President Rejects New Pipeline

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from zippit. Show zippit's posts

    President Rejects New Pipeline

    I'd say this sux, what say you?

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/industry-source-state-department-will-reject-keystone-pipeline-reroute/
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    Its an election year move. He calculates he will Lose less votes by not approving it than he would if, he did approve it.
    Elections years suck for getting things done regardless of who is in the WH!!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    According to the radical in chief Obama,  it is MUCH better to have Americans on unemployment from the Government.
    "However many jobs might be generated by a Keystone pipeline," Obama said in December, "they're going to be a lot fewer than the jobs that are created by extending the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]I'd say the pipeline sucks. I'd also say that if any later posters use terms like "energy independence", they clearly have no idea what they're even arguing in favor of. We don't benefit. We don't get any tax revenue from the companies selling the oil. The oil will now be sold to the world market at world prices, rather than to northern midwesterners at lower prices (because it is otherwise to expensive to ship to a world market). It doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil, let alone Middle East oil. And we're giving up a price advantage. The pipeline poses an ever-present threat of a spill, which is damaging to America's environment, let alone potential threat to acquifers it would run over.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Its an absolute common sense move by the President.  I really can't comprehend why people would want this pipeline to happen, unless they invested heavily in it (like the Speaker)
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    "We don't benefit"
    If we is the public sector, then you dont benefit. If the "we" is tens of thousands of new jobs and a growing private sector, and energy independence, the answer is yes, we benefit.

    "The pipeline poses an ever-present threat of a spill"
    There are approximately 55000 miles of crude oil trunk lines (usually 8 - 24 inches in diameter) in the US. Shall we shut them all down now?

    "The oil will now be sold to the world market at world prices, rather than to northern midwesterners at lower prices (because it is otherwise to expensive to ship to a world market." 

    So you hate northern midwesterners?


    It will not be built over the aquifer, so another phony issue.

    Any other phony objections? Wil windmills and solar panels and electric cars save us?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]The title is misleading. He rejected the current proposal. It allows for the XL to reroute the pipeline through less environmentally and argiculturally important areas and resubmit the proposal. 
    Posted by airborne-rgr[/QUOTE]

    Yes, and by 2030 the moonbat zealots at the EPA will review the new proposal. Give me a break.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    Projects like this are far too important and lasting for us NOT to get them right the first time.  Believe it or not, some things are more important than a few temporary jobs.

    Prisons create a lot of jobs, too.  But most people don't want one in their back yard, and some of the reasons for building them in the first place are dubious, at best.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    The pipeline provides thousands of permanent jobs and tens of thousands of temporary (5 years+) jobs! Temporary (Inspectors, welders, engineers, laborers, surveyors, landscapers, construction workers, painters, truck drivers, warehousing jobs, oil field machnist jobs, etc)

    Permanent jobs (inspectors, flow analyst, process managers, volumes of contract labor for various jobs etc).

    There is over 55000 miles of pipeline across the USA today and some of it has been in place for 60+ years. It is an extremely safe practice as it's history obviously shows.

    The pipeline will be approved and will take place exactly as planned just not during an election year!

    The administration simply weighed the estimated votes lost vs votes won and decided this was the right choice. I don't begrudge them for that but, if I was looking for one of those jobs I might.


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]The pipeline provides thousands of permanent jobs and tens of thousands of temporary (5 years+) jobs! Temporary (Inspectors, welders, engineers, laborers, surveyors, landscapers, construction workers, painters, truck drivers, warehousing jobs, oil field machnist jobs, etc) Permanent jobs (inspectors, flow analyst, process managers, volumes of contract labor for various jobs etc). There is over 55000 miles of pipeline across the USA today and some of it has been in place for 60+ years. It is an extremely safe practice as it's history obviously shows. The pipeline will be approved and will take place exactly as planned just not during an election year! The administration simply weighed the estimated votes lost vs votes won and decided this was the right choice. I don't begrudge them for that but, if I was looking for one of those jobs I might.
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]


    Just curious, but do you know how many of those or supply contracts or jobs will be reserved for americans??

    Because if it's not specified in the bill (by way of regulation, natch), then nobody else knows, either.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline : Just curious, but do you know how many of those or supply contracts or jobs will be reserved for americans?? Because if it's not specified in the bill (by way of regulation, natch), then nobody else knows, either.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    It's my opinion based years of industry experience and the required training and expertise need to understand and meet US DOT regulations (which pipelines fall under). The oil and gas industry in the USA is an old industry that is not situated well for hiring potentially cheaper foreign workers. It just makes sense.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]I'd say the pipeline sucks. I'd also say that if any later posters use terms like "energy independence", they clearly have no idea what they're even arguing in favor of. We don't benefit. We don't get any tax revenue from the companies selling the oil. The oil will now be sold to the world market at world prices, rather than to northern midwesterners at lower prices (because it is otherwise to expensive to ship to a world market). It doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil, let alone Middle East oil. And we're giving up a price advantage. The pipeline poses an ever-present threat of a spill, which is damaging to America's environment, let alone potential threat to acquifers it would run over.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    I'd say you are the definition of clueless.  I guess putting more oil on the workd market drives the price up?

    Let's go buy our oil from Brazil, give them $2 billion dollars to do the drilling Obama won't let American companies do.  That' s Obama's plan.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    And by the way:

    The Obama admin said in November that they needed more time to review the impact and that an arbitrary timeline would rush the review process.

    Congressional repubs demanded an answer NOW, thereby forcing them to decide.  The oil industry threatened 'huge political consequences'.

    The admin said no.
     
    If the gopers had waited, they just might have got approval...if that's what they really wanted. 

