# Let's get that pipeline built!



## Ralphy1 (Nov 18, 2014)

I have heard enough discussion about the Keystone to side with the majority that want it to go forward and you should, too...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

I Sure DO Ralphy!!   I'm excited about tar sands oil spilling into our major aquifer so a Canadian company can get the oil to China and make huge profits.  Heck... who cares that it will only create 35-50 permanant jobs.. and will not impact the price of gas at the pump for Americans. In fact we may even end up paying more, but who cares!!  I'm just happy to see a foreign company will benefit at the price of our environment and add to the worlds dependence of fossil fuels.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 18, 2014)

Sorry, but experts say there is no threat to aquifers and many more jobs than you mentioned as ongoing inspections and maintenance after it is built along with processing jobs way into the future...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Depends which "Experts" you are listening to.   The real ones.... or FAUX news.  

http://www.newsweek.com/state-depar...ne-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898

If you use the trans Alaska pipeline as a guidepost

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...w-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/2/



> Alaska expected the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to lead to the growth of chemical manufacturing and refining in the state.  The Wall Street Journal concluded in September 1979 that the “capital intensive” oil industry had failed to create a significant number of permanent jobs for Alaska.  After the pipeline was completed, unemployment grew, reaching 15% by June 1977.  By September 1979 it had dropped to 11%, but private industry failed to expand substantially.  40% of Alaska’s workforce remained on the public payroll.  This was a classic boomtown effect, in which the population of Alaska, particularly the interior city of Fairbanks, swelled in anticipation of petroleum construction jobs.  Once the project was complete many thousands who had moved to the city were left unemployed.  Eventually, by the mid-1980s, the pipeline project spawned additional spinoff pipelines, but they employed only a small fraction of the construction workers who had previously worked for Alyeska.  Clearly, Trans-Alaska did not bring nearly as many jobs as promised.
> The states through the Keystone XL Pipeline will be constructed should anticipate this boomtown effect and the potential for high unemployment to follow the pipeline’s completion.  However, the potential unemployment in the wake of a boomtown may be limited, in this case, by faster construction.  The lesson from Trans-Alaska however, is that long-term employment in these areas is unlikely to increase nearly as significantly as some people would like to believe.



In addition, the price of gas will likely rise for Americans!!  Because of the pipeline..   How wonderful!!



> The estimates are based on the idea that the pipeline will create permanently stable oil prices which will foster overall economic growth.  However, there is no indication the pipeline would contribute to oil price stabilization. * In fact, other TransCanada studies predict that oil prices in the Midwest will rise because the Keystone XL Pipeline will alleviate an oversupply there.*  No previous pipeline, such as Trans-Alaska, has ever stabilized global oil prices.  All predictions for spinoff jobs rely on factors like the price of oil, energy innovation, politics, and the overall health of the economy.  These variables are impossible to forecast and make predictions such as the Perryman Group’s unreliable.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 18, 2014)

NPR has had several programs on this, hardly Faux news...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Anyway...  looks like the Senate has the 60 votes to pass the bill..   Obama will veto it.  BUT none of this matters.  The pipeline will not be built for years to come if ever.  Indian nations are planning to stop it due to treaty violations. They don't want it on their land.   AND in addition to this, major oil producers are not all that gung ho for it due to the decline in oil prices.  

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-...ulling-plug-their-projects-albertas-tar-sands

NOW... in our highly partisan environment.. the pipeline has really become a political football..  It's not all that important.. and is merely a way for the uninformed to believe they WON something...


----------



## Debby (Nov 18, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Sorry, but experts say there is no threat to aquifers and many more jobs than you mentioned as ongoing inspections and maintenance after it is built along with processing jobs way into the future...




I was listening to one of those 'experts' yesterday in the car and one thing he failed to mention/admit was that the heavy tar that he liked to suggest would just lay there on the surface and not impact the Ogallala Aquifer, was that it isn't going through that pipeline as a heavy tar-like substance.  It has to be thinned with chemicals to make it run.  Since some parts of that Aquifer are close to the surface, and considering the numerous pipeline breaks that have occurred, it seems to me that the thinned tar/chemical combo could very well impact that aquifer.

And to those who consider the inspections to be a total safeguard, there is the issue of this:  [h=1]3 Billion Gallons Of Fracking Wastewater Pumped Into Clean California Aquifiers: "Errors Were Made" State Admits[/h]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-17/3-billion-gallons-fracking-wastewater-pumped-clean-california-aquifiers-errors-were-

Accidents happen.  And so does stupidity (errors were made?)  Right, not a problem as long as it isn't running across MY drinking water.



What he also kept the conversation away from was the fact that environmentalists are fearful of is that ease of moving the stuff will encourage even more investment (Koch brothers would rub their hands with glee over that) which will further encourage an expansion of the tar sands production which will further impact the environment, including both air and water and particularly for the First Nations folks who live in that vicinity.


----------



## Jackie22 (Nov 18, 2014)

I've read that the Koch bros. own the refineries in South Texas where this oil is going, if this pipeline is completed their net worth will double from 100 billion to 200 billion...... ...that should tell anyone where their misinformation is coming from.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Nov 18, 2014)

Hard to believe that you believe that everyone is uninformed...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Ralphy1 said:


> Hard to believe that you believe that everyone is uninformed...



Actually I don't, Ralphy... not EVERYONE..


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Jackie22 said:


> I've read that the Koch bros. own the refineries in South Texas where this oil is going, if this pipeline is completed their net worth will double from 100 billion to 200 billion...... ...that should tell anyone where their misinformation is coming from.



And this is only a small part of the political payback the Koch's will extract for buying the midterms.


----------



## Debby (Nov 18, 2014)

The Koch brothers are also working on buying up 220,000 acres of Alberta's tar sands.  Combine that with their ownership of Texas refineries and their proclivity for influencing(manipulating) elections, we should all be concerned as to whether or not our future descendants will have a planet to live on.  Apparently the Koch brothers don't care.  Short term gain (haven't those greedy pigs got enough?) long term pain.   http://kochcash.org/koch-brothers-cashing-in-220000-acres-of-tar-sands-holdings/


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

I would love to know for sure which or how many of the Supreme Court Justices were bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers.  My guess would be Thomas for sure.. and Scalia... and maybe even Roberts.   Thomas and Scalia have long been associated with the Koch Brothers.  AND of course the Citizens United Ruling which as enabled the Kochs to buy our democracy.  If EVER impeachment should be considered it would be against these justices. AND to think.. they have a lifetime appointment.   

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11...icial-ethics-headlining-wing-fundraisers.html



> For three years, at least, there have been nagging questions about Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia’s close ties to right-wing organizations and their funding mechanism the Koch Brothers, but without a rigorous code of ethics in place there was little chance they would be held to account for, or forced to stop, using their positions on the Court to promote the Koch brothers’ right-wing agenda. Two days ago, Clarence Thomas was at it again when he appeared at a Federalist Society “_fundraiser_” as a featured speaker that two other High Court justices, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito also attended. It is a violation of Canon 4C of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges who are forbidden from being “_a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program_” of a fundraising event, but because Thomas, a federal judge, sits on the nation’s highest court he is exempt, apparently, from adhering to any code of conduct. Just when it appeared no-one in a position of authority would take action and demand Thomas be held accountable for his recurring ethical violations, a lone elected representative once again spoke out for the American people.



