labor happy, as well as making Robert Redford happy.
> 
> So far he seems to have distanced himself from giving any opinion, and the media (including FNC) has let him get away with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I agree but you see, he has lead form behind since day one, and it has become a belief of mine every step of this was intended.
> 
> he is hoping that Trans Canada says F it, they are tried of waiting, but they won't , this is their first best idea and money maker. he hates it, but, hes going to have to come down on side or another.....
Click to expand...


Agreed, but Hillary seems to be the Fly in His Ointment: The Dept of State has given XL the Green Light.

If she wanted to be helpful she could have stalled until after 11/2012


----------



## Trajan

Samson said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that is really the subject of the thread: How will Obama make labor happy, as well as making Robert Redford happy.
> 
> So far he seems to have distanced himself from giving any opinion, and the media (including FNC) has let him get away with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I agree but you see, he has lead form behind since day one, and it has become a belief of mine every step of this was intended.
> 
> he is hoping that Trans Canada says F it, they are tried of waiting, but they won't , this is their first best idea and money maker. he hates it, but, hes going to have to come down on side or another.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed, but Hillary seems to be the Fly in His Ointment: The Dept of State has given XL the Green Light.
> 
> If she wanted to be helpful she could have stalled until after 11/2012
Click to expand...



well, she has and will......

Hillary has agreed to run interference for him. 


Keystone pipeline: State Department agrees to investigate charges

Inspector general launches investigation after conflict of interest charges from environmental groups and politicians


Keystone pipeline: State Department agrees to investigate charges | World news | guardian.co.uk


its amazing how fast that IG investigation got approval and is getting started eh? meanwhile we cannot get to the bottom of fast and furious, which has cost 2 lives of ours and some 200 Mexicans nor the appropriate information on solyndra etc.....

and no this has no effect on biz hence the economy or jobs does it?  ...unreal.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Samson said:


> Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......
> 
> DownstreamToday.com - News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry
> Copyright 2011 Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.
> 
> The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.
> 
> Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........
> 
> 
> On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.
> 
> Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.
> 
> "Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...


Well if the US taxpayer has to pay for this, it should be shut down.
If the oil companies are paying, everyone needs to shut the fuck up, b/c we need the jobs.


----------



## Trajan

Two Thumbs said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......
> 
> DownstreamToday.com - News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry
> Copyright 2011 Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.
> 
> The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.
> 
> Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........
> 
> 
> On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.
> 
> Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.
> 
> "Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if the US taxpayer has to pay for this, it should be shut down.
> If the oil companies are paying, everyone needs to shut the fuck up, b/c we need the jobs.
Click to expand...


agreed and trans-canada is footing the bill...


----------



## masquerade

Obama administration likely to delay decision on Keystone pipeline


Obama administration likely to delay decision on Keystone pipeline - The Hill's E2-Wire


----------



## Mr. H.

14 route options and 3 years of review later... nothin'. 
Looks like Obama has been keeping this in his hip pocket for some time. 
He may need it the closer we get to elections.


----------



## Samson

Mr. H. said:


> 14 route options and 3 years of review later... nothin'.
> Looks like Obama has been keeping this in his hip pocket for some time.
> He may need it the closer we get to elections.



My theory is he won't approve it.

No one employable in the energy sector is going to vote for him, regardless of XL; however, Robert Redford and the Sierra Club crowd will have his balls if he approves it.


----------



## Mr. H.

I agree. It's totally fucked up- Obama's yet to be passed budget still has tens of billions in tax penalties in it, directed at oil and natural gas. Typical Democrat idiocy. 

And if it's not approved, it won't shut down tar sands oil production in Canada. They'll just ship it elsewhere. 

And just wait- as domestic natural gas production increases and companies seek to develop Liquified Natural Gas terminals for export, Democrats will step up and kill that too.


