So let me get this pipeline shit straight

[Remodeling Maidiac]

With used to have to drive an hour each way to work. It would kill about a quarter of our tank each day. We would watch our money to make sure we had enough to cover what we needed. We would make ( well i would) routes when we would go out on the weekends to shop or look around.
I understand that it hurts your wallet at 4 bucks a gallon. That things will have to be restructured in order for you to do your job.

But this is just the way it is. If you want to conserve you will have the price drop maybe ten cents? I know that was one reason why prices dropped slighting. Ending Libya also helped. Wars don't help. Regardless of wars you have to understand how this all works.

Refineries will help. We havent built one i think since the 70's. You can pump all the oil you like and we can only refine it so fast. So your drilling more meme doesnt fly. Furthermore you pump to much and refine to much you will crash the market. ( See Holland? Tulip crash as an example)

Want to save some oil? Cancel Nascar..Bring home our military and nationalize any oil we pump ourselves. There you just saved some cash.

I highly doubt this will happen.

cancel NASCAR?

For the love of who ever you praise, please tell me that was a joke.

Yes. Cancel Nascar. What a great idea. I've always thought it was a waste of a sport. That will bring your precious gas prices down.

well fuck it. Cancel all sports. After all they cost money through medical care and we need to lower medical costs.

 

[newpolitics]

Obama claims that this pipeline is not in our nations best interest.

HORSESHIT.

Do you have any consideration for environmental devastation whatsoever, or for the state of fresh water in this world? Soon, we are going to have water wars. The Oil Sands are, next to fracking, perhaps the most devastating and irresponsible means of getting of energy. Extraction requires the used of massive amounts of fresh water, which becomes utterly contaminated and pumped into sitting pools that don't go anywhere. Native populations downstream from these operation have high incidences of cancer. You're willing to sacrifice fresh water, human lives, and an entire ecosystem, all so YOU can have cheaper gas. Americans pay less for gas than most places in the world, yet you need it to be even cheaper? Get over yourself.

I asked before and I'll ask again.

How are you powering your computer and your home? Solar or wind power? How do you get to work?

What kind of response is that? So, because I use electricity, you should destroy a forest, kill people, waste fresh water, and build a pipeline to America? I fail to see the connection. It's the usual republican Tu Quoque debate fallacy, or appeal to hypocrisy. Think of another solution. This doesn't require the devastation of our natural world and the destruction of fresh water, over which will be fought wars in the future, when there are already countless people without fresh water in this world. Such a thoughtless and irresponsibility process should not be condoned. Do you actually know what goes into Tar-Sands production? Or do you simply think of the end product, and disregard the violence that goes into the means?

 

[tinydancer]

Do you have any consideration for environmental devastation whatsoever, or for the state of fresh water in this world? Soon, we are going to have water wars. The Oil Sands are, next to fracking, perhaps the most devastating and irresponsible means of getting of energy. Extraction requires the used of massive amounts of fresh water, which becomes utterly contaminated and pumped into sitting pools that don't go anywhere. Native populations downstream from these operation have high incidences of cancer. You're willing to sacrifice fresh water, human lives, and an entire ecosystem, all so YOU can have cheaper gas. Americans pay less for gas than most places in the world, yet you need it to be even cheaper? Get over yourself.

I asked before and I'll ask again.

How are you powering your computer and your home? Solar or wind power? How do you get to work?

What kind of response is that? So, because I use electricity, you should destroy a forest, kill people, waste fresh water, and build a pipeline to America? I fail to see the connection. It's the usual republican Tu Quoque debate fallacy, or appeal to hypocrisy. Think of another solution. This doesn't require the devastation of our natural world and the destruction of fresh water, over which will be fought wars in the future, when there are already countless people without fresh water in this world. Such a thoughtless and irresponsibility process should not be condoned. Do you actually know what goes into Tar-Sands production? Or do you simply think of the end product, and disregard the violence that goes into the means?

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

 

[The T]

I asked before and I'll ask again.

How are you powering your computer and your home? Solar or wind power? How do you get to work?

What kind of response is that? So, because I use electricity, you should destroy a forest, kill people, waste fresh water, and build a pipeline to America? I fail to see the connection. It's the usual republican Tu Quoque debate fallacy, or appeal to hypocrisy. Think of another solution. This doesn't require the devastation of our natural world and the destruction of fresh water, over which will be fought wars in the future, when there are already countless people without fresh water in this world. Such a thoughtless and irresponsibility process should not be condoned. Do you actually know what goes into Tar-Sands production? Or do you simply think of the end product, and disregard the violence that goes into the means?

