Trump OKs Keystone pipeline....

[owebo]

One amusing aspect of this debate is watching leftists - who have been banging for years to ramp up an infrastructure program because it would create jobs - try to argue that building this piece of infrastructure wouldn't create many jobs.

It's gonna create a few. But are those few jobs worth risking destroying our beautiful wildlife and lands? And keep in mind, the US Government will seize more land to make these pipelines happen. And if you're a real Small Government Republican, that's very disturbing. I just can't bring myself to jump for joy over this one. The risk/reward doesn't seem worth it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Put down the fake news, we don't engineer these things to fail.....

 

[owebo]

tar sands crap to export. NO impact on price at the pump here, Canadians profit, Saudi's profit for refining it in Texas, after the pipeline is compete less than 50 people have a a job, government FORCED eminent domain,

larger government that does bascally NOTHING for our country ..

PERFECT FUCKING RIGHT WING PLAN INDEED !!!!!

lil is fungible you stupid liberal fucktard......

 

[Dschrute3]

I never got too worked up over this one. But i am concerned it could adversely effect our environment. Is a few more bucks worth possibly destroying wildlife habitats? I guess that question has just been answered. I'm still torn though. And on another side note, the far Left leader of Canada has fully supported it. Something else for folks to chew on.

Adversely effect "WHO'S ENVIRONMENT"???

Well, now it will be the 'Government's Environment.' The US Government is seizing more & more lands to make these projects happen. Not all opposing this, were Environmentalists. Many were actually Small Government Republican land owners fighting the Government off. It really is too bad fellow Republicans chose not to help them.

 

[healthmyths]

One amusing aspect of this debate is watching leftists - who have been banging for years to ramp up an infrastructure program because it would create jobs - try to argue that building this piece of infrastructure wouldn't create many jobs.

It's gonna create a few. But are those few jobs worth risking destroying our beautiful wildlife and lands? And keep in mind, the US Government will seize more land to make these pipelines happen. And if you're a real Small Government Republican, that's very disturbing. I just can't bring myself to jump for joy over this one. The risk/reward doesn't seem worth it.

AGAIN... dummy!
Which is more dangerous?
1 million barrels traveling 1 mile on the open ocean in a tanker (remember Exxon Valdez?)???
Or 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a pipe buried several feet on DRY LAND easily accessible in case of a
leak of no more then 2,000 barrels... in 3 hours... WHICH would "devastate" more environment?

 

[Siete]

tar sands crap to export NO impact on price at the pump here, Canadians profit, Saudi's profit for refining it in Texas, after the pipeline is compete less than 50 people have a a job, government FORCED eminent domain,

larger government that does bascally NOTHING for our country ..

PERFECT FUCKNIG RIGHT WING PLAN INDEED !!!!!

Which is a bigger danger please just answer this simple question!
1 million barrels, 55 million gallons traveling 1 mile in the worst stormy area of the North Pacific OR
700 barrels traveling one mile on dry land?
Which would have a more devastating affect on the environment?
I just don't understand why the simplicity of this choice is so hard!

how in the hell do you think they plan to export that shit from Houston to foreign countries after they refine it ,CARRIER PIGEONS?

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dat oughta knock OPEC back on dey's can...

Trump backs Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines
Tue, 24 Jan 2017 | The president's support for Keystone XL and Dakota Access proves he is a climate threat, critics say.

US President Donald Trump has infuriated environmentalists by signing executive orders that support two controversial oil pipelines. The new Republican president backed the Keystone XL and Dakota Access projects, provided American steel is used. The Obama administration in late 2015 halted Keystone, which would carry crude from Canada to Texas. The Army decided last year to explore other routes for the Dakota pipeline amid huge protests by Native Americans. In the White House on Tuesday morning, Mr Trump said both projects would be subject to renegotiated terms and conditions. As he signed the Keystone XL measure the president said it would create a "lot of jobs, 28,000 jobs, great construction jobs".