----------



## Bfgrn

Samson said:


> Looks like the "Community Organizer" will have his hands full.......
> 
> DownstreamToday.com - News and Information for the Downstream Oil and Gas Industry
> Copyright 2011 Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has promised a decision by year's end on the $7 billion, 2,700-kilometre pipeline that would ship Canadian oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico, traversing six U.S. states.
> 
> The project promises 20,000 jobs and the economy has been perhaps the only issue in the U.S. campaign so far.
> 
> Now, it is being described as a "defining political issue'' for the U.S. president as two of his core constituencies, the environmental movement and the U.S. labour movement line up against each other........
> 
> 
> On Tuesday alone, readers of The New York Times website could watch a video by Robert Redford and read a story of heavy handed actions by TransCanada.
> 
> Redford called the Alberta crude "the dirtiest oil on the planet" and delivered a tough message to the U.S. president.
> 
> "Stand up for the future you know we deserve," he said. "Say 'no' to the Keystone XL."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt Redford needs a job: Anyone disagree?
Click to expand...


Ironic, you mention 'community organizer' because the concern and heated debate has been going on in numerous 'communities' where the pipeline would actually be running through their 'asses'. And they wouldn't see any of those 'jobs'. To add to the irony is the lip service the right always gives to 'State's rights' and respect for local government...UNTIL..something like this comes along...THEN...you right wing turds want the feds to dictate...


----------



## MeBelle

Wry Catcher said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> 
> What percentage of the 20,000 jobs will dissipate once the pipeline is built?
> 
> And what percentage is attributed to increased need for hot dog vendors and coffee shop servers?  I suppose I am a tad tired of projects creating minimum wage opportunities rather than substantive career paths.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting post; I suppose the Alaskan Pipeline project is the best source to predict how many permanent jobs will such a project create.  Anyone know?
Click to expand...


Permanent? That's difficult to ascertain because of the many companies that 'work it'. At the height of the pipeline boom, there were approximately 75,000 people employed which doesn't include peripheral jobs.
My educated guess is there are about 10,000 perm positions. Those jobs are available around the world, not concentrated in Alaska.

Source: My Daddy who is a sloper.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Between Rossi's ecat and Professor George Miley fusion reaction; who even knows if we will need the stuff within 4-5 years. George Miley is a respected professor and has gotten his(device) to put out nearly 200 watts, while Rossie 470 kw of constant energy. These are both HUGE break through within the field of fusion.

I mean earth shacking break throughs. This could be the thing that replaces coal, oil, natural gas, ect.


----------



## Toro

There are two arguments that I see.

First, there is the issue on whether or not we should build a pipeline that transports oil from the Oil Sands.  This, I think, is what most of the noisy objections come from.  IMHO, we should in spite of this objection for two reasons.  Canada is a much better source of energy than people who hate us and want to kill us.  Also, hydrocarbons are a fungible commodity.  If the Americans don't want it, it will be sold to the Chinese.  A pipeline can be built to the Pacific coast and the Chinese will be more than happy to take Canada's oil.  The net reduction in carbon emissions will ultimately be zero.

The second issue is imminent domain.  On this, I am more queasy.


----------



## Samson

Mr. H. said:


> I agree. It's totally fucked up- Obama's yet to be passed budget still has tens of billions in tax penalties in it, directed at oil and natural gas. Typical Democrat idiocy.
> 
> And if it's not approved, it won't shut down tar sands oil production in Canada. They'll just ship it elsewhere.
> 
> And just wait- as domestic natural gas production increases and companies seek to develop Liquified Natural Gas terminals for export, Democrats will step up and kill that too.