Yet... in spite of this very obvious subversion of our democracy by a handful of Billionaires.. Americans continue to vote Republican.  This in and of itself should be classified as the eighth wonder of the world.  Do they REALLY want to live in the world the Kochs would create?  One has to wonder what they THINK is in it for them..  NOTHING if the Kochs get their way.   The problem is many Americans are to darn  lazy to find out what is really going on.  They depend on the 30 second sound bites paid for by the Kochs for their political opinions.  (or Fox.. or Limbaugh)   Very sad indeed.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Nov 18, 2014)

This political football is long from scoring a touchdown.  The White House has announced, rightfully so, that the POTUS will veto the bill coming out of Congress.  At that time, it will need the 60 votes again to override the veto.  I don't believe the same 60 who voted for the bill's passing will vote for the override.  That remains to be seen.

The main issue holding up the bill is the liability to our environment.  BP pushed hard to keep from funding clean up after the big oil dump in the Gulf.  They were forced to pay up and did.  Now, they say they think they paid too much and are litigating trying to get money back.  If the Koch's would escrow $1 billon of their over $100 billion as a clean-up reserve, I believe this would fly through without hesitation.  Part of the issue is the significant political tie the Kochs have with Congress.  If there is an environmental disaster, current elected officials would be hard pressed to hold the Kochs responsible.  The environment would suffer significant negative effects while the responsibility was legislated and litigated.  Put up or shut up!!!  

The pipeline will have zero impact on U.S. dependence on foreign oil, U.S. unempoyment figures, and U.S. fuel prices.  The pipeline will allow multi-billionaires to become multi-multi-billionaires.  To date, large oil spill disasters have been at sea and there has been a certain amount of "solution by dilution".  When millions of gallons or crude oil spills out on farmland and migrates into our drinking water sources, it could tank the entire Country's economy.  The risk is not worth the reward.  Common sense, however, will not play into the decision.  Politics will.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2014)

Irregardless of what a persons "political" arguments might be, either for, or against this pipeline, the fact is that this Canadian oil IS being sent to the Texas refineries....Today.  However, it is being moved by rail, instead of a much safer pipeline.  The original plans called for the pipeline to cross the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska, but those plans have been changed to move the pipeline North and East of the aquifer....so in the unlikely event of a major leak, the groundwater would not be impacted.  
The processing of this oil will have little or no impact on US gas prices.  It has been intended, all along, to be processed in our Texas refineries which have excess capacity, and the products sold to foreign markets, at a profit for both the US and Canadian companies involved....and hopefully will generate some tax revenues that will help bring down our out of control National Debt.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> This political football is long from scoring a touchdown.  The White House has announced, rightfully so, that the POTUS will veto the bill coming out of Congress.  At that time, it will need the 60 votes again to override the veto.  I don't believe the same 60 who voted for the bill's passing will vote for the override.  That remains to be seen.
> 
> The main issue holding up the bill is the liability to our environment.  BP pushed hard to keep from funding clean up after the big oil dump in the Gulf.  They were forced to pay up and did.  Now, they say they think they paid too much and are litigating trying to get money back.  If the Koch's would escrow $1 billon of their over $100 billion as a clean-up reserve, I believe this would fly through without hesitation.  Part of the issue is the significant political tie the Kochs have with Congress.  If there is an environmental disaster, current elected officials would be hard pressed to hold the Kochs responsible.  The environment would suffer significant negative effects while the responsibility was legislated and litigated.  Put up or shut up!!!
> 
> The pipeline will have zero impact on U.S. dependence on foreign oil, U.S. unempoyment figures, and U.S. fuel prices.  The pipeline will allow multi-billionaires to become multi-multi-billionaires.  To date, large oil spill disasters have been at sea and there has been a certain amount of "solution by dilution".  When millions of gallons or crude oil spills out on farmland and migrates into our drinking water sources, it could tank the entire Country's economy.  The risk is not worth the reward.  Common sense, however, will not play into the decision.  Politics will.




Great post GOM.....  one thing though... it would require 2/3rds of the House and the Senate to over-ride a veto.  That probably could happen in the house, but that would mean 67 votes in the Senate. That would be impossible on this issue.  So the Pipeline will not be approved.


----------



## Twixie (Nov 18, 2014)

God..get the damn pipeline built..


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Twixie said:


> God..get the damn pipeline built..




Why?   Perhaps you don't give a flying fig about OUR agriculture and our water supply... why would you?   BUT most of us here Do.  So what's it to YOU?


----------



## Twixie (Nov 18, 2014)

Well do something about it...instead of moaning..


----------



## Debby (Nov 18, 2014)

Don M. said:


> I...... US and Canadian companies involved....and hopefully will generate some tax revenues that will help bring down our out of control National Debt.




Except those corporations have excellent tax lawyers and will see to it that as little as possible will flow into government coffers anywhere so my guess is that you citizens will still own your debt.


----------



## Debby (Nov 18, 2014)

Twixie said:


> Well do something about it...instead of moaning..




That is exactly what environmentalists have been working on for years!  But being in England you might not be as aware of the protracted and difficult fight that has been going on as some try to 'do something about it'.  Nobody is 'moaning' about it, they are fighting for the environment.

Keep in mind Twixie, that if the IPCC is correct that it is imperative that we cease using oil by 2100, and if the pipeline goes through and the tar sands are expanded as a result of the increased ease of getting the stuff moved out to refineries, the damage to the overall environment will affect your beloved country just as much as anybody else's.  We are one small planet and all are ultimately affected by everything that goes occurs on it.


----------



## Twixie (Nov 18, 2014)

Being in ''England'' doesn't make me care any less about other people's problems..


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Debby said:


> Except those corporations have excellent tax lawyers and will see to it that as little as possible will flow into government coffers anywhere so my guess is that you citizens will still own your debt.



Not only does Big Oil pay very little in taxes... we also give them subsidies.  This is the REAL welfare... it's Corporate welfare.  While we cut food stamps and Social Security.  

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/oil-subsidies-natural-gas-subsidies/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...ich-it-will-pay-a-13-percent-tax-rate-if-that


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Nov 18, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Great post GOM..... one thing though... it would require 2/3rds of the House and the Senate to over-ride a veto. That probably could happen in the house, but that would mean 67 votes in the Senate. That would be impossible on this issue. So the Pipeline will not be approved.



You are most certainly correct!!  I forgot about the 2/3 majority.  That should allow a veto to stand.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Nov 18, 2014)

Twixie said:


> Well do something about it...instead of moaning..



That is what happens with most political non-issues made into issues for politcal gain.  "Mountains out of molehills!"  When your political party is not in power, you whine and moan about the other side.  Then the pendelum swings.  Whining is not a respector of Party.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> You are most certainly correct!!  I forgot about the 2/3 majority.  That should allow a veto to stand.




Yes.. Thankfully they are no where close to a veto proof majority.. You can imagine the stuff being rammed through it they were.


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Breaking news!   The pipeline vote failed in the Senate with 41 votes against.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2014)

That's probably true....corporations pay our politicians quite handsomely to screw up our tax codes, such that the corporate liability is a fraction of what they really owe.  

Still, I think this pipeline will eventually be built....it would sure be a lot safer than having thousands of railroad tanker cars traversing the nations rails every month.  One way or another this oil WILL be processed, so the sensible solution would be to find the least hazardous means to do so.


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 18, 2014)

Let's leave the petroleum HABIT behind and move on; I'm hoping to see Fusion energy production become a reality, before they drop me in the ground.    That's probably a lot to hope for...


----------



## QuickSilver (Nov 18, 2014)

Don M. said:


> That's probably true....corporations pay our politicians quite handsomely to screw up our tax codes, such that the corporate liability is a fraction of what they really owe.
> 
> Still, I think this pipeline will eventually be built....it would sure be a lot safer than having thousands of railroad tanker cars traversing the nations rails every month.  One way or another this oil WILL be processed, so the sensible solution would be to find the least hazardous means to do so.