More than just a pipeline - Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, Washington DC

Over the course of the Obama presidency, the Keystone XL Pipeline became more than just another energy industry construction project. It grew into a high-profile proxy fight between environmentalists and oil-and-gas advocates; liberals and conservatives; pro-regulation activists and small-government true believers. On the campaign trail Donald Trump often cited the Obama administration's reluctance to green-light the project as prima facia evidence of the Democratic Party's anti-business attitudes. Now, with the swipe of a pen, he's set make it much easier for the project to be completed - assuming the involved company still wants it.

Perhaps of more immediate concern is Mr Trump's move to fast-track approval of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which was the focus of vigorous protests from Native American tribes in 2016. Unlike Keystone, that project has not been held in limbo for years. Mr Trump's actions do not mean the end of the fight over US pipeline construction, however. Opponents will continue to argue that they jeopardise sensitive environmental areas and violate private property rights. Now, however, instead of appealing to a potentially friendly Democratic administration, they will take the battle to the courts. Campaigners have said the project will leave only a handful of long-term positions after the pipeline is built.

Signing another order calling for US steel to be used in construction of oil pipelines, Mr Trump said: "From now on we're going to start making pipelines in the United States... like we used to do in the old days." Environmental groups reacted with outrage. Greenpeace director Annie Leonard said that "instead of pushing bogus claims about the potential of pipelines to create jobs, Trump should focus his efforts on the clean energy sector where America's future lives". Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said: "Donald Trump has been in office for four days and he's already proving to be the dangerous threat to our climate we feared he would be."

In other developments:

 

[Dschrute3]

One amusing aspect of this debate is watching leftists - who have been banging for years to ramp up an infrastructure program because it would create jobs - try to argue that building this piece of infrastructure wouldn't create many jobs.

It's gonna create a few. But are those few jobs worth risking destroying our beautiful wildlife and lands? And keep in mind, the US Government will seize more land to make these pipelines happen. And if you're a real Small Government Republican, that's very disturbing. I just can't bring myself to jump for joy over this one. The risk/reward doesn't seem worth it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Put down the fake news, we don't engineer these things to fail.....

They don't engineer things to fail, but failure happens. Is a few oil Fatcats getting fatter, really worth the risks? I say no. We need to protect our wildlife and land. And i don't wanna see the Government seizing more Citizens' lands to build such projects. I think Republicans are gonna regret supporting this some day.

 

[Dschrute3]

One amusing aspect of this debate is watching leftists - who have been banging for years to ramp up an infrastructure program because it would create jobs - try to argue that building this piece of infrastructure wouldn't create many jobs.

It's gonna create a few. But are those few jobs worth risking destroying our beautiful wildlife and lands? And keep in mind, the US Government will seize more land to make these pipelines happen. And if you're a real Small Government Republican, that's very disturbing. I just can't bring myself to jump for joy over this one. The risk/reward doesn't seem worth it.

AGAIN... dummy!
Which is more dangerous?
1 million barrels traveling 1 mile on the open ocean in a tanker (remember Exxon Valdez?)???
Or 700 barrels traveling ONE mile in a pipe buried several feet on DRY LAND easily accessible in case of a
leak of no more then 2,000 barrels... in 3 hours... WHICH would "devastate" more environment?

How many jobs? From everything i've read, it won't be very many American Jobs. The Canadians will likely see the bulk of the jobs. But regardless, it is really worth it in the end. I say no.

 

[Siete]

In 2008 the country exported 1.8 million barrels a day of refined products, according to EIA. By 2012 that number jumped to 3.2 million barrels.

"That trend will continue whether Keystone is built or not," said Brian Milne, a refined fuels editor at Schneider Electric, an information provider

Once refined, it'll be impossible to tell exactly where the oil that came down the pipeline went, but "with more oil, that [export] number will increase," said Milne.


FUCK KEYSTONE, FUCK BIG OIL, FUCK DONALD TRUMP !!!


SUCKERS !!

THE END.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

How in the FUCK is it going to increase American Gas/Diesel Prices? By taking up available refining capabilities?

That's idiotic. The first requests/demands for the fuel/gas will be American and they will be honored...... For less money

All it does is make the refineries more profitable by allowing them to run at near-100% capacity. And by doing that, gas/diesel prices will fall as a result.