Or, the same thing that happened in Europe will happen here: LNG opponents will attempt to tax development out of existance, but consumers will simply pass the cost to their customers who will in turn, inflate the price of their products.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> There are two arguments that I see.
> 
> First, there is the issue on whether or not we should build a pipeline that transports oil from the Oil Sands.  This, I think, is what most of the noisy objections come from.  IMHO, we should in spite of this objection for two reasons.  Canada is a much better source of energy than people who hate us and want to kill us.  Also, hydrocarbons are a fungible commodity.  If the Americans don't want it, it will be sold to the Chinese.  A pipeline can be built to the Pacific coast and the Chinese will be more than happy to take Canada's oil.  The net reduction in carbon emissions will ultimately be zero.
> 
> The second issue is imminent domain.  On this, I am more queasy.



The issue of imminent domain could also be applied to wind, solar, and ANY other project.

There is no issue about whether WE should build the project: Private industry is willing to do it. The only issue for US is whether or not WE will accept higher energy costs (and the loss of employment opportunities), if the crude is sold to China.

Until 2013, the Obama Administration has muted the issue:



> The U.S. Department of State announced Thursday afternoon that it will postpone making a decision on whether TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project is in the national interest until at least early 2013


.


----------



## Mr. H.

It's YouTube endorsed!


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> Ironic, you mention 'community organizer' because the concern and heated debate has been going on in numerous 'communities' where the pipeline would actually be running through their 'asses'. And they wouldn't see any of those 'jobs'. To add to the irony is the lip service the right always gives to 'State's rights' and respect for local government...UNTIL..something like this comes along...THEN...you right wing turds want the feds to dictate...




The Feds 'dictate' only because the Feds insist on dictating.  In earlier days, the feds never got involved.  The pipeline is probably not going through any "communities."  It's going almost entirely through empty private farmland.  Every land owner in the right of way will get paid.  I doubt they are going to object to getting paid big bucks to have a pipeline buried 15 feet under their wheat fields.  After construction, no one would even know it's there if it weren't for the signs posted along the right-of-way showing where it is.

So your whine is totally basis.  But when is that ever not the case with liberal complaints?


----------



## bripat9643

MeBelle60 said:


> Permanent? That's difficult to ascertain because of the many companies that 'work it'. At the height of the pipeline boom, there were approximately 75,000 people employed which doesn't include peripheral jobs.
> My educated guess is there are about 10,000 perm positions. Those jobs are available around the world, not concentrated in Alaska.
> 
> Source: My Daddy who is a sloper.



Even if they aren't "permanent," they will last for 10-15 years, which is a long time for a construction gig. A lot of people got very rich working on the Alaska pipeline.


----------



## Mr. H.

I tell ya, Wall Street is banking on it.
They're licensing merchandise all over the place.


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic, you mention 'community organizer' because the concern and heated debate has been going on in numerous 'communities' where the pipeline would actually be running through their 'asses'. And they wouldn't see any of those 'jobs'. To add to the irony is the lip service the right always gives to 'State's rights' and respect for local government...UNTIL..something like this comes along...THEN...you right wing turds want the feds to dictate...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Feds 'dictate' only because the Feds insist on dictating.  In earlier days, the feds never got involved.  The pipeline is probably not going through any "communities."  It's going almost entirely through empty private farmland.  Every land owner in the right of way will get paid.  I doubt they are going to object to getting paid big bucks to have a pipeline buried 15 feet under their wheat fields.  After construction, no one would even know it's there if it weren't for the signs posted along the right-of-way showing where it is.
> 
> So your whine is totally basis.  But when is that ever not the case with liberal complaints?
Click to expand...


Is there anyone more obtuse than you on this planet?

Lawmaker: TransCanada bullied landowners






A Nebraska lawmaker says TransCanada bullied landowners into selling easements to their land in preparation to build the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would run through Nebraska's Sandhills region.

"We have clear evidence that TransCanada began threatening landowners in Holt County and other places as early as ... April of last year," Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery said Tuesday. "They do not have a permit yet. They did not have one then, and it was completely inappropriate for them to be using this kind of tactic with landowners."

The Judiciary Committee discussed a bill (LB3) by Avery that would require companies to have approval to build pipelines before initiating eminent domain actions to acquire land.