How about let's leave the Tar Sands in the ground?


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2014)

Fusion technology would certainly be the answer to the globes electrical needs.  Lockheed recently announced a breakthrough in that arena, and perhaps in another 20 or 30 years such a power source may be practical.  For transportation purposes, the most realistic replacement for gas/diesel might be Hydrogen fuel.  The fusion energy could be used to break water down into its hydrogen/oxygen components, which would supply unlimited amounts of fuel, whose only by product would be water/steam.  The biggest hurdle then would be to add Hydrogen pumps to 175,000 gas stations all over the nation.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2014)

We could leave the Tar Sands in the ground.  We could also stop all this Fracking.  We could also mothball all the coal fired power plants.  Unfortunately, people want electricity for their homes, natural gas for their furnaces, and gas to fuel their cars, and all the trucks, etc., that bring all the products to market, and allow the farmers to grow enough food to feed us all.  

"Tree Hugging" sounds good on paper, but if the environmentalists had their way, 80% of the people on this planet would soon starve or freeze to death.  Those who were left would have to revert to a 15th century lifestyle.  The answer lies in using and advancing our technologies to create the cleanest and most sustainable means of supplying the planets energy needs.  

If I were King, I would like to see our government spending vast sums of money on renewable energy resources and infrastructure....instead of wasting 100's of billions per year on supporting welfare programs that discourage people from getting off their dead behinds, and doing something worthwhile to contribute to society.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2014)

I just saw this while browsing....

http://www.cnet.com/news/miracle-tech-turns-water-into-fuel/#ftag=YHF65cbda0

Now, THIS is the kind of stuff we are going to need if we are ever going to be able to get weaned off Fossil Fuels.


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Nov 20, 2014)

*Hyperbole from the left and POTUS.*



QuickSilver said:


> I Sure DO Ralphy!!   I'm excited about tar sands oil spilling into our major aquifer so a Canadian company can get the oil to China and make huge profits.  Heck... who cares that it will only create 35-50 permanant jobs.. and will not impact the price of gas at the pump for Americans. In fact we may even end up paying more, but who cares!!  I'm just happy to see a foreign company will benefit at the price of our environment and add to the worlds dependence of fossil fuels.




Obviously some have not read the US State Department study *that refutes pretty much all being claimed by environmentalists and POTUS*.
There are thousands of jobs  To the USA accruing from the pipeline. Billions of $$$ plus spin off dollars from peripheral businesses.
The pipeline is safer (than rail or road) according to the Federal State Dept Study.
Citing 'permanent jobs' (only) is a red herring as it suggests there is no employment benefit when the study(s) show major employment numbers in the thousands and payrolls in the billions.
*Canada's oil is unlikely to go anywhere but to the USA from the XL, since the USA is importing from off shore by ship nearly 5 million barrels of oil a day. *
The pipeline will also move USA oil from at least  2 USA States.
  Additionaly it's rather inane to suggest that with more of auantity (OIL) available prices will increase. That contradicts the law of supply and demand.
Now while opinions are fine, facts can't be changed with bellicose hyperbole.

Read the study or you really have nothing to regurgitate but tree hugging propaganda.

BTW I'm citing facts, I made none of this up.

XL pipeline State Dept. Study

http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Nov 20, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Breaking news!   The pipeline vote failed in the Senate with 41 votes against.




Yeh by one vote, but Senate numbers change in January and it might well pass then. If POTUS vetoes it he is against the majority of Republicans and Senators-Unions and business. He want's an ecological responsible (from a historical reference), regardless the impact on the economy or future oil reserves for the USA.
The USA has certainly improved reserves with shale fracking, but still import nearly 5 million barrels a day from off shore ships. Why rely on Arab -Iranian and Venezuelan oill when Canada can supply (as is the case now)?

Oil will remain an energy source for generations yet. Unless someone finds a way to convert sand to power..layful:


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Nov 20, 2014)

[]Doo[]Der said:


> Obviously some have not read the US State Department study *that refutes pretty much all being claimed by environmentalists and POTUS*.
> There are thousands of jobs To the USA accruing from the pipeline. Billions of $$$ plus spin off dollars from peripheral businesses.
> The pipeline is safer (than rail or road) according to the Federal State Dept Study.
> Citing 'permanent jobs' (only) is a red herring as it suggests there is no employment benefit when the study(s) show major employment numbers in the thousands and payrolls in the billions.
> ...



Have you read through the report you linked??  That report talks about the potential contamination of drinking water; polution of surface water; damage to water sources during construction; loss of wildlife habitat; additional impact on climate change; among other negative impacts.  It very well clarifies that 42,000 jobs may be created during the two-year construction process.  Only a tad over 1,000 of those jobs are actual construction jobs.  In the areas where the construction is ongoing, McDonalds, etc will add some minimum wage employees.  The report confirms that after the two-year construction the net job gain will be 35 full time and 15 part time jobs.  Wow!!!

I have been one of those who only sees this pipeline as being money in the Koch brothers pocket, with no risk on their part.  I still don't see how this project would benefit the average citizen of the U.S.  If TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP wants to put $1 billion in escrow to cover replanting of wildlife habitat, dredging of any lakes and streams construction runoff ends up in, and as a guarantee there will be funds for cleaning up a major spill... go for it.  Right now, TransCanada thinks they have the politics behind them to make the pipeline happen and are trying their best to push it through.


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Nov 21, 2014)

Yup, read it in its entirety. I concluded as did the study, no reason to not put the pipeline through on balance.

Fine, keep buying Arab (Saudi) and Venezuela oil by ship..5 million barrels/day coming in, remember the 
*Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Facts - Oceana*



Carrying 53 million gallons, the Exxon _Valdez oil_ tanker ran into Alaska's waters. Still environmental problems.

And yes they did study those items you referenced, but the conclusions...not sufficient to deny a pipeline when considering all the alternatives.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 17, 2015)

Another good reason to build the pipeline. It's safer and more environmental friendly than hauling oil by truck or rail.

http://centurylink.net/news/read/ar...nia_train_derailment_sends_oil_tanker_in-ap-2


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

Not gonna happen...   Not enough votes to over-ride a Presidential veto..   Better luck next time.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 17, 2015)

We will soon see.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> We will soon see.



Keep in mind that BOTH houses have to have a 2/3 majority to override a veto..  SO even if they are able to convince 5 more Senators to vote to override, they still have to convince 22 more Representatives...   not likely.    Why would those who voted against it suddenly change their minds?


----------



## Josiah (Feb 17, 2015)

At a moment when climate action is more urgent than ever, building this pipeline would be a step into a past instead of a shift into a clean energy future. Keystone XL would represent a long-term commitment to the expansion of dangerous tar sands oil when we need to be investing in safe, renewable sources of energy instead.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

Think if all that effort and money were put into Solar..   I was reading that if you look at all the rooftops in major cities, something like only 5% have solar panels.  Considering that solar panels can reduce a buildings energy requirements by 40% or more... I see it as a huge potential to decrease fossil fuel need.


----------



## Jackie22 (Feb 17, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> At a moment when climate action is more urgent than ever, building this pipeline would be a step into a past instead of a shift into a clean energy future. Keystone XL would represent a long-term commitment to the expansion of dangerous tar sands oil when we need to be investing in safe, renewable sources of energy instead.



A very good point, Josiah.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 17, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Think if all that effort and money were put into Solar..   I was reading that if you look at all the rooftops in major cities, something like only 5% have solar panels.  Considering that solar panels can reduce a buildings energy requirements by 40% or more... I see it as a huge potential to decrease fossil fuel need.



