[Raingauge]

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/18/10181927-obama-rejects-keystone-oil-pipeline

Seriously???

You'll take oil from Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi but ours is dirty? Send some of your celebrity morons to any of the three countries I listed and see how environmentally friendly they are. We have better safety and environmental regs than you do.

Is this all political? Can no one see past there own party and do what's best for your country?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Pretty sure its about the environmental issues of transporting the oil across this country. Simmer down there sport.


LOLZ.

Sen. John Hoeven, a Republican, has said of the Canadian crude oil: "It's going to go to China if we don't build it here."

"If we don't fight them over there we'll have to fight them here."

 

[X3pilot]

Keystone XL will actually cause gas prices in the US to rise, due to equaling heavy crude in price with imported light crude. We already are a net plus exporter of refined petroleum products, this would only add to it. Not to mention the possible environmental impacts.

Not a great loss, IMO. This is all politics.

 

[X3pilot]

The pipeline would have reduced U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East.

Worries about dependence on Middle Eastern oil have long animated U.S. energy policy — and the Keystone XL pipeline would have transported almost as much oil each year as the United States currently imports annually from Saudi Arabia.

But U.S. vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East is linked to how much oil we consume, not where we buy it from. The price of oil is set on world markets: When convulsions in Libya sent the price of crude up 30 percent last year, prices for Canadian heavy oil (similar to what is produced from oil sands) rose by nearly 55 percent.

Some pipeline proponents also pointed out that Canadian oil currently sells at a discount compared with oil supplies from the rest of the world. Keystone XL, however, wouldn’t have led Canada to start offering greater amounts of crude at reduced prices — instead, Canadian producers would have gained more leverage and would have been able to sell their oil at the world price.

Five myths about the Keystone XL pipeline

 

[Silver]

You ever see Harper holding hands and walking with the US President? I haven't...

 

[Raingauge]

True. The Saudi's like that.

I agree on the danger of transport but find a better route and implement better regulations.

 

[woodsguy]

Is that what the Pres said? He blocked it because of the route.

 

[X3pilot]

Is that what the Pres said? He blocked it because of the route.

Yes and no. He wanted more time to review the impact of transport through the Sandhills of Nebraska. The Republicans pushed a deadline on him with the budget passing legislation. He met their deadline.

 

[X3pilot]

You ever see Harper holding hands and walking with the US President? I haven't...

He'll just bathe in a public bath house with their new customers....

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Keystone Denial

 

[?????]

PR disaster

 

[syadasti]

The US has spent probably about 150 million on Whooping Crane recovery and I'm sure Canada has spent a fair bit too. Oil companies shouldn't be allow to buy accelerated extinction. BP has gotten away with enough already with their well documented media blackouts during the spill in the Gulf.

 

[kidwoo]

implement better regulations.

You don't pay much attention to what goes on in the US do you?

 

[Pesqueeb]

You don't pay much attention to what goes on in the US do you?

Obviously he's a godless commie.

 

[syadasti]

Another stupid idea on the horizon, perhaps BP could hook Canada up - Pipeline Through Paradise-Why oil sands, a sunken ferry, and the price of oil in China have the Great Bear Rainforest in an uproar.

 

[Raingauge]

You don't pay much attention to what goes on in the US do you?

Obviously he's a godless commie.

A commie that works in the oil field? I doubt I would have survived this long if I was.

The whole thing seems ridiculous to me; some celebs get on the band wagon, say our oil is dirty and made it about the oil sands rather than the pipeline. Oil is dirty, but the risks can be managed. Is it better that the oil comes from countries with no regard for human rights or environmental regs? You would think that since Canada and the US have similar values, political systems and do a billion dollars/day in business that this would be a no brainer.

I've worked on rigs in the US, Canada and Australia. Organized projects for Norway, India, the Middle East, Latin America and Russia. The regs vary from country to country. In Canada we have to have our fracing fluids in tanks on the wells site so that no fluids get into the ground water. In the US you're allowed to use open pits in the ground for the same fluids. In Norway you have to back load all of your cuttings to shore to be disposed. In Australia you can just dump them in to the Indian Ocean (even if its a whale and sea turtle migrating path). Seems weird to me.

The oil industry needs to be regulated much like the financial sector. There is too much money involved for people not to get greedy and say F it to the rest of the world. Fossil fuels aren't going away anytime soon and a pipeline from us to you seems like a better idea than importing it from people that really don't like you.

 

[Raingauge]

Another stupid idea on the horizon, perhaps BP could hook Canada up - Pipeline Through Paradise-Why oil sands, a sunken ferry, and the price of oil in China have the Great Bear Rainforest in an uproar.

There is a huge aluminum smelter in Kitimat and a massive port in Prince Rupert with ships coming and going all the time right now.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Obviously not familiar with sarcasm either.

 

[syadasti]

There is a huge aluminum smelter in Kitimat and a massive port in Prince Rupert with ships coming and going all the time right now.

And yet boats still sink and have accidents. They can afford to make a better solution - a failsafe and environmentally neutral solution is the true cost of doing business. Doing otherwise is irresponsible and illegal.