Lawmakers are in special session to consider giving Nebraska authority to say where the Keystone XL oil pipeline crosses the state. The special session was called by Gov. Dave Heineman in answer to growing public concern that TransCanada wants to run it pipeline through the Sandhills and over the massive Ogallala Aquifer, a source of irrigation and drinking water for a large swath of the central United States.

Read more: Lawmaker: TransCanada bullied landowners

Pipeline bill gets public hearing






Dozens of people testified -- some emotionally -- at a packed daylong hearing Monday at the Capitol as a proposal to give Nebraska authority to say where TransCanada's Keystone XL oil pipeline could go through the state got a public airing.

The Legislature's Natural Resources Committee listened to testimony on the the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (LB1), which was introduced by Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton.

Read more: Pipeline bill gets public hearing


----------



## bripat9643

Bfgrn said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Feds 'dictate' only because the Feds insist on dictating.  In earlier days, the feds never got involved.  The pipeline is probably not going through any "communities."  It's going almost entirely through empty private farmland.  Every land owner in the right of way will get paid.  I doubt they are going to object to getting paid big bucks to have a pipeline buried 15 feet under their wheat fields.  After construction, no one would even know it's there if it weren't for the signs posted along the right-of-way showing where it is.
> 
> So your whine is totally basis.  But when is that ever not the case with liberal complaints?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anyone more obtuse than you on this planet?
> 
> Lawmaker: TransCanada bullied landowners
> 
> A Nebraska lawmaker says TransCanada bullied landowners into selling easements to their land in preparation to build the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would run through Nebraska's Sandhills region.
> 
> "We have clear evidence that TransCanada began threatening landowners in Holt County and other places as early as ... April of last year," Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery said Tuesday. "They do not have a permit yet. They did not have one then, and it was completely inappropriate for them to be using this kind of tactic with landowners."
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight:  you expect us to believe what some politician says?  Next you'll be telling us you accept Herman Cain's word that he didn't sexually harass anyone.  Where is this proof?  What form did this "bullying" take?  without the power of eminent domain, TransCanada can't do shit to a land owner, and only government can grant that authority.

The fact that a gang of environmental nutburgers attended a hearing proves nothing.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

No points.

Thanks for playing!


----------



## Bfgrn

bripat9643 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Feds 'dictate' only because the Feds insist on dictating.  In earlier days, the feds never got involved.  The pipeline is probably not going through any "communities."  It's going almost entirely through empty private farmland.  Every land owner in the right of way will get paid.  I doubt they are going to object to getting paid big bucks to have a pipeline buried 15 feet under their wheat fields.  After construction, no one would even know it's there if it weren't for the signs posted along the right-of-way showing where it is.
> 
> So your whine is totally basis.  But when is that ever not the case with liberal complaints?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anyone more obtuse than you on this planet?
> 
> Lawmaker: TransCanada bullied landowners
> 
> A Nebraska lawmaker says TransCanada bullied landowners into selling easements to their land in preparation to build the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would run through Nebraska's Sandhills region.
> 
> "We have clear evidence that TransCanada began threatening landowners in Holt County and other places as early as ... April of last year," Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery said Tuesday. "They do not have a permit yet. They did not have one then, and it was completely inappropriate for them to be using this kind of tactic with landowners."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me get this straight:  you expect us to believe what some politician says?  Next you'll be telling us you accept Herman Cain's word that he didn't sexually harass anyone.  Where is this proof?  What form did this "bullying" take?  without the power of eminent domain, TransCanada can't do shit to a land owner, and only government can grant that authority.
> 
> The fact that a gang of environmental nutburgers attended a hearing proves nothing.
> 
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
> 
> No points.
> 
> Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...


You are a real piece of work. When it's something you support, there is no such thing as too much government. When it's something you oppose, government is the big bad wolf.


BTW, did Oscar Wilde know you personally?

