Obama and State department kill Keystone pipeline

[cableguymn]

REPORT: State Department To Reject The Keystone Pipeline

Won't be long. Canada will announce they are building a pipeline to the west and selling the oil to china.

 

[layoutshooter]

Obama's job is to destroy the country,(along with every other politician in office today) what else do you expect?

 

[cableguymn]

Obama's job is to destroy the country,(along with every other politician in office today) what else do you expect?

Nothing less from the current crop of idiots.

 

[Ragman]

Nothing less from the current crop of idiots.

 

[LDB]

It can't surprise anyone the disaster in chief is doing this. He has to go and hopefully people who should be intelligent enough to know that will do what has to be done to make it happen.

 

[cableguymn]

It can't surprise anyone the disaster in chief is doing this. He has to go and hopefully people who should be intelligent enough to know that will do what has to be done to make it happen.

50% of us are. the other 50% love the hand outs, bail outs and give outs Obama gives them.

 

[AMonger]

50% of us are. the other 50% love the hand outs, bail outs and give outs Obama gives them.

This ring a bell with anyone?

"We're not rich like y'all. But we soon will be, because we got Barak Obama!"

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[Turtle]

Clearly, a lot of people read the headline, saw Obama's name in it, and then stopped reading, stopped thinking, and stopped being curious (not that they were all that curious to begin with). There is a legitimate issue about the routing in Nebraska through the Ogallala Aquifer. Obama and the State Department didn't "kill" the Keytone Pipeline. Far from it.

They simply won't allow it to be routed over THE major Midwestern water table, also knows as the High Plains Aquifer, a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains, right under the area of the world known as "The Breadbasket of America". It is one of the world's largest aquifers, and it covers an area of approximately 174,000 square miles, through portions of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary.

The regions overlying the Ogallala Aquifer are some of the most productive regions for ranching livestock, and growing corn, wheat and soybeans in the world.

One modest pipeline spill kills all of that. All of it. Al Qaeda has offered up its full and unconditional support of the project, however. Says any kind of disaster is unlikely. They like the name of the Aquifer.

Now, if it were Obama's (you know, the disaster-in-chief's) job to destroy the country, he would make every effort to ensure that pipeline ran through as much of the Ogallala Aquifer as possible, and that it be on the fast track to completion so as to ensure an actual disaster.


Now, who is it, exactly, that's the "current crop of idiots"?

 

[cableguymn]

They simply won't allow it to be routed over THE major Midwestern water table, also knows as the High Plains Aquifer, a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains, right under the area of the world known as "The Breadbasket of America". It is one of the world's largest aquifers, and it covers an area of approximately 174,000 square miles, through portions of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary.

The regions overlying the Ogallala Aquifer are some of the most productive regions for ranching livestock, and growing corn, wheat and soybeans in the world.

One modest pipeline spill kills all of that. All of it. Al Qaeda has offered up its full and unconditional support of the project, however. Says any kind of disaster is unlikely. They like the name of the Aquifer.

Now, if it were Obama's (you know, the disaster-in-chief's) job to destroy the country, he would make every effort to ensure that pipeline ran through as much of the Ogallala Aquifer as possible, and that it be on the fast track to completion so as to ensure an actual disaster.


Now, who is it, exactly, that's the "current crop of idiots"?

aww shyt. They better pull all these up too!

There are some 20,090 miles of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines (includes interstate, intrastate, and distribution lines) in Nebraska.

And these...

Pipelines are safer than trucking or training, or boating it around.

 

[Turtle]

aww shyt. They better pull all these up too!

Quote:
There are some 20,090 miles of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines (includes interstate, intrastate, and distribution lines) in Nebraska.

Nice parrot. Does it eat crackers, too?

Even the Nebraska Pipeline Association will tell you that, while pipelines are by far the safest method for transporting energy products, they can and do sometimes do rupture, posing serious risk. It's not a case of if, but when, be it from man-made or natural causes. And in the case of the Tar Sands diluted bitumen ("dirty oil", or "dilbit"), it's particularly damaging to the environment, and nearly impossible to clean up, especially if it gets into the water table. This is not your run-o-the-mill crude oil from west Texas or Oklahoma.

Nearly six months after the rupture at ExxonMobil's Silvertip oil pipeline spilled more than 1,000 barrels of crude oil into the Yellowstone River, there is no end in sight to the cleanup efforts. The company recently said that the process has been far more difficult than expected, despite it being relatively straightforward and doesn't involve a water table (it involves a watershed, which is different), and estimated that cleanup would continue for several months beyond the initial completion target of 14 months, which is early September 2012.

More than 1,000 people are now involved in cleaning up the Silvertip spill, an effort that will cost at least $42.6 million, to clean up oil that was valued at $100,000. And that was clean and pristine crude, by comparison to the Tar Sands dilbit oil.

