Even Karl Rove thinks the ultra conservative should cave. The janitors at the
Capital need to shut out the lights and give Cantor some advice.
God put all that carbon underground when he was making the earth inhabitable for
his children. Are we really dumb enough not to dig it all up for use as God
intended? Man built cars, houses, tractors, tools, to be used.
Like man, God provided carbon to be used. Only a fool would think otherwise.
I don't live far from the beginning of the sandhills. I can't believe all the
burecracy tied to it. I know their are special interests groups,
enviromentalists, etc all have there own agenda regarding the pipeline. I can't
believe that the state of Nebraska, the unicameral and the govenor didn't have
any input into it this late in the game because of the aquafier etc.
God put all that carbon underground when he was making the earth inhabitable for
his children. Are we really dumb enough to dig it all up while there is a
nuclear fusion furnace buring away at a safe distance from the planet?Rooftop to electric car - about 50 feet. Tar sands to port, then to china -
10,000 miles. Nice.
Ernest T. Bass,Your comment makes me want to throw rocks. Why is
this a bad idea?
Re: "Regardless of one's opinion of the pipeline, tying something
completely unrelated to any bill is simply wrong."Simply wrong?
On what stone tablet is that engraved?Politicos of both parties
often use this tool to increase pressure on recalcitrant opponents. Why is it
"wrong" when conservatives use this tool, but when the likes of Nancy
Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Barney Frank do EXACTLY the same thing, there's no moral
dimension?Sounds like hypocrisy, to me.
The tar sands are either the first or second largest oil reserves in the world.
With the possible exception of shale oil, which is even more expensive than tar
sands to produce, the US just doesn't have the reserves.What gets
some folks all excited is that about 90% of the tar sands are in one province of
about 3 million people. That resource belongs to the province not to the
national government. The producers lease rights and pay royalites to the
government of Alberta.This has with conventional oil and now with
the tar sands made Alberta very rich. This seems to create a lot of jealousy.
Too bad, so sad.
The pipeline is a bad idea all the way around.
The pipeline will eventually stop flowing when the oil runs out. Then what?Given that we have to go to war over oil and spend billions on defense,
wasteful use of it ought not be allowed. The federal government has an
obligation to involve itself in how we use oil and other sources of energy.We need laws to improve fuel economy. We ought to make use of
Yellowstone and other geothermal. Either this or count on us going to war every
few years as we have for the past many years, putting our young people at risk
and our economy at risk because of the high costs.
Re: BobP | 5:48 p.m. Dec. 15, 2011 "The US can get oil from a
friendly source or it can rely one those who are not freinds"Actually there is a third option: The USA could develop our own vast proven
reserves of oil.
Obama is trying to protect the environment. There may be some cows or horses
upset with the pipeline.Besides that, can't let the middle east lose
us as costumers.
The US can get oil from a friendly source or it can rely one those who are not
freinds.procuradorfiscal / the answer if that moving refined oil is
much more dangerous than moving unrefined oil
A U of C (university of calgary) study released just today indicates that a west
coast pipeline (northern gateway or similar) will add $131 billion to canadas'
gdp between 2016 and 2030. Trust me, the folks back home in alberta want to sell
the oil the US. In the end, however, if we figure we're better off getting oil
from the venezuelans or saudis, that oil will go west.
From the same guy who stated that he would create many "shovel ready"
jobs. Of course he is trying to convince us that keeping the payroll tax cut
(stupid idea) and extending unemployment benefits will create more jobs than the
pipeline. In BO's case, fantasy is better than reality. Of course he has MSNBC
and CBS to run interferance for him. But then again, MSNBC is a piller of
Progressive thought and they are very adept at news creation. They don't report
it, they create it, true or not.
How can we have an alleged leader who criticizes our country for being
"soft" and complaining that we can't build anything anymore? Hello.
Here it is Barack: a true shovel ready project that would create jobs and you
don't want to build it because like all "Progressives" you don't want
progress. Of course we can't build anything in this Country because of the folks
at the Sierra Club who would cut off their own nose to spite their face. Hope
those are some sturdy tankers hauling that crude to China- good luck with that
Pacific marine life
"Note that environmental scientists and engineers generally agree that
crude petroleum poses no seriou risk to underground aquifers, since, even in the
unlikely event of a spill, and the even more unlikely event that the spill were
to somehow migrate through hundreds of feet of soil and overburden down to the
level of the aquifer, oil floats on and doesn't mix with water, and is quite
amenable to cleanup."We heard that after pretty much every
single other spill. We're also told fracking is safe but then people are able to
light their sink water on fire. Fool me once...
Regardless of one's opinion of the pipeline, tying something completely
unrelated to any bill is simply wrong. Yet this sneaky tactic is used
frequently mainly by the Republican party when they want to try to shove
something down American throats.There is very little honesty
anywhere in our Congress these days.
Isn't this a maneuver that has been a problem with any major piece of
legislation? Didn't people object to attaching riders other specific pieces of
self-serving, "Bridge to Nowhere" favorites to bills for the very
reason that legislators vote on each item separately. If memory serves, Ronald
Reagan, that Republican god of conservatism, wanted a line-item veto to get rid
of such shenanigans. It's like having a request to construct a new
horse-betting parlor in a rural area of Idaho to increase tourism in a depressed
community attached to a defense bill! It's all so very slick and
hypocritical.Neither Party is innocent of this nonsense, but the
payroll tax and unemployment extension should be considered separately from the
oil pipeline request. Make it simple and sweet. Don't encumber legislation
with all manner of extraneous spending. Let the pipeline bill be its own bill
even though Republicans use it solely to defeat the other so they can say they
were not the cause of defeating the payroll tax and unemployment extensions.