Are you sure you want this administration to invest in more solar  energy?   http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Solyndra-Scandal-Green-Energy/2015/01/30/id/621782/


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> Are you sure you want this administration to invest in more solar  energy?   http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Barack-Obama-Solyndra-Scandal-Green-Energy/2015/01/30/id/621782/



SO?   A red herring.. why bring that OLD crap up?        However..  while we are at it.. can you explain to us just WHY you would rather have a pipeline than to invest in solar and wind?  Seriously.. what is your rationale?   I mean other than Obama derangement?


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 17, 2015)

I'm not against wind and solar energy. I would also like to see improvement in other renewable energy sources. But none of these are able to supply our current energy needs. Fossil fuels are now. The oil is being shipped from Canada now. The pipeline is a safer way to ship it and would provide many much needed jobs.

Why are you against safety and jobs?


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> I'm not against wind and solar energy. I would also like to see improvement in other renewable energy sources. But none of these are able to supply our current energy needs. Fossil fuels are now. The oil is being shipped from Canada now. The pipeline is a safer way to ship it and would provide many much needed jobs.
> 
> Why are you against safety and jobs?



I'm not against safety... only against damage to our environment...  A contamination of the aquifer would be FOREVER...  Also...  I don't see the creation of 35 permanent jobs being worth that risk.  Leaving the tar sands in the ground would be best for everyone, except of course the Corporations that are looking to profit from its sale to CHINA.   

Solar and wind would provide create far more jobs than keystone could ever dream of.


----------



## []Doo[]Der (Feb 17, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> SO?   A red herring.. why bring that OLD crap up?        However..  while we are at it.. can you explain to us just WHY you would rather have a pipeline than to invest in solar and wind?  Seriously.. what is your rationale?   I mean other than Obama derangement?



Obama's the fly in the ointment attempting to build his legacy. Every study supports the pipeline.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

[]Doo[]Der said:


> Obama's the fly in the ointment attempting to build his legacy. Every study supports the pipeline.



No... Obama is NOT alone in opposing the pipeline...  You need to do a bit more research..


----------



## Don M. (Feb 17, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> Another good reason to build the pipeline. It's safer and more environmental friendly than hauling oil by truck or rail.
> 
> http://centurylink.net/news/read/ar...nia_train_derailment_sends_oil_tanker_in-ap-2



Yesterdays train wreck is just the latest in a series of rail and truck accidents that are, and will continue to be, a problem by transporting this oil via these means.  Putting all political BS aside, this oil WILL continue to be moved, and it would seem sensible to insure that it is done in the safest possible manner.  Pipelines are far safer than above ground transportation.  IF this Partisan Political BS can be shelved, perhaps some progress can be made...but that is probably wishful thinking.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 17, 2015)

I always thought too that pipelines were much safer, but to be fair, there have been explosions in the past and lives lost.  Here's just one example.  http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bruno-...-homes-safe/story?id=11628120&singlePage=true


----------



## Don M. (Feb 17, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I always thought too that pipelines were much safer, but to be fair, there have been explosions in the past and lives lost.  Here's just one example.  http://abcnews.go.com/US/san-bruno-...-homes-safe/story?id=11628120&singlePage=true



Yes, there have been several Natural GAS pipeline problems in recent years.  THAT is probably the biggest issue with pipelines.  The NG pipelines have been underground, in most locales, for decades, and they are getting old.  If not properly maintained, and even replaced, every 30 or 40 years, this is what happens.  This is another fine example of how our basic infrastructure is being ignored..until disaster strikes.  

I am firmly convinced that if our government ever really wants to get Serious about creating good jobs, Infrastructure is the BEST place to start.  Nearly all of our utilities can be traced back to the days after the Great Depression...electrical grid, dams and hydroelectric generation, water and sewer lines, etc.,etc.,....and it is ALL starting to show its age.  We are Long overdue for a major overhaul of all these basic services, and the longer they are delayed, the greater the risks for collapse.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

It depends on the definition of safe.....Check out this list...  pipelines may not create fireballs, but they destroy land and water..not to mention wildlife.    This list from wiki is just to long to copy and paste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 17, 2015)

Canada build your own refinery and not only do we not want your pipeline we don't want you trucks.  Like Josiah has stated, it's a major step back.  This whole scheme has been cooked up by the filthy wealthy to profit from their filthy sand.  I believe the wiser among us will kill this plan.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 17, 2015)

Oil train derailment in Canada...http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/16/3623379/oil-train-derails-in-canada/


----------



## AZ Jim (Feb 17, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Oil train derailment in Canada...http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/16/3623379/oil-train-derails-in-canada/



Pipeline supporters will argue that is why we need the pipeline.  My response is make the cost of transporting by train or truck high enough by tariff to more than adequately compensate for a spill.  Hopefully make it high enough to remove the incentive to move it across America.  It's not a case of we have to do this by on land transport or via pipeline.  WE CAN DO  NEITHER!


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 17, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Yes, there have been several Natural GAS pipeline problems in recent years.  THAT is probably the biggest issue with pipelines.



Sorry, my mistake, here's a couple of oil pipeline accidents.



2010 (July 25) Crude oil pipeline ruptures near Marshall, Michigan, spilling over 840,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River [SUP][31][/SUP] [SUP][32][/SUP]
2013 (29 March) ExxonMobil pipeline carrying Canadian Wabasca heavy crude from the Athabasca oil sands ruptured in Mayflower, Arkansas, about 25 miles northwest of Little Rock. Approximately 12,000 barrels (1,900 m3) of oil mixed with water had been recovered by March 31. Twenty-two homes were evacuated.[1] 
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified the leak as a major spill. A reported 5,000−7,000 barrels of crude were released. [SUP][39][/SUP]


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

How about the recent spill of millions of gallons into the Yellowstone River??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/19/yellowstone-river-pipeline-spill_n_6497762.html


----------



## Don M. (Feb 17, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Sorry, my mistake, here's a couple of oil pipeline accidents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup, no doubt about it...moving this oil around is a risky business, and there is NO perfectly safe way to do so.  However, so long as people have to depend upon their cars for transportation, and natural gas/heating oil to heat their homes, we are stuck with this stuff.  All we can do is insist that those involved in the oil/gas supply business use the safest means possible to supply this commodity, and demand that our government monitor their actions closely so as to keep them from taking "shortcuts".


----------



## Don M. (Feb 17, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> How about the recent spill of millions of gallons into the Yellowstone River??
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/19/yellowstone-river-pipeline-spill_n_6497762.html



"Millions of gallons"....The article you referenced states that somewhere between 300 and 50,000 gallons were spilled...depending upon the Company or State estimates.  Either way, that is a FAR CRY from "Millions".  I can understand your objection to moving this oil, but Exaggeration does not serve to help make your point.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Feb 17, 2015)

Don M. said:


> All we can do is insist that those involved in the oil/gas supply business use the safest means possible to supply this commodity, and demand that our government monitor their actions closely so as to keep them from taking "shortcuts".



I agree, they should be more proactive than reactive.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 17, 2015)

Don M. said:


> "Millions of gallons"....The article you referenced states that somewhere between 300 and 50,000 gallons were spilled...depending upon the Company or State estimates.  Either way, that is a FAR CRY from "Millions".  I can understand your objection to moving this oil, but Exaggeration does not serve to help make your point.



well... it wasn't intentional.... So... only 50,000 gallons... 

Although...  The exaggeration is not unlike the MILLIONS of jobs the keystone is likely to create


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 6, 2015)

And another spill near the Mississippi River. 103 cars full of oil. I guess cleaning up the mess is what the president considers a better way to add jobs than building a pipeline.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-in-illinois.html?_r=0


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

Hey.... how'd that veto override go??  lol!!