Look up 'Economies of Scale' dumbass.

Jesus Jumping Christ On A Fucking Pogo Stick but dimocrap scum are fucking stupid.

It's like they can't stand the thought of living good

Idiotic says the man who claims Americans will get the oil simply by "demanding" it and even at a lower price.

Keystone won't make the price of gas go down and might make it go up. Here,

The Keystone XL pipeline isn’t about lowering your gas prices

You don't like the Washington Post, try this one.

Keystone XL Won't Lower Gas Prices, It Might Raise Them

Both several years old. Common knowledge for anyone even minimally aware of the issues. Hell, the application to the US for the permit openly admitted it was about opening up additional markets and would generate an additional dollar per barrel in revenue for Canada. That's over a hundred million dollars per month at current levels.

Here's what the US Government says about it --

Increasing American Energy Production Will Lower Gasoline Prices, Create More Jobs

You go ahead and invest in what dimocrap scum say. I'll bet on Republicans.

Let's see who makes out better in the end.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, in conjunction with other initiatives in Energy production, will have a stabilizing effect on Energy prices and will cause them to lower.

The major Oil Producing Countries will be forced to stop throttling their production of Oil. They do that to keep oil prices high. Supply and Demand. You should look into it sometime.

Once we get the Pipeline built and we open the HUGE Oil Reserves in Alaska, the CONSHELF and on Federal Lands..... Prices will plummet.

Oil is really, actually worth about an average of $25 a bbl. Even with the cost of Fracking. Fracked oil needs around $50 a bbl just to make a small profit.

Overall, with all things considered, the price of oil should never exceed $50 a bbl.

One of our biggest problems is -- We haven't built a refinery in something like 50 years. dimocrap SCUM won't let it happen.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a major benefit to the US Consumer.

That you CHOOSE to believe dimocrap scum is your problem.

It's one thing to be born stupid. It's one thing to suffer brain damage.

It's quite another to CHOOSE to be stupid by believing what dimocrap SCUM have to say about -- Anything.

It's on you. Remember that. When you start whinging and sniveling about all the bad things that happened to you in your youth..... I'm telling you now -- It's on you for believing the wrong message.

Being a dimocrap isn't just a minor thing..... It isn't a political belief that you can change on a whim -- It is way of life.

A very bad way of life.

You'll see. I'm right

You are a flippin idiot. First, you post a partisan Republican house committee report, which is not worth the bandwidth used. Might as well let the oil industry give you the facts.

Second, do you really think we can win a race to the bottom with the Middle East? They can make money at ten dollars a barrel. And in effect, shut down domestic production. It's a fool me once kind of thing.

Third, you got to be smoking some good shit if you believe the federal government and the Trump administration has any desire to move oil prices down. That would curtail domestic production, hell it is the biggest problem now.

Fourth, your refinery argument is foolish. We have vastly expanded capacity. Worse, when you examine that capacity expansion you find it is for, wait for it, EXPORT.

US is becoming the 'refiner to the world'

You can sling shit all you want. Bookmark the thread. Come back to it later, when gas prices are higher, when diesel prices here at home are higher, when the temporary jobs are all dried up, and when there is an environmental catastrophe at both ends, the toxic waste from the refining process and leaks in the pipeline. Then you can tell me what a great deal it was for the American people.

What toxic waste from the refining process?

Are you aware of the fact that petroleum coke is the main byproduct of the process? Petroleum coke has many, many uses. I, for one, have hauled dozens of loads of petcoke to SLC to be used as a landscaping material.

"Uses of Petroleum Coke


Petroleum coke is typically used as a source of energy, or as a source of carbon for industrial applications. Fuel grade petcoke represents nearly 80 percent of worldwide production and is a source of fuel for cement kilns and electric power plants. Calcined petcoke has the highest carbon purity and is used to manufacture energy, as well as in the aluminum, graphite electrode, steel, titanium dioxide and other carbon consuming industries."

Additionally, the EPA does NOT classify petcoke as a hazardous material.