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

No kidding. Isn't is just sick how Statists wish to paint Conservatives the bain of the planet when it is Conservatives that understand what it means to be good stewards and be responsible?

 

[tinydancer]

For those that are truly interested, here is a link to Environment Canada. We take our obligations to conservation very seriously.

Environment Canada - Pollution and Waste - A Foundation for the Future: Building an Environmental Monitoring System for the Oil Sands

 

[rdean]

Good one!!!!
I read somewhere that there's oil developing in the ground in the Midwest as we speak.
It should be properly brewed and ready for extraction in about seven years apparently.
Ain't nature wonderful?

In fact, why don't they re-inject plankton and old potato peels into exhausted oilfields so that more can be made and we will never run out.
Why didn't anyone think of that?

Wow, that's so smart. You know what it reminds me of? A Republican teaching a "science class":

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGxYH04NqfA&feature=related]Blair Irwin - "Little Known Facts" - YouTube[/ame]

To bad you can't burn us at the stake, tar and feather, or lynch us, huh, RD. When are you going to address your hate and bias? You remind me of the saying.... "Those that can't do, Teach,".

Republicans teach us what not to do.

 

[The T]

For those that are truly interested, here is a link to Environment Canada. We take our obligations to conservation very seriously.

Environment Canada - Pollution and Waste - A Foundation for the Future: Building an Environmental Monitoring System for the Oil Sands

Good form And some of us take it seriously too.

 

[tinydancer]

What kind of response is that? So, because I use electricity, you should destroy a forest, kill people, waste fresh water, and build a pipeline to America? I fail to see the connection. It's the usual republican Tu Quoque debate fallacy, or appeal to hypocrisy. Think of another solution. This doesn't require the devastation of our natural world and the destruction of fresh water, over which will be fought wars in the future, when there are already countless people without fresh water in this world. Such a thoughtless and irresponsibility process should not be condoned. Do you actually know what goes into Tar-Sands production? Or do you simply think of the end product, and disregard the violence that goes into the means?

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

No kidding. Isn't is just sick how Statists wish to paint Conservatives the bain of the planet when it is Conservatives that understand what it means to be good stewards and be responsible?

Exactly. It gets tedious putting up with all the verbal garbage.

ETA: should have hit preview. What truly makes the hypocrisy exquisite, are all the liberals who have pushed for the mercury filled light bulbs. Those things are a nightmare.

Thank the good Lord up here that my Conservative government is mandating that there has to be proper recycling centers for the mercury bulbs and are banning most mercury based products to prevent serious damage to the environment.

 

[newpolitics]

I asked before and I'll ask again.

How are you powering your computer and your home? Solar or wind power? How do you get to work?

What kind of response is that? So, because I use electricity, you should destroy a forest, kill people, waste fresh water, and build a pipeline to America? I fail to see the connection. It's the usual republican Tu Quoque debate fallacy, or appeal to hypocrisy. Think of another solution. This doesn't require the devastation of our natural world and the destruction of fresh water, over which will be fought wars in the future, when there are already countless people without fresh water in this world. Such a thoughtless and irresponsibility process should not be condoned. Do you actually know what goes into Tar-Sands production? Or do you simply think of the end product, and disregard the violence that goes into the means?

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

Drama? No need to bring my mother into this you two year old. It's no wonder why we suck at conservation when we have people like you doing it. I am afraid for conservationism, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a conservationist if you honestly think the tar-sands are responsible.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

No kidding. Isn't is just sick how Statists wish to paint Conservatives the bain of the planet when it is Conservatives that understand what it means to be good stewards and be responsible?

Exactly. It gets tedious putting up with all the verbal garbage.

ETA: should have hit preview. What truly makes the hypocrisy exquisite, are all the liberals who have pushed for the mercury filled light bulbs. Those things are a nightmare.

Thank the good Lord up here that my Conservative government is mandating that there has to be proper recycling centers for the mercury bulbs and are banning most mercury based products to prevent serious damage to the environment.

did you go to school to learn such self-deception? Do they hand-out doctorates in how to be blind to one's own hypocrisy? It is patently hilarious to me to. I don't even know how to respond. It's like a total mind-fuck dealing with you people.

