Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There are other alternatives, but they are not economically viable yet. So you are correct. We will eventually wean ourselves from it but far too early. The Government (including Obama..at the behest of the Enviro-Whacko crowd) are forcing this country backwards...and they don't care whom they hurt in the process. (JOBS, ECONOMY).One job is alot if it's yours! We will be using oil far into the future. There is no good reason why we should not build it, and a plethora of reasons ( jobs ) why we should!
Not in our lifetime. Obama is intentionally trying to destroy America.There are other alternatives, but they are not economically viable yet. So you are correct. We will eventually wean ourselves from it but far too early. The Government (including Obama..at the behest of the Enviro-Whacko crowd) are forcing this country backwards...and they don't care whom they hurt in the process. (JOBS, ECONOMY).One job is alot if it's yours! We will be using oil far into the future. There is no good reason why we should not build it, and a plethora of reasons ( jobs ) why we should!
I don't understand... a lot of liberals tout alternative forms of energy, but most of them drive carbon emitting vehicles. They push solar energy, hydroelectricity and geothermal energy, but live off an electrical grid powered by coal.
It's like Micheal Moore saying "I HATE CAPITALISM" but taking advantage of it for his everyday needs. Which he obviously does. Liberals contribute just as much to pollution as Conservatives do, yet when they are in power they do nothing but whine about it.
His mom hated it, his grandparents did as well...ALL commies...Obama is living the Dreams Of His Father...bringing us to our knees.Not in our lifetime. Obama is intentionally trying to destroy America.There are other alternatives, but they are not economically viable yet. So you are correct. We will eventually wean ourselves from it but far too early. The Government (including Obama..at the behest of the Enviro-Whacko crowd) are forcing this country backwards...and they don't care whom they hurt in the process. (JOBS, ECONOMY).One job is alot if it's yours! We will be using oil far into the future. There is no good reason why we should not build it, and a plethora of reasons ( jobs ) why we should!
His mom hated it, his grandparents did as well...ALL commies...Obama is living the Dreams Of His Father...bringing us to our knees.Not in our lifetime. Obama is intentionally trying to destroy America.There are other alternatives, but they are not economically viable yet. So you are correct. We will eventually wean ourselves from it but far too early. The Government (including Obama..at the behest of the Enviro-Whacko crowd) are forcing this country backwards...and they don't care whom they hurt in the process. (JOBS, ECONOMY).
America needs Keystone for the jobs. Period. End of story. Why is this so difficult to understand?
A few temporary jobs
Has anyone bothered to ask who pushed this legislation and who will make the most money on the Keystone?
Bet! koch brothers.
Refine you oil in the country it is pumped from and keep the garbage and toxins that come from it.
Of course they stand to make a profit you idiot. You do not go into any business and not try to profit from it. They're the ones that's risking the money to build it, they paid for the holding of the tar sands area. So yes that should see a profit, if they don't then they aren't very good business men.
We need to build a pipeline to transport Canadian oil to Texas to be refined and sold on the world market, that will produce long term jobs in the U.S.? Seems more likely to produce profits for the power elite, put regular folks at risk and cheaper energy to Europe and Asia.
Here's an idea. Let's build pipelines from the Northern states to the Southwest and transport water to grow food in the arid desserts of the South. In doing so, and connecting pipelines to canals we can move goods cheaply among communities and the states, provide recreational activities along the way (kayak, canoe, fishing, lakes, camp grounds, etc.) and reduce the risk of floods and droughts.
What, you can't dam up free flowing waters to create navigable channels, the enviro-weenies would have a bigger cow than they are now.
Sure you can, it's simply a matter of building coalitions and seeking win-win solutions. Today we are engaged in never ending zero sum games. Let's think outside the box: Consider the massive amount of snow and ice currently being stored so it can be flushed down storm drains throughout the Midwest and north east. What if we had means to transport the snow, ice and spring flood waters to the Great Planes, West Texas, New Mexico, Eastern Colorado, Utah, and Arizona? Filling man made lakes and underground storage caverns for farming and recreation. Expensive, yep. Would building and maintaining such a project create jobs? Yep.
Did you know the Chicago River's flow was reversed. The Erie Canal was built finished in 1825; and the Roman Empire created aqueducts, many in use by the third century AD.
Debunking 5 Keystone pipeline myths - The Week
1. Keystone will define Obama's legacy on climate change. The West Wing has a much different view: The real contributor to global warming is carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants, and the administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is using regulations to close scores of these polluters. Other power plants are quickly switching to natural gas, which still has a carbon footprint, but not nearly as bad as coal. Obama also likes to boast of doubling renewable energy and higher mileage standards for vehicles. Even if he were to approve Keystone (a final decision is still perhaps a year away), he'll try and trade it for something else the green crowd is clamoring for, perhaps an end to $4 billion in oil industry subsidies.