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. 
Oscar Wilde


----------



## Mr. H.

So, how is this pipeline different from the one that the Obama admin approved and heralded in 2009? The one they then called "shovel-ready".

From the U.S. Dep't of State website:

(my bold highlights)

_The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States *will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States*. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States&#8217; worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply. 

*Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States&#8217; energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States*._

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued


----------



## danigold

I proudly signed petitions AGAINST the XL keystone pipeline. It wasnt beneficial. It would make our gas prices go up. AND! our people would not see very much of the refined oil. This is really bad for farmers. These pipelines come with danger that we dont need. think im wrong? Read: Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands Action


----------



## Care4all

Mr. H. said:


> So, how is this pipeline different from the one that the Obama admin approved and heralded in 2009? The one they then called "shovel-ready".
> 
> From the U.S. Dep't of State website:
> 
> (my bold highlights)
> 
> _The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States *will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States*. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
> 
> *Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States*._
> 
> Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued


well, from what i just read, this pipeline does not cross the USA and ALL concerned citizens and groups agreed to it being safe, environmentally.....


----------



## Mr. H.

Care4all said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is this pipeline different from the one that the Obama admin approved and heralded in 2009? The one they then called "shovel-ready".
> 
> From the U.S. Dep't of State website:
> 
> (my bold highlights)
> 
> _The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States *will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States*. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
> 
> *Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States*._
> 
> Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
> 
> 
> 
> well, from what i just read, this pipeline does not cross the USA and ALL concerned citizens and groups agreed to it being safe, environmentally.....
Click to expand...


Alberta Clipper crosses the U.S. border as well as 3 states.


----------



## Mr. H.

danigold said:


> I proudly signed petitions AGAINST the XL keystone pipeline. It wasnt beneficial. It would make our gas prices go up. AND! our people would not see very much of the refined oil. This is really bad for farmers. These pipelines come with danger that we dont need. think im wrong? Read: Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands Action



How about California stop exporting agricultural products? Think of all the pollution from tractors, equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. You're a short-sighted selfish idiot. 

And that link- left wing environmental tripe.


----------



## danigold

Mr. H. said:


> danigold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proudly signed petitions AGAINST the XL keystone pipeline. It wasnt beneficial. It would make our gas prices go up. AND! our people would not see very much of the refined oil. This is really bad for farmers. These pipelines come with danger that we dont need. think im wrong? Read: Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands Action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about California stop exporting agricultural products? Think of all the pollution from tractors, equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. You're a short-sighted selfish idiot.
> 
> And that link- left wing environmental tripe.
Click to expand...


How exactly does that make me a "short-sighted selfish idiot"?? Also, I never said nothing else was causing pollution. If you need to resort to immature name calling to make a point then you have some growing up to do, sir.


----------



## Mr. H.

danigold said:


> mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danigold said:
> 
> 
> 
> i proudly signed petitions against the xl keystone pipeline. It wasnt beneficial. It would make our gas prices go up. And! Our people would not see very much of the refined oil. This is really bad for farmers. These pipelines come with danger that we dont need. Think im wrong? Read: key facts on keystone xl | tar sands action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about california stop exporting agricultural products? Think of all the pollution from tractors, equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. You're a short-sighted selfish idiot.
> 
> And that link- left wing environmental tripe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how exactly does that make me a "short-sighted selfish idiot"?? Also, i never said nothing else was causing pollution. If you need to resort to immature name calling to make a point then you have some growing up to do, sir.
Click to expand...


They call me MR. SIR!

As you've said, you don't contribute to pollution- and this gives you a podium from which to dictate the lifestyles of others?

Nothing in this world is without risk, but I'm not about to live a subsistence lifestyle for the sake of insuring a pristine world for flora and fauna. 

And you may not want or even need petroleum, but currently it's what allows the rest of us to work and live above caveman status.