 

[tinydancer]

What kind of response is that? So, because I use electricity, you should destroy a forest, kill people, waste fresh water, and build a pipeline to America? I fail to see the connection. It's the usual republican Tu Quoque debate fallacy, or appeal to hypocrisy. Think of another solution. This doesn't require the devastation of our natural world and the destruction of fresh water, over which will be fought wars in the future, when there are already countless people without fresh water in this world. Such a thoughtless and irresponsibility process should not be condoned. Do you actually know what goes into Tar-Sands production? Or do you simply think of the end product, and disregard the violence that goes into the means?

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

Drama? No need to bring my mother into this you two year old. It's no wonder why we suck at conservation when we have people like you doing it. I am afraid for conservationism, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a conservationist if you honestly think the tar-sands are responsible.

I live on the edge of a provincial park now. I have been a conservationist for decades. I've gone primitive for a number of years and trust me, when you pump water by hand you really get a grip on how precious a resource it is.


What the fuck do you do beside spout off on a message board? Use a blue box? Use only one sheet of toilet paper?

Don't lecture me.

 

[tinydancer]

No kidding. Isn't is just sick how Statists wish to paint Conservatives the bain of the planet when it is Conservatives that understand what it means to be good stewards and be responsible?

Exactly. It gets tedious putting up with all the verbal garbage.

ETA: should have hit preview. What truly makes the hypocrisy exquisite, are all the liberals who have pushed for the mercury filled light bulbs. Those things are a nightmare.

Thank the good Lord up here that my Conservative government is mandating that there has to be proper recycling centers for the mercury bulbs and are banning most mercury based products to prevent serious damage to the environment.

did you go to school to learn such self-deception? Do they hand-out doctorates in how to be blind to one's own hypocrisy? It is patently hilarious to me to. I don't even know how to respond. It's like a total mind-fuck dealing with you people.

Banning mercury is a bad thing to you? Are you insane?

 

[newpolitics]

Oh fuck off with the drama. I've been a conservationist for decades while your mother was filling landfills with your pampers.

I've specialized in water conservation. From Grassy Narrows to intensive hog farms and currently going after my provincial and federal governments on the never ending boil water advisories on First Nation reserves.

So spare me the end of the world shit.

Drama? No need to bring my mother into this you two year old. It's no wonder why we suck at conservation when we have people like you doing it. I am afraid for conservationism, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a conservationist if you honestly think the tar-sands are responsible.

I live on the edge of a provincial park now. I have been a conservationist for decades. I've gone primitive for a number of years and trust me, when you pump water by hand you really get a grip on how precious a resource it is.

I've been active in water conservation projects for decades.

What the fuck do you do beside spout off on a message board? Use a blue box? Use only one sheet of toilet paper?

Don't lecture me.

I could care less what you do in your free time. What speaks louder is your defense of the tar-sands. Don't think your lifestyle or supposed profession offers you any credibility in anecdote, because you have just destroyed it in touting your opinion of this situation.

 

[newpolitics]

Exactly. It gets tedious putting up with all the verbal garbage.

ETA: should have hit preview. What truly makes the hypocrisy exquisite, are all the liberals who have pushed for the mercury filled light bulbs. Those things are a nightmare.

Thank the good Lord up here that my Conservative government is mandating that there has to be proper recycling centers for the mercury bulbs and are banning most mercury based products to prevent serious damage to the environment.

did you go to school to learn such self-deception? Do they hand-out doctorates in how to be blind to one's own hypocrisy? It is patently hilarious to me to. I don't even know how to respond. It's like a total mind-fuck dealing with you people.

Banning mercury is a bad thing to you? Are you insane?

What kind of point is that to introduce now? It has nothing at ALL to do with this discussion, and is therefore a total non-sequitur. I am not biting. Nice try though.

 

[tinydancer]

Drama? No need to bring my mother into this you two year old. It's no wonder why we suck at conservation when we have people like you doing it. I am afraid for conservationism, and you should be ashamed to call yourself a conservationist if you honestly think the tar-sands are responsible.

I live on the edge of a provincial park now. I have been a conservationist for decades. I've gone primitive for a number of years and trust me, when you pump water by hand you really get a grip on how precious a resource it is.