2. America needs Keystone's oil. We really don't. Production in the U.S. has surged to record levels on Obama's watch, while imports have fallen sharply. As recently as 2008, we imported 9.8 million barrels of oil a day, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2012 that number had fallen to 8.5 million barrels. And we're now on track to pass Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer in the next two years or so with or without Keystone.
3. Keystone's oil will be used here at home. This is one of the bigger canards. We're awash in gasoline now and can't use all have which explains why refiners are exporting it by the boatload, literally. Refined products like gasoline and jet fuel are now one of America's biggest exports; we even send gasoline to the Middle East. Such exports have tripled in the last decade.
4. America needs Keystone because gasoline prices are at an all-time high. Sigh. Such ignorance. Gasoline prices (AAA national average) peaked in the United States at $4.11 in July 2008, six months before Obama became president. That's about $4.60 in today's dollars. But wasn't gasoline just $1.85 or so when Obama took over? Yes, because it plunged 55 percent as the U.S. economy collapsed in the fall of 2008. As the economy has recovered, restoring demand, prices have risen about 77 percent to Sunday's AAA average of $3.28.
5. Obama is to blame for gasoline prices. If you blame Obama for gasoline prices rising 77 percent in five years, then who do you blame for it rising 179 percent from 2002 to 2008? When George W. Bush took took office, Americans paid about $1.47 a gallon; by July 2008 it hit $4.11 (again, about $4.60 adjusted today for inflation).Oil and refined products like gasoline are global commodities; to suggest that any one man be it Obama or Bush can dictate prices is nonsense. It was disingenuous for Democrats to play the blame game then, and it's equally lame for Republicans to do so now.
We need to build a pipeline to transport Canadian oil to Texas to be refined and sold on the world market, that will produce long term jobs in the U.S.? Seems more likely to produce profits for the power elite, put regular folks at risk and cheaper energy to Europe and Asia.
Here's an idea. Let's build pipelines from the Northern states to the Southwest and transport water to grow food in the arid desserts of the South. In doing so, and connecting pipelines to canals we can move goods cheaply among communities and the states, provide recreational activities along the way (kayak, canoe, fishing, lakes, camp grounds, etc.) and reduce the risk of floods and droughts.
What, you can't dam up free flowing waters to create navigable channels, the enviro-weenies would have a bigger cow than they are now.
Sure you can, it's simply a matter of building coalitions and seeking win-win solutions. Today we are engaged in never ending zero sum games. Let's think outside the box: Consider the massive amount of snow and ice currently being stored so it can be flushed down storm drains throughout the Midwest and north east. What if we had means to transport the snow, ice and spring flood waters to the Great Planes, West Texas, New Mexico, Eastern Colorado, Utah, and Arizona? Filling man made lakes and underground storage caverns for farming and recreation. Expensive, yep. Would building and maintaining such a project create jobs? Yep.
Did you know the Chicago River's flow was reversed. The Erie Canal was built finished in 1825; and the Roman Empire created aqueducts, many in use by the third century AD.
Has anyone bothered to ask who pushed this legislation and who will make the most money on the Keystone?
Bet! koch brothers.
Refine you oil in the country it is pumped from and keep the garbage and toxins that come from it.
What the hell are you babbling about? You already have Keystone I and II.
Sheesh. You don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. Canada has been your number one supplier of oil for years now.
What, you can't dam up free flowing waters to create navigable channels, the enviro-weenies would have a bigger cow than they are now.
Sure you can, it's simply a matter of building coalitions and seeking win-win solutions. Today we are engaged in never ending zero sum games. Let's think outside the box: Consider the massive amount of snow and ice currently being stored so it can be flushed down storm drains throughout the Midwest and north east. What if we had means to transport the snow, ice and spring flood waters to the Great Planes, West Texas, New Mexico, Eastern Colorado, Utah, and Arizona? Filling man made lakes and underground storage caverns for farming and recreation. Expensive, yep. Would building and maintaining such a project create jobs? Yep.
Did you know the Chicago River's flow was reversed. The Erie Canal was built finished in 1825; and the Roman Empire created aqueducts, many in use by the third century AD.
I am sorry but YOU lost me at the "Great Planes"! Are these 747s that will transport or 777s? Or K-147 tankers?? Not doing anything!
GEEZ why don't you stick with the simple environmental damage that these three forms would do ok?
Exxon Valdez carried nearly 1,264,155 barrels in one tanker in one mile when after running aground in Prince William Sound spilling hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude oil in Alaska. On March 24, 1989 obviously most people don't remember that!
A train carries about 40,000 barrels in 73 cars in one mile.
Keystone pipeline will carry over 1,179 miles 830,000 barrels in 24 hours or in one mile: 703 barrels of oil.
One tanker accident puts at risk 1.2 million barrels in the ocean probably worst weather situation.
One train totally derailed puts in one mile 40,000 barrels.
One mile of pipeline having a leak in ALL of the ONE mile will spill 703 barrels.
Which is worse???
Remember folks the pipeline carries in one mile ONLY 703 barrels! In that same mile a tanker carries 1 million barrels! Do you people comprehend this???