It was TWO cars that burned... not 103..



> The derailment occurred 3 miles south of Galena in a wooded and hilly area that is a major tourist attraction and the home of former President Ulysses S. Grant. The Jo Daviess County Sheriff’s Department confirmed the train was transporting oil from the Northern Plains’ Bakken region.
> Earlier in the day, Moran said 8 tankers had left the track. But Williams said at the news conference that only six cars derailed, two of which burst into flames and continued to burn into the night.



http://www.ibusinesslines.com/freig...rails-catches-fire-in-northern-illinois-16971

So what clean up?    Anyway... that's a bad thing to happen... ALL the more reason to STOP using so much fossil fuel and to develop green alternatives.. Lots of jobs to be created in that industry..


----------



## Don M. (Mar 6, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> And another spill near the Mississippi River. 103 cars full of oil. I guess cleaning up the mess is what the president considers a better way to add jobs than building a pipeline.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/train-carrying-crude-oil-derails-in-illinois.html?_r=0



So long as we have this oil being moved by rail and truck, these kinds of incidents will be occur.  Unfortunately, this issue has become just another "political football"...both in Congress, and among many of our people.  It is more about being Pro or Anti Obama, than moving this oil in the safest manner.  There is no 100% foolproof method of handing this oil, but pipelines certainly would be safer than rail.  Perhaps in 50 years, we may no longer have a need for much oil, but in the meantime, it would sure be nice to see Common Sense override Political Partisanship.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

We are living in the world of TODAY and those alternative ways are still many many years away from being useful at all.

Solar panels do not do enough to really help at all today as we still need power plants to be available for stormy or cloudy days and overnight.   Whoopy for the solar panels as the few we have did work for a few hours on good days.   Even down here in sunny land the don't work every day.   And for one power company of southern California they built a large solar panel field here in Arizona for some reason.   I would think southern California would be one of the countries better places.

Wind mills are just as inconvenient and near useless if expecting to put the regular power plants out of service.

We have many nuclear power plants in the us and they too have many problems that keep them off line a lot.   I lived near one in Colorado that had so many problems they finally, after several years, took it off line and switched to natural gas.   For a lack of a safe place to discard all these nuclear plant spent or unneeded rods, they were left inside the water tanks of the power plant.   Just another disaster left by the use of nuclear materials.   I hope the someday do fix this dangerous problem if they continue to build and use nuclear power.

Some of these dream solutions may become available and be very usefull for the US power needs, but what we have going on now are definitely not the answers.

Oil is today and it is needed to run our cars, trucks, trains, planes, military needs, personal health and comfort.    And many more things like our plastic products and materials for housing, pots and pans, windows, and on and on.   Stop the oil and we may just stop the way we live altogether.

The future will come when ever it is discovered or invented, but the future is not here yet and demands will not make it happen.

Don M, your last line says a lot.   Too much political meddling going on these day.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 6, 2015)

Alternative energy is a long way from replacing fossil fuels...even with all the advancements in recent years.  I have a Son-in-law who is an executive for a local solar power company, and they are quite busy installing commercial applications.  However, even at his cost, it would cost me thousands of dollars to get off the grid.  Wind power is good in some areas...there is a band of the nation from Nebraska through northern Texas that gets pretty steady wind, but much of the rest of the country would not be able to count on wind power reliability.  Some of the coastal regions have steady off shore winds, but efforts to put windmills in those areas have met with opposition because "it would spoil the view".  Nuclear power has the problem with spent fuel rods.  The government spent a fortune to build the Yucca Mountain storage facility in Nevada...then Harry Reid and the environmentalists killed that project.   

The ideal would probably be Nuclear Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen power for vehicles.  However, both of those methods are still in their infancy, and it will be decades before they become practical...if ever.  Nope, like it or not, we are stuck with oil, coal and natural gas for the foreseeable future, and efforts to kill those sources will just impact our lives in a negative, and expensive, fashion.  I applaud efforts to reduce consumption, and make fossil fuel a cleaner energy source, but they way some of these people talk, they would shut down all our current sources...and THEY would scream the loudest when living by candlelight and cooking over a campfire.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Alternative energy is a long way from replacing fossil fuels...even with all the advancements in recent years.  I have a Son-in-law who is an executive for a local solar power company, and they are quite busy installing commercial applications.  However, even at his cost, it would cost me thousands of dollars to get off the grid.  Wind power is good in some areas...there is a band of the nation from Nebraska through northern Texas that gets pretty steady wind, but much of the rest of the country would not be able to count on wind power reliability.  Some of the coastal regions have steady off shore winds, but efforts to put windmills in those areas have met with opposition because "it would spoil the view".  Nuclear power has the problem with spent fuel rods.  The government spent a fortune to build the Yucca Mountain storage facility in Nevada...then Harry Reid and the environmentalists killed that project.
> 
> The ideal would probably be Nuclear Fusion for electrical generation, and Hydrogen power for vehicles.  However, both of those methods are still in their infancy, and it will be decades before they become practical...if ever.  Nope, like it or not, we are stuck with oil, coal and natural gas for the foreseeable future, and efforts to kill those sources will just impact our lives in a negative, and expensive, fashion.  I applaud efforts to reduce consumption, and make fossil fuel a cleaner energy source, but they way some of these people talk, they would shut down all our current sources...and THEY would scream the loudest when living by candlelight and cooking over a campfire.



So what has any of this have to do with the keystone pipeline?  None of the oil moving thru it will be for US consumption, but will be exported to China.. and the profits will go to Canada?  In fact it may even increase the cost of gas in the States particularly in the Midwest because some of the Canadian oil currently going to Midwest refineries will be diverted to Keystone.   Seems like a pretty bad deal all the way around even before you factor in the danger to our water and environment.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 6, 2015)

"So What does this have to do with the Keystone Pipeline"????

This oil IS being moved across our nation on a daily basis.  Our refineries in Texas are set up to process this heavy crude...whereas few other places in the world have such capability.  Given that "REALITY", it is only Common Sense that this oil should be moved via the safest method...and that is NOT by rail.  I'm sure that these refineries are Not processing this oil for Free..so it is supporting some of the better paying jobs left to working people.  Even if the finished product is sold to China, or elsewhere, it is one of the few products this nation still has for export..and can only Help our international balance of payments.  Now, if this oil wasn't being processed by our refineries, and Instead, the raw product was shipped to China, to be processed by them...can you imagine the added pollution China would be producing...given how they fail to control their coal fired plants??

I doubt we will see any major increase in gas prices for the next couple of years.  If you've been keeping up with the news, the oil storage facilities in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana are almost filled to capacity, and more storage tanks are being built in Cushing, OK., to hold the huge increase in production.  Some of the "experts" are calling for oil commodity prices to drop even further as this glut continues.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 6, 2015)

The Keystone will not benefit Americans at all... It's a waste and a kow-tow to a foreign company..  I'm really glad it didn't pass.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 6, 2015)

I guess some feel we need another pipeline carrying potential deadly product.  It would greatly help Canada, an oil refiner in Texas and the Chinese, but here is what the potential is for the rest of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> The Keystone will not benefit Americans at all... It's a waste and a kow-tow to a foreign company..  I'm really glad it didn't pass.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-oil-bypasses-the-u-s-earns-four-pinocchios/

[h=3]The Facts[/h] As we have noted before, when the  president says “it bypasses the United States,” he leaves out a very  important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it  would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel  (known as a distillate fuel in the trade). Current trends suggest that  only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could  easily be lower.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 6, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> The Keystone will not benefit Americans at all... It's a waste and a kow-tow to a foreign company..  I'm really glad it didn't pass.