I've been active in water conservation projects for decades.

What the fuck do you do beside spout off on a message board? Use a blue box? Use only one sheet of toilet paper?

Don't lecture me.

I could care less what you do in your free time. What speaks louder is your defense of the tar-sands. Don't think your lifestyle or supposed profession offers you any credibility in anecdote, because you have just destroyed it in touting your opinion of this situation.

You don't have a clue what you are blathering about. There are serious monitoring systems in place.


Surveillance Monitoring And Research
Alberta Water Research Institute (AWRI)

The Alberta Water Research Institute was established in the spring 2007 to coordinate world-class and leading-edge research to support Alberta's provincial water strategy, Water for Life: A Strategy for Sustainability. Administered through the Alberta Innovates - Energy and Environment Solutions, the Water Institute funds specific research initiatives in support of the Water for Life goals and objectives of:

Safe, secure drinking water supply
Healthy aquatic ecosystems
Reliable, quality water supplies for a sustainable economy

The Water Institute serves as a knowledge broker - providing analysis and context to water research for decision- and policy-makers, and ensuring that the information is understandable, relevant and accessible. Dedicated to seeking the best solutions and ideas, the Water Institute's scope is not limited by geographic boundaries. It seeks out both the best thinkers and the best information provincially, regionally, nationally and internationally to help secure the long-term safety, quality and sustainability of Alberta's water resources.

There are currently substantial eight oil sands-related projects under The Water Institute in various stages of completion. The Water Institute investment over the life of these projects is about $15M. These projects focus on water supply (quantity and quality), accelerated de-watering of oil sands fine tailings, water recycling, water purification, and water management. The Water Institute is also a partner funder of two NSERC Industrial Research Chairs dealing with water and water quality management in the oil sands.
Canadian Water Network (CWN)

Established in 2001 and headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, CWN was created by the NSERC Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) Program to connect Canadian and international water researchers with decision-makers engaged in priority water management issues. CWN brings together researchers, engineers and their students, along with practitioners and implementers, pooling their resources and uniting expertise to respond to water challenges and ensure a prosperous and healthy future for generations of Canadians.

The Canadian Water Network catalyzes and supports multidisciplinary research and related initiatives that address key challenges in water management across three programs: (i) protecting Canada's watersheds and ecosystems; (ii) protecting the health of Canadians; and (iii) ensuring that Canada has sustainable water infrastructure.

There are currently two four-year (2008-12) multi-thematic, multi-partner (university; government; industry) oil sands-related studies under CWN dealing with:

Surface and groundwater management in the oil sands industry - focused on providing advanced monitoring tools for risk managers involved with evaluating environmental health related to oil sands mining.
Priority toxic elements (vanadium, antimony and arsenic) - source water protection and drinking water treatment - to assess the distribution, speciation, bioavailability and health effects of antimony and arsenic in Canadian drinking water, and examines the potential for various treatment technologies to remove antimony, arsenic and vanadium in process-affected water from the oil sands.

Carbon Dynamics, Food Web Structure, and Reclamation Strategies in Athabasca Oil Sands Wetlands (CFRAW)

CFRAW is a joint research venture among five Principal Investigators at four Canadian universities (UAlberta; USask; UWaterloo; UWindsor) in collaboration with seven sponsoring partner companies in the oil sands industry. Research under CFRAW is unified by three major themes:

Carbon Dynamics: Tracking materials through the food web - to assess several classes of wetland differing in reclamation type (reference vs. soft-tails amended), age (young vs. older), and organic base (poor vs. rich; vegetative materials vs. hydrocarbon-derived materials).
Biological effects of oil sands process materials (OSPM) - in addition to "metabolic" carbon flow, the parallel transport of constituents of potential concern (PAHs, naphthenic acids, arsenic, selenium, trace metals) through the biota to the wildlife that form the top of the food web is being studied.
Predicting changes and recommending reclamation strategies - to provide fundamental knowledge on the succession and energy flow processes in both natural and constructed wetlands.

Ultimately, research results from the CFRAW Project will provide guidance to industrial partners regarding the most effective reclamation strategies and techniques for developing viable systems and for monitoring their developmental progress and health.
Environment Canada - Oil Sands Monitoring and Research

Environment Canada is the most active federal monitoring and research agency in the oil sands area, driven by various legislative responsibilities, principally enforcement-related monitoring under the Fisheries Act and Canadian Environmental Protection Act, in addition to surveillance monitoring in support of the Fisheries Act. Much of this activity is partnered with Alberta Environment, other federal/provincial departments, and universities.