----------



## danigold

Mr. H. said:


> danigold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about california stop exporting agricultural products? Think of all the pollution from tractors, equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. You're a short-sighted selfish idiot.
> 
> And that link- left wing environmental tripe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how exactly does that make me a "short-sighted selfish idiot"?? Also, i never said nothing else was causing pollution. If you need to resort to immature name calling to make a point then you have some growing up to do, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They call me MR. SIR!
> 
> As you've said, you don't contribute to pollution- and this gives you a podium from which to dictate the lifestyles of others?
> 
> Nothing in this world is without risk, but I'm not about to live a subsistence lifestyle for the sake of insuring a pristine world for flora and fauna.
> 
> And you may not want or even need petroleum, but currently it's what allows the rest of us to work and live above caveman status.
Click to expand...


I am certainly not on a podium dictating other peoples lives. 
Im not sure how you got that thought into your small mind. Oh and believe it or not, we need plants and animals for this planet to survive. So obviously, they need to survive. If something kills them, we die. That might be too hard for you to understand.


----------



## danigold

Im done arguing about this. You keep your opinions.


----------



## Mr. H.

danigold said:


> Im done arguing about this. You keep your opinions.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_u4UTvk9w]Monty Python - Run Away! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RGR

danigold said:


> These pipelines come with danger that we dont need. think im wrong? Read: Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands Action



Of course. That is easy enough to figure out once you used a propaganda puff piece as a reference.


----------



## Offshore

The talking points from amatuer 'environmentalists' are disturbingly unfair and lots are untrue.
Radical environmentalists can't stop oil sands production, so they rally and whoha against pipelines. There are thousands of pipelines through America....by all standards, this Keystone is set to be exceptionally safe, and has addressed the resevoir contamination issues by being re routed.
Obama's decision to kill this safe and friendly energy from Canada is deeply disappointing to P.M. Stephen Harper, and no less the Canadian people and U.S. citizens who would have benefitted from thousands manufacturing and related jobs from the pipeline. 
Privately funded energy, that is absolutely needed and not 'tax payer' funded, Obama has seemed to have sided with the 'affluent elite' instead of good paying jobs for thousands on this one......he seems to do that alot...
It's unfortunate.....Canada has the largest production of oil outside OPEC. And Canada does not maim and kill women and children, gays, adulterers, behead Americans....
Almost as equally unfortunate about Obama's decision......the respect between two of the worlds friendliest and biggest trading partners...

This is a good place to find out some 'truths' about Canada oil sands...

Canada&#39;s Oil Sands - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers


----------



## MeBelle

Care4all said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how is this pipeline different from the one that the Obama admin approved and heralded in 2009? The one they then called "shovel-ready".
> 
> From the U.S. Dep't of State website:
> 
> (my bold highlights)
> 
> _The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States *will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States*. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
> 
> *Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States*._
> 
> Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued
> 
> 
> 
> well, from what i just read, this pipeline does not cross the USA and ALL concerned citizens and groups agreed to it being safe, environmentally.....
Click to expand...


Here, let me help you.

U.S. Department of State

'...crude oil pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to *Superior, Wisconsin*....


----------



## Care4all

Offshore said:


> The talking points from amatuer 'environmentalists' are disturbingly unfair and lots are untrue.
> Radical environmentalists can't stop oil sands production, so they rally and whoha against pipelines. There are thousands of pipelines through America....by all standards, this Keystone is set to be exceptionally safe, and has addressed the resevoir contamination issues by being re routed.
> Obama's decision to kill this safe and friendly energy from Canada is deeply disappointing to P.M. Stephen Harper, and no less the Canadian people and U.S. citizens who would have benefitted from thousands manufacturing and related jobs from the pipeline.
> Privately funded energy, that is absolutely needed and not 'tax payer' funded, Obama has seemed to have sided with the 'affluent elite' instead of good paying jobs for thousands on this one......he seems to do that alot...
> It's unfortunate.....Canada has the largest production of oil outside OPEC. And Canada does not maim and kill women and children, gays, adulterers, behead Americans....
> Almost as equally unfortunate about Obama's decision......the respect between two of the worlds friendliest and biggest trading partners...
> 
> This is a good place to find out some 'truths' about Canada oil sands...
> 
> Canada's Oil Sands - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers


well, the talking points from the ''right'' are pretty disturbing as well....including from you....where you are saying obama KILLED the safe pipeline....