Only when a person is able to look at the Bigger Picture, and take All the factors into consideration, does the Keystone Pipeline begin to make sense.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I guess some feel we need another pipeline carrying potential deadly product.  It would greatly help Canada, an oil refiner in Texas and the Chinese, but here is what the potential is for the rest of us.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century



Yes, I've seen the Wikipedia reports on pipeline accidents, and there have been several.  However, in recent years, we are faced with far greater dangers by moving this goo by rail...as evidenced by this recent report....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...carrying-and-spilling-a-record-amount-of-oil/

As I've said before, there is NO 100% safe way to move these kinds of materials...however, doesn't it make sense to chose the least hazardous method???


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

Where is this about all the oil will go to China.    I have looked for that statement and have not found it yet.   

But I did find that maybe only half or less will be exported to somewhere but no name China on that statement either.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

BobF said:


> Where is this about all the oil will go to China.    I have looked for that statement and have not found it yet.
> 
> But I did find that maybe only half or less will be exported to somewhere but no name China on that statement either.



Maybe I found the source for this China bit.    It seems that if we don't build the pipeline then China will get it *ALL *from Canada.   If we do complete the pipeline, maybe half or less will go to foreign customers which would include China.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Keystone-Canada-China-oil/2014/03/24/id/561277/

[h=1]China Would Get Alberta Oil if Keystone Pipeline Blocked[/h]                            			
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 			 				The Syncrude oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta Province, Canada.         	



                                              Monday, 24 Mar 2014 09:11 AM
                      By Courtney Coren

If President Barack Obama does not approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, the  crude oil would go directly to refineries in China and other Asian  countries. 

The environmental concerns of the oil being sent to China has become a  talking point for Keystone advocates, who say there are greater  environmental risks if China refines the oil and not the United States,  which has more stringent regulations, *NBC News* reported. 

​


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 6, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Yes, I've seen the Wikipedia reports on pipeline accidents, and there have been several.  However, in recent years, we are faced with far greater dangers by moving this goo by rail...as evidenced by this recent report....
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...carrying-and-spilling-a-record-amount-of-oil/
> 
> As I've said before, there is NO 100% safe way to move these kinds of materials...however, doesn't it make sense to chose the least hazardous method???



Who said it's the least hazardous?


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Who said it's the least hazardous?



Everyone with any sense says the pipeline is the least hazardous way to ship it.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 6, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> Everyone with any sense says the pipeline is the least hazardous way to ship it.



So, it's just your opinion, not fact.  I see.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 6, 2015)

I love my country dearly, but all I can say regarding the Eco terrorism practiced in Alberta, and the pipeline our prime minister,(for the moment at least), is throwing at us is: not in my name! Here on the left coast, the battle lines are already drawn, we will fight this atrocity in the courts, and if that fails, we will resort to civil disobedience. This battle has drawn together First People's, and other like-minded individuals, cutting across age and cultural divides. Pipeline, over my dead, or incarcerated body!


----------



## Misty (Mar 6, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Who said it's the least hazardous?


The U.S. Department of Transportation said the pipeline is the safest way to transport oil, Jim.


What can you tell me about our nation's pipelines?The  nation's pipelines are a transportation system. Pipelines enable the  safe movement of extraordinary quantities of energy products to industry  and consumers, literally fueling our economy and way of life. The  arteries of the Nation's energy infrastructure, as well as one of the  safest and least costly ways to transport energy products, our oil and  gas pipelines provide the resources needed for national defense, heat  and cool our homes, generate power for business and fuel an unparalleled  transportation system.

The nation's more than 2.6 million miles of pipelines safely deliver  trillions of cubic feet of natural gas and hundreds of billions of  ton/miles of liquid petroleum products each year. They are essential:  the volumes of energy products they move are well beyond the capacity of  other forms of transportation. It would take a constant line of tanker  trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes,  24 hours a day, seven days a week, to move the volume of even a modest  pipeline. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a  train of 75 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday.

Pipeline systems are the safest means to move these products. The  federal government rededicated itself to pipeline safety in 2006 when  the PIPES Act was signed. It mandates new methods and makes commitments  for new technologies to manage the integrity of the nation's pipelines  and raise the bar on pipeline safety.

http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/portal/sit...ac010VgnVCM1000008049a8c0RCRD&vgnextfmt=print


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 6, 2015)

I agree Misty, it seems like it's the safest way to move it, I'm still in favor of the pipeline.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

The thing that gets it all confusing is that it is only part of the pipeline as much of it is already in the ground and being used.   Fighting over the newest section seems to be a waste of time.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 6, 2015)

No fight and there will be no pipeline.


----------



## BobF (Mar 6, 2015)

It is already mostly in, over 60% is my guess, so to fight the extension makes no sense at all.   Let the job finish or watch our future years fuel go to other countries.


----------



## rkunsaw (Mar 7, 2015)




----------



## BobF (Mar 7, 2015)

It is really hard to believe that one of our PERFECTIONIST types would do such a thing as this.   But then, how do these folks become so rich in the first place?   Not with generosity or fairness for sure.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 7, 2015)

It wouldn't surprise me a bit that "someone" in Washington is being paid off handsomely to quash this pipeline.  After all, Nothing happens in Washington that isn't the Dictate of some Big Money interest.  Environmental concerns about this pipeline are just some "Spin" to make some of our people Think that Washington really cares.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 7, 2015)

Hey Jim... do you remember where I put that roll of tin foil??   lol!!


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 7, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Hey Jim... do you remember where I put that roll of tin foil??   lol!!



I'll find it, I think there was enough left to outfit our conspiracy friends.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 7, 2015)

All this talk about how much is completed, but NONE of the proposed Northern pipe is constructed in the USA and I don't think it will be.


----------



## BobF (Mar 7, 2015)

You must be speaking only of the newest planned part of the pipeline as we have pipes from well down in Oklahoma all the way up into Canada in Saskatchewan.    The only part that is missing is the latest proposal from Kansas to Saskatchewan.  All the complaints the government had demanded have been done.   So now it looks like just a bull headed stopping with no justification in place.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 7, 2015)

BobF said:


> You must be speaking only of the newest planned part of the pipeline as we have pipes from well down in Oklahoma all the way up into Canada in Saskatchewan.    The only part that is missing is the latest proposal from Kansas to Saskatchewan.  All the complaints the government had demanded have been done.   So now it looks like just a bull headed stopping with no justification in place.



Yes Bob... People are against the pipeline just BECAUSE... and for no reason... because  well... Why not?    Give me a break..


----------



## BobF (Mar 7, 2015)

Maybe when Obama is gone we will have once again a Constitutional government and we will once again be a progressing nation and working to pay off these extra 12 trillion dollars of debt for nothing showing worth that much.   Then too, maybe this unproven cleanup need will fade away again as it has in many countries.   The UN group that never could prove the need for all this cleanup is still wondering what is going on but they keep preaching all their nasty lies.   Only poorly educated and unwilling to learn folks really believe in all the nonsense we are supposed to believe and do for those politicians that are only working for control.   Nothing more, control is all they want.   Unfortunately they have far too many that do believe their lies.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 7, 2015)

:yawning:


----------



## BobF (Mar 8, 2015)

Why do facts make you so yawning tired and sleepy?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> Why do facts make you so yawning tired and sleepy?



Facts don't.... but partisan nonsense regurgitated over and over and over does..  Particularly FAUX news propaganda


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 8, 2015)

I know why we don't want that pipeline, but why does ANYONE want it?  It can't be the few jobs temporarily created.  Is it just because the President doesn't want it?  Puzzled, but I suspect the latter to be the answer.