Refineries are usually built closer to markets. A Canadian refinery isn't going
to produce diesel for a Mid-West US spec. Plus, there are lots and lots of
headaches trying to pump low sulfur diesel in the same pipeline that gets jet
fuel and gasoline.OPEC did not increase production in 1980's because
they wanted to prevent synthetics fuels and stuff. A lot of OPEC countries were
cheating on their quotas, they wanted everyone else to control prices by
limiting production, but each of them thought, "It is OK if I cheat, but
not the others." Finally Saudi Arabia, the swing producer decided that
enough was enough, they weren't going to keep reducing production to control the
cost so that Iran or Indonesia could keep on cheating. They turned on the taps.
Re: ". . . I don't trust something dangling above the largest groundwater
supply in America."I'm sure you don't. But that's not the same
as showing that the pipeline poses any appreciable danger to the environment or
the aquifer.Note that environmental scientists and engineers
generally agree that crude petroleum poses no seriou risk to underground
aquifers, since, even in the unlikely event of a spill, and the even more
unlikely event that the spill were to somehow migrate through hundreds of feet
of soil and overburden down to the level of the aquifer, oil floats on and
doesn't mix with water, and is quite amenable to cleanup.There
simply is no appreciable danger to environment or aquifer from the pipeline.
Obama's halting of the pipeline simply affirms to me that he's not really
serious about getting Americans back to work. He talks a "good
talk", but he refuses to walk the walk.The pipeline issue and
the fact that he allows illegal immigrants to continue to work here unabated by
the justice dept. tells me he's NOT REALLY SERIOUS about jobs.But I
think everyone already knows that!
@procuradorfiscal"There simply is no appreciable environmental danger
from the pipeline."Considering all the oil spills the last few
years, I don't trust something dangling above the largest groundwater supply in
Re: "If there's no environmental danger, why don't the Canadians build a
refinery in their own country?"Shipping refined product, in a
pipeline or otherwise, is simply much more expensive and dangerous -- both to
humans and the environment -- than shipping crude. Additionally, buying crude
preserves flexibility on the receiving end to tweak the refining process and
produce the product needed, rather than trusting a distant refiner, with
incompatible priorities, to make that decision.There simply is no
appreciable environmental danger from the pipeline. That's just the cynical red
herring liberals and greenies have thrown up to camouflage their real objection
-- a visceral, baseless, ultimately deranged fear of carbon-based fuels
necessary to maintain, both a vibrant economy, and a viable environmental
If there's no environmental danger, why don't the Canadians build a refinery in
their own country? Why is up to the US to refine their oil? Why do we have to
have the pipeline running over 1000 miles through our heartland. Wouldn't a
pipeline work just as well crossing and leaking onto Canadian soil?
Re: ". . . OPEC is not as stupid as people and politicians presume. It is
waiting with baited [sic -- bated?] breath for our moves on the pipeline . . .
OPEC will flood the market with oil, dropping world prices . . . ."You say that like it's a bad thing.
Its either OPEC or this pipeline but your job and mine, the economy and our
future is still dependant on oil, like it or not! Green energy is still not
viable and electric cars are still a novelty and still require energy from
somewhere! Why don't Democrats understand that?
"...the Keystone XL pipeline is an inevitability that we should embrace
sooner than later."I can assure you OPEC is not as stupid as
people and politicians presume. It is waiting with baited breath for our moves
on the pipeline. As soon as we "break ground" on it, OPEC will flood
the market with oil, dropping world prices so that all the corporate investments
and federal subsidies, along with the government eminent domain land takeaways
from private landowners in its path, will result in a giant goose egg! Oil
sands will become even less economical than they are today because the OPEC
cartel isn't going to allow it to be built and will use good old-fashioned
economics to sabotage it. Remember, the "hope" is that
Canada's oil sands will become economical as oil prices continue to rise. We've seen the scenario play out before with the 1985 OPEC release of
massive amounts of oil into world markets to thwart America's emerging renewable
energy development post-Carter. Cheap oil killed off R&D and markets for
alternatives for decades. ... and we're paying over $3 a gallon for
gasoline as a result. OPEC made sure America would never have substitutes to
break our oil addiction.
I think that they should keep the Keystone Pipeline separate. But, yeah, I
don't think that the Obama administration is doing a good job. In a sense, we
are embracing the Pakistani model of conservation: we aren't going to build any
infrastructure. If you don't want $4.00 gallon/gas, build a pipeline. Three
years ago Chuck Schummer was telling Saudi Arabia to pump 1 million barrels a
day more oil. Barbara Boxer has wrung her hands about the high price of
gaosline. If they feel that way, then build that pipeline.
The pipeline is needed more than ever. Yesterday,environmentalists filed suit
(surprise, surprise)to halt leasing of federal oil and gas reserves in the
western Gulf of Mexico. This unconscionable action threatens to deprive
Americans of the essential fuels they need to heat their homes and drive to work
to support their families. It also threatens to raise energy prices and torpedo
the economic recovery. As long as these people have the ability to manipulate
the legal system to advance their agendas that threatens the lives of Americans,
we must develop every alternative source of fossil fuel as a backup.