He didn't kill it....it's not dead in the water, never to be revived.....but you guys are all saying its been completely killed....why are you saying that?  Cuz it makes Obama worse to you?  

Too Too much drama for my taste....

i haven't read your link yet, but i will...in a moment....just let me say that I expect the article to be all ROSEY about oil sands....due to the fact that it comes from the PETROLEUM Producers....

as i suppose you would discredit the validity of an article being written on the topic from an environmental group....

so, even steven, i guess?  

care


----------



## Care4all

here's a clip of what the O said regarding it



> Obama said that the Feb. 21 deadline, set by Congress as part of the two-month payroll tax cut extension,  made it impossible to adequately review the project proposed by  TransCanada. But he left the door open to the possibility that a new  proposal might pass regulatory muster.
> This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the  pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the  State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the  project and protect the American people, the president said in a  statement.


Obama administration rejects Keystone XL pipeline - The Washington Post


----------



## Mr. H.

Through Obama's Ass

Just has a funny ring to it. 

I'm avoiding work LOL. 

Sshhh....


----------



## Care4all

Mr. H. said:


> Through Obama's Ass
> 
> Just has a funny ring to it.
> 
> I'm avoiding work LOL.
> 
> Sshhh....


git to work ya lazy bum!


----------



## danigold

Mr. H. said:


> danigold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im done arguing about this. You keep your opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_u4UTvk9w]Monty Python - Run Away! - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Oh thats funny.


----------



## Offshore

Care4all said:


> Offshore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The talking points from amatuer 'environmentalists' are disturbingly unfair and lots are untrue.
> Radical environmentalists can't stop oil sands production, so they rally and whoha against pipelines. There are thousands of pipelines through America....by all standards, this Keystone is set to be exceptionally safe, and has addressed the resevoir contamination issues by being re routed.
> Obama's decision to kill this safe and friendly energy from Canada is deeply disappointing to P.M. Stephen Harper, and no less the Canadian people and U.S. citizens who would have benefitted from thousands manufacturing and related jobs from the pipeline.
> Privately funded energy, that is absolutely needed and not 'tax payer' funded, Obama has seemed to have sided with the 'affluent elite' instead of good paying jobs for thousands on this one......he seems to do that alot...
> It's unfortunate.....Canada has the largest production of oil outside OPEC. And Canada does not maim and kill women and children, gays, adulterers, behead Americans....
> Almost as equally unfortunate about Obama's decision......the respect between two of the worlds friendliest and biggest trading partners...
> 
> This is a good place to find out some 'truths' about Canada oil sands...
> 
> Canada's Oil Sands - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
> 
> 
> 
> well, the talking points from the ''right'' are pretty disturbing as well....including from you....where you are saying obama KILLED the safe pipeline....
> 
> He didn't kill it....it's not dead in the water, never to be revived.....but you guys are all saying its been completely killed....why are you saying that?  Cuz it makes Obama worse to you?
> 
> Too Too much drama for my taste....
> 
> i haven't read your link yet, but i will...in a moment....just let me say that I expect the article to be all ROSEY about oil sands....due to the fact that it comes from the PETROLEUM Producers....
> 
> as i suppose you would discredit the validity of an article being written on the topic from an environmental group....
> 
> so, even steven, i guess?
> 
> care
Click to expand...