----------



## BobF (Mar 8, 2015)

All you post is partisan nonsense, not me.   I am posting ideas not twisted by the group you so love with no knowledge of other facts that are more true and not so twisted.

Some facts from the past.   From several years past we have a weather report that could have been this years weather report.   No changes at all.    Then some conversations from Australia where it was stated that even the IPCC did not think there really was global warming.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/08/wheres_global_warming/


Where's global warming?
By Jeff Jacoby
Globe Columnist / March 8, 2009  


<Clip>


The United States has shivered through an unusually severe winter, with snow falling in such unlikely destinations as New Orleans, Las Vegas, Alabama, and Georgia. On Dec. 25, every Canadian province woke up to a white Christmas, something that hadn't happened in 37 years. Earlier this year, Europe was gripped by such a killing cold wave that trains were shut down in the French Riviera and chimpanzees in the Rome Zoo had to be plied with hot tea. Last week, satellite data showed three of the Great Lakes - Erie, Superior, and Huron - almost completely frozen over. In Washington, D.C., what was supposed to be a massive rally against global warming was upstaged by the heaviest snowfall of the season, which paralyzed the capital.


<Clip>
....................................


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html




Climate facts to warm to


Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008  


CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.


Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"


She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."


Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"


Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant." 
.......................
Now for some current reports.    Start with Nov 2014.

http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/



[h=1]New Reports: There Is No Global Warming[/h]                            			 			 				         	                     
                                              Saturday, 07 Mar 2015 12:06 PM



The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.  

They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”  

Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear  gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform,  more policy, more money to combat climate change.  But how much has the  world really warmed?

Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.

But how much has the world really warmed?

It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22  billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it  spends protecting our border). 

To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives. 
[h=2]But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.[/h] 
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global  warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every  year.

That's _three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit_.

So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?

Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.

According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world  has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they  started measuring the data in 1979).



Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, _we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING_!

As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years. 



Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North  Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA  actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.

In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming  initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice  cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as  little as seven years. _Seven years from now._”

Al Gore could not have been more wrong. 



However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not  increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing. 

For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of  scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John  Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate. 

The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97%  of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem  is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught  Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”

Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start. 

A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .



Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the  Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states,  “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the  moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”
Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global  warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused  warming.
Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).
 
It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to  ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting  warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.

Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on  global warming initiatives, and where is the money going? (Click Here to Read a Controversial Report on This Topic.)

*Suggested Reading for You: *A  former White House adviser and NASA consultant reveals startling proof  that the global warming faction is hiding the truth . . . and gets  attacked. *Click Here. *

                       © 2015 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.         

​​​


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 8, 2015)

An opinion on the long running arguments of both sides on the pipeline, I have to agree with this guy.  http://www.elgincourier.com/opinion/article_2b7a5900-c13b-11e4-b28a-132b3f8f96fa.html

"There’s a U.S. State Department review of the project expected to be released in the coming months that may change things. However, after listening to the exact same arguments for more than seven years now, I don’t think anyone is going to be swayed one way or another unless someone, on either side, comes up with a better argument."


----------



## BobF (Mar 8, 2015)

My last post became too long so I start this one about IPCC and their February 2015 meeting.

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/p41/P41_closing_press_release.pdf


*IPCC PRESS RELEASE

**27 February 2015

NAIROBI, Feb 27 – (skip on to the following - pg 3)

The IPCC does not do its own research, conduct climate measurements or produce its own climate 

models; it assesses the thousands of scientific papers published each year to tell policymakers what we know and don’t know about the risks  related  to  climate  change, and identifies where  there  is agreement  in the scientific  community,  where there  are  differences,  and  where further  research is needed.


Thus the IPCC offers policymakers a snapshot of what the scientific community understands about climate  change  rather  than  promoting  a  particular  view.  IPCC  reports  are  policy-relevant  without being policy-prescriptive. The IPCC may set out options for policymakers to choose from in pursuit of goals decided by policymakers, but it does not tell governments what to do.
.....................
*To me, this says they are only reporter of what some scientist are saying.   They have no authority to tell us what to do.   So for many to keep using IPCC comments as commands is wrong.   Far too many scientist disagree with these scientist focused on trying to prove global warming is really happening.   So far there are no proofs of their goal at all.   It is all part of a political tool to control the masses.
*
*


----------



## BobF (Mar 8, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> An opinion on the long running arguments of both sides on the pipeline, I have to agree with this guy.  http://www.elgincourier.com/opinion/article_2b7a5900-c13b-11e4-b28a-132b3f8f96fa.html
> 
> "There’s a U.S. State Department review of the project expected to be released in the coming months that may change things. However, after listening to the exact same arguments for more than seven years now, I don’t think anyone is going to be swayed one way or another unless someone, on either side, comes up with a better argument."



He speaks a pretty good discussion.   But one that too many make is the idea that only 50 people will be need to keep it going once the pipe is in.   There will be many more than that required as each pump station will need some available watchers and fixers to make sure the product keeps moving and any repairs get planned and done.   There are many such pumping stations along the path of these pipes.   Also need folks to maintain these structures and keep records of product moved, from and to, and others for any possible leak or spill problems.   Certainly a lot more that 50 folks needed.   It will be interesting to see this report when it releases.

Canada has also threatened to stop the flow to the US and allow other countries to take the oil, big name was China.   Right now I would think all those destructive actions going on in the Arab nations is a threat to any oil we might want from there.   Scarcity means very high prices could be soon.   We should try to keep our supply close by and ready for use.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 8, 2015)

I can see BobF is determined to win something here with his long winded rant but for the life of me I don't know what.  There will be no pipeline. So, at least as I see it BobF is F'd.


----------



## BobF (Mar 8, 2015)

Time will tell.   I see nothing wrong with having the pipeline, especially since most is already in place.  And that too was mentioned plus other pipes all ready installed by the author of the posted article.   Any comments other than NO?

My long winded rant was about all this IPCC clean stuff that is not needed either.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 8, 2015)

BobF said:


> Time will tell.   I see nothing wrong with having the pipeline, especially since most is already in place.  And that too was mentioned plus other pipes all ready installed by the author of the posted article.   Any comments other than NO?
> 
> My long winded rant was about all this IPCC clean stuff that is not needed either.



Not MOST, some.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 8, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I know why we don't want that pipeline, but why does ANYONE want it?  It can't be the few jobs temporarily created.  Is it just because the President doesn't want it?  Puzzled, but I suspect the latter to be the answer.



Putting aside all Partisan Political points, there is a good reason to complete this pipeline.  Presently, this oil IS being moved, but in a rather dangerous fashion....by large numbers of rail cars daily.  The number of rail accidents is on the increase, and it is just a question of time before a major wreck occurs while one of these trains is traveling through a populated area...with a potential for major destruction, and possibly loss of lives.  Pipelines are Not a perfect answer, but regulations passed in recent years, and improved methods of construction make them a far safer option.  

It would be nice if we could magically find a practical and affordable option to fossil fuels...but that is Way Off in the future.  Of primary importance, at this point, should be how to move this product in the safest manner...and it WILL be moved.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 8, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Putting aside all Partisan Political points, there is a good reason to complete this pipeline.  Presently, this oil IS being moved, but in a rather dangerous fashion....by large numbers of rail cars daily.  The number of rail accidents is on the increase, and it is just a question of time before a major wreck occurs while one of these trains is traveling through a populated area...with a potential for major destruction, and possibly loss of lives.  Pipelines are Not a perfect answer, but regulations passed in recent years, and improved methods of construction make them a far safer option.
> 
> It would be nice if we could magically find a practical and affordable option to fossil fuels...but that is Way Off in the future.  Of primary importance, at this point, should be how to move this product in the safest manner...and it WILL be moved.