 

[Raingauge]

Obviously not familiar with sarcasm either.

I've been told very similar to that from people I've worked with in the Southern US. The look I get when I say I don't go to church is usually quite funny... for me anyway.

 

[Pesqueeb]

I've been told very similar to that from people I've worked with in the Southern US. The look I get when I say I don't go to church is usually quite funny... for me anyway.

So you ARE a godless commie! As if your universal health care wasn't enough proof.

 

[rockofullr]

Don't drink the Kool-Aid. The oil interests in Canada have been pushing the false idea that this is all going down because of American environmentalists (specifically celebrities) getting involved in Canadian politics.

The real issue is that a large, environmentally controversial, multinational project was made into a political play by politicians in the US and Canada.

Here's an interesting article on the media spin going on in Canada.

http://wbaa.org/post/pro-pipeline-canada-americans-butt-out-eh

I thought this was the most important part of the article:

Campbell points out that American money also weighs heavily on the other side of this debate, specifically in the form of multinational investments in Canada's oil sands. Still, she's visibly shaken by the government's attack on environmental groups. She says she's not used to seeing this kind of political intensity.

 

[Pesqueeb]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lies, all lies. I learned all I needed to know about that dirty Canadian oil from Angelina Jolie. This is a victory for Jeebus and Freedom®. Can we please just get back on the issue of deporting all those dirty damn Canadians back to Mexico where they came from? Keep your Government hands of my Medicare!

 

[Raingauge]

If the pipelines gets shut down are these same interest groups going to go after other countries that supply oil to the US? Countries who's environmental records are much worse that ours? I think this is the major beef with the issue.

Is Daryl Hannah heading to Niger River Delta to stop the environmental destruction there? Or how about Venezuela's Lake Maracaibo?

 

[kidwoo]

I think you pay too much attention to hollywood personalities and their supposed role in legislation.

 

[Pesqueeb]

Daryl Hannah is still alive?

 

[kidwoo]

Daryl Hannah is still alive?

And apparently singlehandedly instituting the various state agency holdups on this thing. Places where hollywood is a huge factor..........like Kansas and Montana.

 

[rockofullr]

If the pipelines gets shut down are these same interest groups going to go after other countries that supply oil to the US? Countries who's environmental records are much worse that ours? I think this is the major beef with the issue.

Is Daryl Hannah heading to Niger River Delta to stop the environmental destruction there? Or how about Venezuela's Lake Maracaibo?

Venezuela is not pushing for the construction of a high volume petroleum pipeline through environmentally valuable land in the US.

PS. there are lots of celebs championing humanitarian and environmental issues across the world. Here's a short list I found using teh google.

http://green-buzz.net/environment/10-celebrities-environmental-activists/

 

[Pesqueeb]

And apparently singlehandedly instituting the various state agency holdups on this thing. Places where hollywood is a huge factor..........like Kansas and Montana.

Huh. Who knew?

 

[syadasti]

Haha, even Fox News is making fun of the pipeline (6 Reasons Keystone XL Sucks):

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/18/six-reasons-keystone-xl-was-bad-deal-all-along/

Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:

1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency

The oil to be sent through Keystone XL pipeline was never destined for US markets. In its own presentation to investors about the proposed pipeline extension, TransCanada (the company behind Keystone XL) boasted that most if not all of the extracted and refined oil would be exported --- sold in oversees markets where oil fetches a higher price (and thus turns a higher profit for the company).

2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices

Currently, Canadian oil reserves stored in the Midwest help suppress gas prices in the United States, particularly for farmers in our nation’s heartland.

In its permit application for the pipeline, TransCanada noted that the Keystone XL pipeline would allow the company to drain these reserves and export that fuel as well. According to TransCanada’s own statements, this would raise gas prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.

3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created

In 2008, TransCanada’s original permit application to the State Department said the Keystone XL pipeline would create “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” in temporary jobs building the pipeline.

By 2011, now facing growing opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada had inflated these numbers (using undisclosed formulas) to 20,000. Supporters of the proposal, backed by big oil, have since trumpeted these trumped up numbers.

4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year

The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12 times in the last year.

While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as “minor” averaging “just five to 10 gallons of oil” each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.

5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified

Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million Americans plus water that fuels the region’s agriculture industry.

Building the pipeline might have created a few thousand temporary jobs but even a minor oil spill in or near the aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of thousands of jobs, not to mention the health and safety of millions.

Meanwhile, in Michigan where a similar tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000 gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, residents are still complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea while studies continue to look at the long-term effects of just being near such an oil spill when it happens.

6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming

Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists, that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the second largest carbon reserve in the world.

Mining these reserves would release all of that carbon into the atmosphere, to detrimental effect on our environment. Sure, Canada might go ahead and mine the tar sands anyway, but the United States doesn’t have to help pollute the planet and our own states in the process.

 

[$tinkle]

so i'm assuming from this another pipeline would break the camel's[!] back?

 

[syadasti]

so i'm assuming from this another pipeline would break the camel's[!] back?

Yes, island biogeography covers this. More importantly, Fox News agrees, you can't argue with fair and balanced.