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not classify petcoke as a hazardous waste. EPA has surveyed the potential human health and environmental impacts of petcoke through its High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program and found the material to be highly stable and non-reactive at ambient environmental conditions. Most toxicity analyses of petcoke find it has a low potential to cause adverse effects on aquatic or terrestrial environments as well as a low health hazard potential in humans, with no observed carcinogenic, reproductive, or developmental effects.”

Petroleum Coke | AFPM

Who said anything about Coke? The refining process is inherently damaging to the environment. Visit Port Arthur Texas and get back to me.

Who said anything about "Coke"? From that simple statement you convinced me that you really are clueless and don't know what coking even is.

"Coking coal is an essential ingredient in steel production. It is different to thermal coal which is used to generate power. Coking coal, also known as metallurgic coal, is heated in a coke oven which forces out impurities to produce coke, which is almost pure carbon."

Producing petcoke is much the same as coal coke.


I've been to Port Arthur (I have family near there), and I'm willing to bet that most of the environmental damage done there happened in the past, before technology and corporate responsibility caught up with modern times.

If you're talking about air pollution, I've seen worse air in Denver than I ever did in Port Arthur.

Where I live now, there used to be a Uranium Mill and there mountains of mill tailing. Before the dangers of the tailing were known, they were used in home and business foundations and toppings for driveways, among other things. They're all cleaned up now, but I know what real pollution is.

Additionally, I have lived in areas that had steel mills and coal-fired power plants, and I have spent time in areas that have petroleum refineries. Guess which ones were dirtiest. Go ahead, guess! Never mind paper mills.

Your anti-carbon and anti-nuclear rants have no effect on me.

 

[Dschrute3]

In 2008 the country exported 1.8 million barrels a day of refined products, according to EIA. By 2012 that number jumped to 3.2 million barrels.

"That trend will continue whether Keystone is built or not," said Brian Milne, a refined fuels editor at Schneider Electric, an information provider

Once refined, it'll be impossible to tell exactly where the oil that came down the pipeline went, but "with more oil, that [export] number will increase," said Milne.


FUCK KEYSTONE, FUCK BIG OIL, FUCK DONALD TRUMP !!!


SUCKERS !!

THE END.

Well, i'm not nearly as emotional. But in general, i have to agree with you. A few oil Fatcats getting fatter, just isn't worth it in the end. The risk/reward doesn't work for me. I'm a big animal and nature lover. These pipelines aren't necessary. Native Americans and Environmentalists were right on this.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Trump OKs Keystone pipeline.

just in time as North Dakota lawmakers

introduce a new bill that protects drivers who "accidentally" run over protesters blocking the roads

--LOL


North Dakota bill aimed at Standing Rock protest

 

[Siete]

TAAAAAAAAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAA !

HERE YA GO ..

Development of these tar sands, located near the Athabasca River, by Suncor Energy, began in the 1960s but has been conducted at a relatively small scale because of the costs involved. Only recently, with declining supplies and increasing prices have attempts begun to try and ramp up production, especially after PetroChina acquired a 60 percent interest in two major wells in Alberta in 2009. This was followed in 2010 by Sinopec paying $4.65 billion for a 9 percent stake in Syncrude Canada Ltd.

Chinese investors find this resource to be attractive, since Canada is considered to be a low political risk when compared with, say, the Middle East. As of 2010, the three biggest of many players were Syncrude Canada, Suncor, and Albian Sands, a joint venture of Chevron, Shell Canada and Marathon Oil. BP also has a substantial stake, with a 75 percent interest in Terre de Grace, which it also operates.


CHINA = TRUMP not Americans.

fuck donnieboi.

 

[Dschrute3]

Just curious, how do 'Small Government Republicans' on this thread feel about the US Government seizing more lands to get these projects done? Because i feel most Republicans aren't fully informed about what's going on. Unfortunately, they're going all-in on Big Oil propaganda.

The US Government will have to seize more lands from Citizens to get these projects done. I would think that would be extremely disturbing to real 'Small Government Republicans.' I know i'm very disturbed. But what do the rest of you Republicans on this thread think?