The Ogallala Aquifer is one of the largest, quite probably the largest natural deposit of potable water. Why risk that over a few million dollars that comes out of a really big oil company's profits, when it can easily be rerouted around the Aquifer? I don't have even a tiny bit of a problem with the pipeline. None whatsoever, except for the quickest and cheapest route they want it to take. If they want to route it though the Aquifer, fine, but they need to provide just stoopid redundant measures to ensure even a large rupture can be contained. Frankly, it'll be cheaper to route it a few extra hundred miles around it.

Ironically, the reason for the lengthy delay on the Keystone pipeline in the first place, and the primary reason for denying it in its current routing, is not Obama, but Nebraska Republicans who are even more vehemently against it than the tree hugging wackos. They understand the economic impact to Nebraska and the nation that a modest spill would induce.

I say build the pipeline, but route it around the Aquifer. Risking the Ogallala Aquifer so large oil companies can make even more expedient profits is just insane.

 

[tbubster]

Nice parrot. Does it eat crackers, too?

Even the Nebraska Pipeline Association will tell you that, while pipelines are by far the safest method for transporting energy products, they can and do sometimes do rupture, posing serious risk. It's not a case of if, but when, be it from man-made or natural causes. And in the case of the Tar Sands diluted bitumen ("dirty oil", or "dilbit"), it's particularly damaging to the environment, and nearly impossible to clean up, especially if it gets into the water table. This is not your run-o-the-mill crude oil from west Texas or Oklahoma.

Nearly six months after the rupture at ExxonMobil's Silvertip oil pipeline spilled more than 1,000 barrels of crude oil into the Yellowstone River, there is no end in sight to the cleanup efforts. The company recently said that the process has been far more difficult than expected, despite it being relatively straightforward and doesn't involve a water table (it involves a watershed, which is different), and estimated that cleanup would continue for several months beyond the initial completion target of 14 months, which is early September 2012.

More than 1,000 people are now involved in cleaning up the Silvertip spill, an effort that will cost at least $42.6 million, to clean up oil that was valued at $100,000. And that was clean and pristine crude, by comparison to the Tar Sands dilbit oil.

The Ogallala Aquifer is one of the largest, quite probably the largest natural deposit of potable water. Why risk that over a few million dollars that comes out of a really big oil company's profits, when it can easily be rerouted around the Aquifer? I don't have even a tiny bit of a problem with the pipeline. None whatsoever, except for the quickest and cheapest route they want it to take. If they want to route it though the Aquifer, fine, but they need to provide just stoopid redundant measures to ensure even a large rupture can be contained. Frankly, it'll be cheaper to route it a few extra hundred miles around it.

Ironically, the reason for the lengthy delay on the Keystone pipeline in the first place, and the primary reason for denying it in its current routing, is not Obama, but Nebraska Republicans who are even more vehemently against it than the tree hugging wackos. They understand the economic impact to Nebraska and the nation that a modest spill would induce.

I say build the pipeline, but route it around the Aquifer. Risking the Ogallala Aquifer so large oil companies can make even more expedient profits is just insane.

You whole argument is based on a what if? If I pull out of this lot a car may come around the corner and hit me.If I walk across the street a bus may hit me.If I buy a mega millions ticket I might win.See all what if's?

This is pure political.Lets not forget that Obama first tried to postpone the decision untill 2013 after the election, his own jobs council was for this being approved.However if he had approved it then it would have looked like a he caved to republicans and lets face it thats not gonna happen in an election year.Obama says they need more time to study the impact yet they have had more then a couple of years to do that very study.I just hope that the voters remember this in nov!

But then this is really no surprise after all this is the president who is all about GREEN ENERGY

 

[greg334]

less we forget, that the bush administration did little or nothing when it came to the same type of issue - jobs - as we faced a refinery capacity shortage and the opportunity to expand our capacity so we can process oil for other countries.

 

[muttly]

aww shyt. They better pull all these up too!

And these...

Pipelines are safer than trucking or training, or boating it around.

Thanks for pointing this out. Some people will grasp at any straw they can to defend Obama. It really is ridiculous.

 

[pelicn]

an neither of these "entities" are suppose to have the power to do this...as is the case with many other things that are happening and have been happening in our country

 

[Turtle]

You whole argument is based on a what if? If I pull out of this lot a car may come around the corner and hit me.If I walk across the street a bus may hit me.If I buy a mega millions ticket I might win.See all what if's?

Nothing get past you, does it? Of course it's based on what ifs. It's called "risk management" where you compare and contrast as many what ifs as possible to assess the risk.

You need to leave the lot because you need to go somewhere. Risk management tells you how to achieve that action. Do you minimize the risk by looking left, looking right, and then looking left again before pulling out? Or do accept a larger risk by closing your eyes and pulling out and hoping for the best? It's certainly quicker and easier to not bother looking before you pull out. And both methods will get you out of the lot. One way is less risky than the other. Which do you choose?