This activity is focused on:

tailings pond management and impacts on groundwater and surface water quality;
chemical profiling to distinguish industrial vs. naturally occurring oil sands hydrocarbons;
tailings pond and riverine toxicology (water, sediment);
regional air quality assessment and modelling;
regional water availability and instream flow needs; and
tailings pond enforcement-related inspections.

Research interest on ecological flow needs is shared by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Alberta Environment who have recently tabled a science evaluation of instream flow needs for the Lower Athabasca River. In addition, Natural Resources Canada, with partners, is expanding activities as it relates to groundwater geochemistry issues in the oil sands region.
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), through its Discovery and Strategic Grants, funds a multitude of individual oil sands-related research projects at universities across Canada. Through its Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) Program, NSERC supports research networks that deal with issues related to oil sands (e.g., the Canadian Water Network). NSERC has also appointed a number of Canada Research Chairs that direct research related to oil sands and oil sands production.
University of Alberta: D. Schindler Laboratory

Dr. David Schindler and his research laboratory and collaborators have been conducting studies related to water quality and ecosystem health on the Athabasca River and other northern basins for several decades. In 2007, he formed an oil sands research group that has been conducting a series of studies assessing the claim of the oil sands industry and Alberta government that toxins in the Athabasca River and its tributaries are from natural seepage from bitumen deposits. Their peer reviewed publications to date (e.g., Kelly et al. 2009 - PNAS 106, Kelly et al. 2010 - PNAS 107, Schindler 2010 - Nature) have raised serious questions regarding the adequacy and credibility of current environmental monitoring programs in the Lower Athabasca system and have identified new concerns regarding the relative importance and potential effects of point- and non-point source oil sands contaminants on regional water resources.
University of Alberta: Centre for Oil Sands Innovation (COSI)

This Centre for Oil Sands Innovation (COSI) was established in 2005 at the University of Alberta, a partnership between Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. and the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Alberta. The vision for the centre is to provide the research base to enable oil sands operations with a reduced environmental footprint by minimizing water use, consuming less energy, lowering greenhouse gas and other emissions, and yielding high-quality products at lower cost. COSI aims to achieve this objective by promoting research on oil sands, building research capacities and funding breakthrough research that leads to environmentally and economically sustainable development of Canada's oil sands resources. Since its inception, COSI has grown into a research network that involves four universities, Imperial Oil and government agencies in the quest for breakthrough technologies for the oil sands.

Research programs at the Centre for Oil Sands Innovation are focused on four areas of research with the objective of environmental footprint reduction:

Bitumen and Mineral Fundamentals - research on bitumen composition, molecular behaviour, interfacial interactions between bitumen components and minerals, and behaviour of clays and minerals at oil-water interfaces.
Bitumen Separation and Upgrading - research on new approaches to separation of desirable from undesirable components, reaction of bitumen feeds, catalysis, and production of value-added products.
Environmental Footprint Reduction - development of new methods for the rapid dewatering of tailings.
Extraction - research leading to water-free processing of oil sands, technologies that use a significantly smaller volume of water or allow most of the water to be recycled, and integration between extraction and tailings handling to enable the immediate return of fine solids to the mine.

University of Saskatchewan - Toxicology Centre and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Toxicology

Well-known for its work with northern ecosystems, the Toxicology Centre at the University of Saskatchewan (UofS) became the focus for the Northern Ecosystems Toxicology Initiative (NETI) which was identified as a priority area by the University in 2000. This was reaffirmed in 2007 with the opening of a $12-million expansion that included new labs and analytical equipment. Over the next few years, more than 50 researchers and support staff will join the core group of 14 researchers currently at the Centre.