 

[owebo]

One amusing aspect of this debate is watching leftists - who have been banging for years to ramp up an infrastructure program because it would create jobs - try to argue that building this piece of infrastructure wouldn't create many jobs.

It's gonna create a few. But are those few jobs worth risking destroying our beautiful wildlife and lands? And keep in mind, the US Government will seize more land to make these pipelines happen. And if you're a real Small Government Republican, that's very disturbing. I just can't bring myself to jump for joy over this one. The risk/reward doesn't seem worth it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Put down the fake news, we don't engineer these things to fail.....

They don't engineer things to fail, but failure happens. Is a few oil Fatcats getting fatter, really worth the risks? I say no. We need to protect our wildlife and land. And i don't wanna see the Government seizing more Citizens' lands to build such projects. I think Republicans are gonna regret supporting this some day.

Stop while your behind....

 

[owebo]

Just curious, how do 'Small Government Republicans' on this thread feel about the US Government seizing more lands to get these projects done? Because i feel most Republicans aren't fully informed about what's going on. Unfortunately, they're going all-in on Big Oil propaganda.

The US Government will have to seize more lands from Citizens to get these projects done. I would think that would be extremely disturbing to real 'Small Government Republicans.' I know i'm very disturbed. But what do the rest of you Republicans on this thread think?

The land deals are private.....

 

[jon_berzerk]

Just curious, how do 'Small Government Republicans' on this thread feel about the US Government seizing more lands to get these projects done? Because i feel most Republicans aren't fully informed about what's going on. Unfortunately, they're going all-in on Big Oil propaganda.

The US Government will have to seize more lands from Citizens to get these projects done. I would think that would be extremely disturbing to real 'Small Government Republicans.' I know i'm very disturbed. But what do the rest of you Republicans on this thread think?

The land deals are private.....

yes besides that most of the pipeline has already been laid

 

[Siete]

In 2008 the country exported 1.8 million barrels a day of refined products, according to EIA. By 2012 that number jumped to 3.2 million barrels.

"That trend will continue whether Keystone is built or not," said Brian Milne, a refined fuels editor at Schneider Electric, an information provider

Once refined, it'll be impossible to tell exactly where the oil that came down the pipeline went, but "with more oil, that [export] number will increase," said Milne.


FUCK KEYSTONE, FUCK BIG OIL, FUCK DONALD TRUMP !!!


SUCKERS !!

THE END.

Well, i'm not nearly as emotional. But in general, i have to agree with you. A few oil Fatcats getting fatter, just isn't worth it in the end. The risk/reward doesn't work for me. I'm a big animal and nature lover. These pipelines aren't necessary. Native Americans and Environmentalists were right on this.

I'm not emotional about Keystone per se' ... its the stupidity of American citizens, and their disregard for the elements necessary to live that gets me going.

 

[Dschrute3]

One amusing aspect of this debate is watching leftists - who have been banging for years to ramp up an infrastructure program because it would create jobs - try to argue that building this piece of infrastructure wouldn't create many jobs.

It's gonna create a few. But are those few jobs worth risking destroying our beautiful wildlife and lands? And keep in mind, the US Government will seize more land to make these pipelines happen. And if you're a real Small Government Republican, that's very disturbing. I just can't bring myself to jump for joy over this one. The risk/reward doesn't seem worth it.

What the fuck are you talking about? Put down the fake news, we don't engineer these things to fail.....

They don't engineer things to fail, but failure happens. Is a few oil Fatcats getting fatter, really worth the risks? I say no. We need to protect our wildlife and land. And i don't wanna see the Government seizing more Citizens' lands to build such projects. I think Republicans are gonna regret supporting this some day.

Stop while your behind....

The risk/reward doesn't work for me. Only a few oil Fatcats will see profit in this. These pipelines aren't even necessary. I'm an animal and nature lover. We need to start seriously reconsidering destroying our beautiful lands just to make some Fatcats fatter. Money isn't everything. Let's protect our animals and our land.

 

[owebo]

Trump mandated the pipe and appurtenances be made in the USA!!!!!

Eat shit fucktard liberals.....