    Or maybe they just wanted something to complain about - another wedge issue to make up for their lack of fresh ideas. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline : It's my opinion based years of industry experience and the required training and expertise need to understand and meet US DOT regulations (which pipelines fall under). The oil and gas industry in the USA is an old industry that is not situated well for hiring potentially cheaper foreign workers. It just makes sense.
    Posted by sk8ter2008[/QUOTE]

    That may be true...

    ...but doesn't answer my question.

    I noted one independent study that said the pipeline would actually eliminate jobs.
     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    The Keystone XL project is specifically designed to bypass the US consumer and sell to foreign buyers......hence its termination at the Gulf of Mexico.

    Many people don't know this, but the Keystone pipeline already exists and is pumping oil from Canada to refineries in the mid west for refinement and US consumption. 

    If anything, the President (or his GOP rivals) should be proposing an alternative plan that terminates the XL pipeline in the midwest (north of the Gulf) at newly constructed refineries that would be intended for expanded US consumption.  If TransCanada doesn't like that idea, they are welcome to build their pipeline thru the Canadian Rockies to Vancouver.  I'm sure the Canadian citizens would love that idea.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]And by the way: The Obama admin said in November that they needed more time to review the impact and that an arbitrary timeline would rush the review process. Congressional repubs demanded an answer NOW, thereby forcing them to decide.  The oil industry threatened 'huge political consequences'. The admin said no.   If the gopers had waited, they just might have got approval...if that's what they really wanted.  Or maybe they just wanted something to complain about - another wedge issue to make up for their lack of fresh ideas. 
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]


    Obama approve the pipeline?  Right.  BTW, when DOES hell freeze over?

    If Obama is as smart as you lefties claim, then the only conclusion I can draw is that he is actively and purposely undermining the U.S. economy.  Obama is doing his best with his unbelievable intellect to makes us a not so special country.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]The Keystone XL project is specifically designed to bypass the US consumer and sell to foreign buyers......hence its termination at the Gulf of Mexico. Many people don't know this, but the Keystone pipeline already exists and is pumping oil from Canada to refineries in the mid west for refinement and US consumption.  If anything, the President (or his GOP rivals) should be proposing an alternative plan that terminates the XL pipeline in the midwest (north of the Gulf) at newly constructed refineries that would be intended for expanded US consumption.  If TransCanada doesn't like that idea, they are welcome to build their pipeline thru the Canadian Rockies to Vancouver.  I'm sure the Canadian citizens would love that idea.
    Posted by UserName99[/QUOTE]

    Look, you put more oil on the market, you lower the price of oil for us all.  Where specific barrels of oil go is not as important.  The money to be made for this oil is in drilling it, refining it, moving it, and selling it.  By running the pipeline through our country to one of our ports, we are controlling at least part of the transport. We could control the entire transport chain, but the liberals killed the U.S. shipping industry decades ago.

    But, all that aside, I just want to know, how is this pipeline bad for us, and if Obama is so smart, explain why it is ok to give our money to Brazil to drill, yet do nothing here. 'splain that.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline : Obama approve the pipeline?  Right.  BTW, when DOES hell freeze over? If Obama is as smart as you lefties claim, then the only conclusion I can draw is that he is actively and purposely undermining the U.S. economy.  Obama is doing his best with his unbelievable intellect to makes us a not so special country.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Again, what's the rush?

    Given the potential impacts - both positive and negative - there was no good reason to rush through this decision...

    ...even though that's exactly what the pipeline lobby demanded in this case.  That the immediate outcome is not what they wanted is unsurprising.




     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline : Again, what's the rush? Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    13,000,000 people out work!! You have to start creating jobs!!! You can't just look at every opportunity and say "yea, it creates jobs but, we don't like it so find something else"; all the while people are struggling!!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    "There is already a glut of tar sands oil"
    Clueless...try and make that argument whan gas is $5 this summer...clueless!.



    To the leftists who think the government is all powerful and must make all the decisions, a friendly reminder: this is the private sector.
    It should not be up to government bureaucrats to make this decision.
    Private sector businesses make the decision, with their money at stake.  

    The only issue is whether the project meets the environmental standards. After three years review, this is clearly true.

    In 2008 , Obama promised to use all energy options, nuclear , oil, and alternative. Another promise clearly  broken.
    If jobs are important to Obama, he just killed tens of thousands of good private sector jobs..
    Temporary jobs? What a crock.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BetheKoolaid. Show BetheKoolaid's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: President Rejects New Pipeline : Again, what's the rush? Given the potential impacts - both positive and negative - there was no good reason to rush through this decision... ...even though that's exactly what the pipeline lobby demanded in this case.  That the immediate outcome is not what they wanted is unsurprising.
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]
    What is the rush? Are you serious?
    This project was ready in 2008!! How many overpaid zealot EPA lawyers have to pore over this to find a reason to kill it?

    Obama accelerated the 500 million Solyndra loan, though, didnt he?
    Yet the freaking Big Dig took 30 years, thanks to government bureacracy.
    What is the rush, indeed?
    Pipeline lobby is  nothing compared to the zealot anti-growth environemntal lobby, which Obama kowtowed to , to the ruin of the US economy.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from zippit. Show zippit's posts

    Re: President Rejects New Pipeline

    Typical of the boards, telling, although not surprising.  Not enough pure facts to tip the scales either way according to the "experts" on these boards.

    Just name calling and bantering, I'm sorry I brought it up.


    I think it's going to back-fire on the President, but we'll see.  I can't see the public letting him get away with rejecting new jobs.  Whether it's true or not, the public isn't going to like what he's doing.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share