The Toxicology Centre is the largest toxicology centre in Canada, and has a world-renown eco-toxicology program with interests in both the fates and effects of potentially toxic compounds and elements, particularly in the area of ecological risk assessment. Oil sands-related research includes: research into the movement, bioaccumulation, and effects of toxic substances at different levels of biological organization, ranging from biochemical to ecosystem; extensive research in the areas of metal speciation, multi-species toxicity testing, biochemical indicators of stress in aquatic organisms, fate and effects of PAHs, halogenated hydrocarbons, including chlorinated dibenzo-dioxins and -furans, PCBs and pesticides; evaluating the toxicity of oil sands process-affected waters (OSPWs) from oil sands mining activity; examining the potential for degradation and associated reduction in aquatic toxicity of OSPWs in laboratory microcosms, which are used to simulate natural wetland environments; and a related project evaluating the leaching of trace metals from coke, a by-product of bitumen upgrading, and the potential toxicity of this leachate and associated metals to aquatic life.
University of Waterloo

Through a collaborative network of University of Waterloo and external Principal Investigators, considerable research is being undertaken on monitoring contaminant levels (surface and groundwater), fate of contaminants, and effects of contaminants on aquatic organisms in the oil sands region. Current thesis studies include: the effects of oil sands processed material on Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) and blackworms (Lumbriculus variegatus); toxicity assessment of oil sands process-affected water using fish cell lines; the influence of Athabasca oil sands constituents on fish reproduction; seasonal and spatial trends in production and stable isotope signatures of primary producers and utilization by primary consumers in oil sands processed-material wetlands; and photodegradation and microbial degradation of oil sands hydrocarbon contaminants and the utilization of oil sands sources by primary consumers.

 

[tinydancer]

Now back to the pipeline.

Nebraska's Governor and reps have no problem with it if Trans Canada re routes it to avoid the aquifer. Which as far as I know they have agreed to.

I think this move of cancelling the pipeline is really going to backfire on Obama. Unions strongly supported the Keystone.

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama says no pipeline because.....

1. He wants to get oil from unstable nations
2. He wants to protect a few thousand lizards who apparently wouldn't understand how to crawl under or over a fucking pipe.
3. He likes gasoline prices at 3 dollars compared to 1.83 when he took office.
4. Apparently some deer are incapable of living on one side of the pipe over the other.
5. We haven't lost enough to China yet.
6. He doesn't want the states involved to make the extra revenue.
7. 20k + jobs is just a laughing stock
8. Wants to save a few sand dunes in Nebraska.
9. Says the gop gave him too short a deadline despite this being in the works and studied for years.
10. God I really despise Obama.

Ps. We have 10's of thousands of miles of pipelines currently in use in this country without major incident. There really is NO EXCUSE for this kind of ineptness.

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/united_states_pipelines_map.jpg

Nope. You didn't get this pipeline shit straight.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Now back to the pipeline.

Nebraska's Governor and reps have no problem with it if Trans Canada re routes it to avoid the aquifer. Which as far as I know they have agreed to.

I think this move of cancelling the pipeline is really going to backfire on Obama. Unions strongly supported the Keystone.

The pipeline wasn't "cancelled". It was put on hold until TransCanada puts together a new plan.

 

[Ernie S.]

Ummm...won't it just be sold to the highest bidder?

And do YOU have a problem with free markets? Capitalism?

Not at all....how did you read that?

But, if the oil's sold to the highest bidder, how does that guarantee the US's supply and keep prices down?

Because the people buying THAT oil won't buy other oil.
Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[tinydancer]

Now back to the pipeline.

Nebraska's Governor and reps have no problem with it if Trans Canada re routes it to avoid the aquifer. Which as far as I know they have agreed to.

I think this move of cancelling the pipeline is really going to backfire on Obama. Unions strongly supported the Keystone.

The pipeline wasn't "cancelled". It was put on hold until TransCanada puts together a new plan.

Keystone Pipeline Rejected, API Slams President's Decision


By Pierre Bertrand: Subscribe to Pierre's RSS feed

January 18, 2012 4:03 PM EST

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerrard, the head of the largest energy industry trade group in the U.S., on Wednesday lambasted President Barack Obama's decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline

Charging the president caved in to political pressure, Gerrard questioned Obama's commitment to job creation in canceling the 1,700-mile pipeline, a project that would create thousands of new jobs, he said.

"This decision is a clear abdication of presidential leadership," said Gerrard, adding the pipeline is essential to the nation's energy future and security.

Gerrard spoke during a teleconference in response to the administration's decision to reject the controversial pipeline.

In a statement the president released Wednesday explaining his decision to cancel the pipeline, the president blamed Republicans for imposing a deadline -- essentially forcing his hand.

I'm reading cancelled.