The risk management here is not whether to pull out of the lot at all, but how much risk you are willing to take to do it quicker and easier. Same with the pipeline. It's not whether to build or not build the pipeline, it's how to go about it to reduce the risk. If there is a mediocre spill of that pipeline which occurs into the Ogallala Aquifer itself, The Breadbasket of America will be bare, useless for growing anything for anywhere from five to twenty years, and the water that supplies million of people will be just as useless. Do you really and truly want to risk, recklessly, all that for the expediency of large oil company profits? Or does it make more sense to simply change the routing of the pipeline to reduce the risk?

This is pure political.

Well, it's significantly political, but it's not purely political. It's also environmental, geopolitical and economical. There are real, actual lives at stake here, not to mention the livelihood of millions. It's political in the sense that it is a Canadian company who wants to run a dilbit pipeline across another country, namely the USA, and be able to dictate the routing of the pipeline.

Lets not forget that Obama first tried to postpone the decision untill 2013 after the election...

Let's also not forget that this project was first presented in 2005, and it was George Bush who wanted postpone the decision until after the 2008 election. You remember George Bush, right? He's the oil guy. And I believe him to be a Republican.

Obama says they need more time to study the impact yet they have had more then a couple of years to do that very study.

Bush said the same exact thing, and had nearly three years to do that very study.

I just hope that the voters remember this in nov!

Oh, they'll remember it. The Republicans will make sure of that. The decision itself was only partly political, but the response has been nothing but political. It was a Republican who first delayed the decision on the project, at the insistence of other Republicans, and now the Republicans in a masterful slight of hand misdirection are all over Obama like white on rice about it, and people like you are lapping it up completely oblivious of the magic of illusion because of self-delusion.

But then this is really no surprise after all this is the president who is all about GREEN ENERGY

Even TransCanada said they wee not at all surprised by the decision. Adding that they, "plan to reapply for the permit after finding a new route through Nebraska that would avoid environmentally delicate areas, which was one of the obstacles to the project as it was originally proposed." So they've had nearly six years to modify the proposal.

TransCanada figured Bush would rubber stamp it, but he didn't. He delayed it for environmental reasons, which is something that gets lost in the shuffle. Because he didn't rubber stamp it, TransCanada found themselves caught in the abyss of State Department bureaucracy that has taken this long to resolve. And yet because of politics, people and those who lap it up, are blaming Obama for every bit of it, when it reality he's coming in on the tail end of this deal. The fact is, TransCanada and the State Department were working on the details of the new routing, and by all accounts from State and TransCanada were close to finalizing those details, the last step before approval.

But, as per the status quo, Congressional Republicans decided to play political hardball by legislating a deadline, and all that got them was a four-seamer in the ribs.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said.

TransCanada will submit their revised proposal, and the process starts all over again.


Incidentally, people who grasp at any straw they can to defend Obama is almost as ridiculous as those who grasp at imaginary straws to attack him.

 

[witness23]

You some kinda tree-hugger Turtle?

 

[Turtle]

You some kinda tree-hugger Turtle?

Far from it, which you'll know if you read everything closely that I wrote in this thread. I'm not against the pipeline at all. Tree huggers are against it in any form. Rather than hug a tree, I'd rather lathe a baseball bat out of it. I'm for the pipeline.

But I'm also for being good stewards of the planet during our time on it, so as to not be careless and reckless for short term pleasures and benefits at the expense of future generations. I believe that if you have a choice of polluting the river or not polluting the river, you should choose the latter, but that doesn't mean the power plant shouldn't be built in the first place.

I believe that "Paper or plastic?" should be changed to "Paper or cotton?"

I believe it's far more responsible to let a dog turd naturally biodegrade in three days right where it sits rather than to scoop it up and encase it in a plastic sandwich bag, and then encase that in a larger plastic garbage bag, and then use an air-polluting, petroleum consuming garbage truck to take it to a landfill where it will remain a dog turd encased in plastic, encased in plastic, for 10,000 years.

 

[davekc]

I don't believe Obama is even considering the environment. Like everything else political, just follow the money.
State department already said the approval will interfere with alternative energy source programs.
Gee, what could that mean?
It is all about where Obama and his buddies have their investment dollars.
Nebrakska not having a completed permit route is also another issue, but one that could be done in a short amount of time. After all, they have been fooling around with this for three years.
Incidentally, I thought they had a alternative route around this aquifer? Not 100 percent sure on that.

 

[witness23]

Far from it, which you'll know if you read everything closely that I wrote in this thread. I'm not against the pipeline at all. Tree huggers are against it in any form. Rather than hug a tree, I'd rather lathe a baseball bat out of it. I'm for the pipeline.

I was being sarcastic.

Unlike others, I'm able to comprehend what you have been saying. There's no need to explain yourself, atleast to me that is.

 

[purgoose10]

Please don't take this wrong because if anyone here can't stand O'bama its me. Just my thoughts.
Nebraska agreed to a new route around the water trofe. I think what OB has in mind to pease everyone is to let Canada run the pipe line to Vancouver BC and everyone compete for that oil on the market letting it continue to be shipped by tanker to our ports. Yes we will compete not only with China but everyone else. If it were me making the decision I would say run two pipelines not one and open up Alaska, but it's not my choice. Again this is just a guess.