I agree, it may not be dead yet. I guess it was the 'lie' the President and his administration used as an excuse for not going ahead with the pipeline.  Unfortunately, contrary to the President saying it could not go ahead at this time because of environmental reasons in Nebraska, the re routing and issues in Nebraska have already been resolved. There are minor issues in the re routing and application schedules, but absolutely nothing that should have lead him to oppose or delay the pipeline. I found Obama to be disingenuous with his reasoning or excuses. He is clearly pampering to the 'greenies'.
The link is directly from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. And they are having more garnered support from First Nations in Canada than from the U.S. And First Nations take their land and sea protectionisms pretty seriously.
The site tells the truth about oil sands.


----------



## Care4all

Offshore said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Offshore said:
> 
> 
> 
> The talking points from amatuer 'environmentalists' are disturbingly unfair and lots are untrue.
> Radical environmentalists can't stop oil sands production, so they rally and whoha against pipelines. There are thousands of pipelines through America....by all standards, this Keystone is set to be exceptionally safe, and has addressed the resevoir contamination issues by being re routed.
> Obama's decision to kill this safe and friendly energy from Canada is deeply disappointing to P.M. Stephen Harper, and no less the Canadian people and U.S. citizens who would have benefitted from thousands manufacturing and related jobs from the pipeline.
> Privately funded energy, that is absolutely needed and not 'tax payer' funded, Obama has seemed to have sided with the 'affluent elite' instead of good paying jobs for thousands on this one......he seems to do that alot...
> It's unfortunate.....Canada has the largest production of oil outside OPEC. And Canada does not maim and kill women and children, gays, adulterers, behead Americans....
> Almost as equally unfortunate about Obama's decision......the respect between two of the worlds friendliest and biggest trading partners...
> 
> This is a good place to find out some 'truths' about Canada oil sands...
> 
> Canada's Oil Sands - Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
> 
> 
> 
> well, the talking points from the ''right'' are pretty disturbing as well....including from you....where you are saying obama KILLED the safe pipeline....
> 
> He didn't kill it....it's not dead in the water, never to be revived.....but you guys are all saying its been completely killed....why are you saying that?  Cuz it makes Obama worse to you?
> 
> Too Too much drama for my taste....
> 
> i haven't read your link yet, but i will...in a moment....just let me say that I expect the article to be all ROSEY about oil sands....due to the fact that it comes from the PETROLEUM Producers....
> 
> as i suppose you would discredit the validity of an article being written on the topic from an environmental group....
> 
> so, even steven, i guess?
> 
> care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, it may not be dead yet. I guess it was the 'lie' the President and his administration used as an excuse for not going ahead with the pipeline.  Unfortunately, contrary to the President saying it could not go ahead at this time because of environmental reasons in Nebraska, the re routing and issues in Nebraska have already been resolved. There are minor issues in the re routing and application schedules, but absolutely nothing that should have lead him to oppose or delay the pipeline. I found Obama to be disingenuous with his reasoning or excuses. He is clearly pampering to the 'greenies'.
> The link is directly from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. And they are having more garnered support from First Nations in Canada than from the U.S. And First Nations take their land and sea protectionisms pretty seriously.
> The site tells the truth about oil sands.
Click to expand...

but the president never said it was because of Nebraska, though some posters here have claimed that....he didn't mention a state at all...he just said that the 2 month time limit that the republicans replaced the original 13 month time limit with, that slipped in to the tax cut extension bill by them, did not give the State department enough time to complete their studies on it.....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

The Keystone XL pipeline running from Canada to Texas WILL be built. I've been in talks with TransCanada and we will begin construction within the next few months. The company I work for has been awarded a contract that covers about a third of the pipeline and material for the project is being puchased as of this moment.

Sorry greeny weenies, you lose this one!!


----------



## Mr. H.

Who gets to build the section that runs right through Obama's ass?


----------



## Samson

Mr. H. said:


> Through Obama's Ass
> 
> Just has a funny ring to it.
> 
> I'm avoiding work LOL.
> 
> Sshhh....



I apologize to asses everywhere that may have been offended by the Title of this Thread.


----------