I agree with everything you've said Don.  I'm not against everything the President wants at all, but this is one of those things that I would like to see some flexibility on.  It will be safer than rail, it is a project that's already started, and there will be some economic benefits, although not the exaggerated figures we've been hearing in the pro and con arguments.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 8, 2015)

Safety should be the Highest Priority when moving any hazardous materials around the nation.  When Partisan Politics takes control, it increases the risk of serious damages.  

Lenin said it best, years ago, when he said there would be no need to ever invade the U.S., as this nation will eventually "Rot From Within".  It seems that our political extremists, both on the Left and Right, are determined to prove him correct.


----------



## lovemylittleboy (Mar 8, 2015)

I think we should use our own resources. There is so much here. Why depend on the other countries when we have our own?


----------



## BobF (Mar 9, 2015)

I certainly do agree with that comment, use our own, especially when so much of the Arab stuff is either shut down or could be shut down.


----------



## lovemylittleboy (Mar 9, 2015)

Thank You.  It has been found that we have enough of our own supply to last for generations .


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 9, 2015)

lovemylittleboy said:


> Thank You.  It has been found that we have enough of our own supply to last for generations .



Yeah... no matter what it does to the environment or how it destroys the air we breathe and the water we drink.  Too bad we won't be around for generations to use it all up.


----------



## Debby (Mar 9, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Putting aside all Partisan Political points, there is a good reason to complete this pipeline.  Presently, this oil IS being moved, but in a rather dangerous fashion....by large numbers of rail cars daily.  The number of rail accidents is on the increase, and *it is just a question of time before a major wreck occurs while one of these trains is traveling through a populated area...with a potential for major destruction, and possibly loss of lives.*  Pipelines are Not a perfect answer, but regulations passed in recent years, and improved methods of construction make them a far safer option.
> 
> It would be nice if we could magically find a practical and affordable option to fossil fuels...but that is Way Off in the future.  Of primary importance, at this point, should be how to move this product in the safest manner...and it WILL be moved.




Well actually a major accident did occur.  47 people were incinerated in Lac Megantic, Quebec when a train hauling crude oil derailed and exploded in town.  And in the last month there have been two derailments (with crude in the cargo and resulting in explosions and fires) in Ontario.

I think that the major concern from environmentalists regarding the Keystone pipeline is that the improvements to shipping will be a huge encouragement to the oil companies to expand and destroy further land.  Alberta just recently sold leases to a company or two for land which happens to be in the middle of the forest caribou calving grounds of Northern Alberta.  Those animals by the way are in danger of disappearing as a result of current developments in the region.  And while that concern involves an endangered species, there is also a concern by all the citizens who live downstream and down wind of the regions where the tar is being dug out of the ground.

There is no good answer when you're talking pipelines and trains and oil.

But I watched a documentary yesterday called Pandora's Promise and it was about four or five known and top level environmentalists who've made a complete 180 on the issue of nuclear power and after watching it, I think that is the answer to getting away from these planet destroying products fossil fuels.  Mind you, in the meantime, I think it is critical to get the rail that is used for transport up to snuff regarding the safety of the tanker cars and whatever valves and such that are part of that picture.  Big changes take lots of time, but we could manage the little ones (like better tanks/valves, etc) right away.


----------



## lovemylittleboy (Mar 9, 2015)

So is this a comment not agreeing to supply our own? If the government wouldn't cut corners on everything or let companies cut corners and handle things correctly and safely there would be no issues with the environment, not from part anyway.  Creating jobs would be a very good thing for us.


----------



## Debby (Mar 10, 2015)

BobF said:


> I certainly do agree with that comment, use our own, especially when so much of the Arab stuff is either shut down or could be shut down.




With this thread being about a pipeline that was hoped to connect Northern Alberta with the Gulf of Mexico refineries, I can't help but wonder about the 'use our own' context in a couple of comments here.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 10, 2015)

Debby said:


> With this thread being about a pipeline that was hoped to connect Northern Alberta with the Gulf of Mexico refineries, I can't help but wonder about the 'use our own' context in a couple of comments here.



Well you know... Some Americans believe we "own" everything.. lol!!   No...  It's simply the uniformed voicing an opinion based on misinformation.. NO.. we do not own the Canadian oil... Yes.. It is crossing over our land and aquifer to go to a Gulf refinery... AND NO it is not for use in the USA so will do ZERO to add to our gas supply.  That oil is all destined to be exported to the world market.  In fact it will increase gas prices in the Midwest as keystone will divert oil from that area.  A pretty high price for 35 permanent jobs I'd say.


----------



## BobF (Mar 10, 2015)

Definitely an incorrect answer.   One of our earlier posters did say that after crossing the US north to south that it went into a refinery and half would be US market and half would be overseas market.  

More that 35 jobs being created across the US.   That too was a false number that some that want to put down the build would use.   Much as the overall pipelines are done already as about 60% are already in the ground and what is being proposed is the Alberta to Kansas  City.   Go back to page  6 and look at the map yourself.

What would the US own, is all the payroll this job can produce, all the payroll the refineries can produce, all the payrolls this oil can produce when put on trucks and ships for distribution to other areas.   We would also own any and all taxes paid for the wages and the refineries efforts.   There is lots to own for the individuals and workers and government of the US.


----------



## Debby (Mar 10, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Well you know... Some Americans believe we "own" everything.. lol!!   No...  It's simply the uniformed voicing an opinion based on misinformation.. NO.. we do not own the Canadian oil... Yes.. It is crossing over our land and aquifer to go to a Gulf refinery... AND NO it is not for use in the USA so will do ZERO to add to our gas supply.  That oil is all destined to be exported to the world market.  In fact it will increase gas prices in the Midwest as keystone will divert oil from that area.  A pretty high price for 35 permanent jobs I'd say.




Thanks for clarifying QuickSilver.  I just wonder about the thinking of people when they refer to it as 'their' oil when they are Americans and the tar comes out of Alberta.  But then again, my own mom, has often made reference to things that go on in American politics, with the question, 'how could they do this to us'.  I don't know what she's thinking when she's saying that either. (and she isn't talking about foreign affairs in the context of American foreign relations affect the world/Canada, as I do.  She's too often talking about your national issues as though she's forgotten there's a border between us).  I guess sometimes it's easy for the lines to get blurred.


----------



## lovemylittleboy (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't believe "our own" was meant to be taken as owning it. "Our Own" simply means we have resources right here in the US to have enough oil for generations. There is an abundant supply that was discovered in Nebraska  and other places. It is all just a bunch of who- ha politics that is sending this country to hell in a hand basket.  God supplied everyone with the resources...it is up to the people, that is the government,  to use them correctly and without greed..... It is quite amazing to see the Bible unfold.


----------



## BobF (Mar 10, 2015)

Another way to look at it is when Canada, or their industries, trust the US to handle their products that means we own that product till transported or processed and then delivered.   We, the US, have a responsibility to own that product till delivered.   Rather have us be the owners than to see China or other hate the US countries become the owners.   Supplies right next door so we naturally do get first chance to become the owners whether we bought the product or just agreed to transport it across the border and southward.

I am surprised the western Europe countries have not discovered some of the more modern ways of finding and developing oil products or sources.   It seems that Russia has done well, why not others?     Same questions for Africa and South America.


----------



## Debby (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm not sure that all the corporations that are digging the tar out of the ground are actually Canadian.  I believe Shell is Dutch, Statoil is Norwegian and Total is French and I believe there was a Chinese company there and of course, whatever the Koch Bros. company is called, is there too.  And then there is also Suncor which is Canadian, but  I don't think it's (mostly) our industries that are up there working and that includes the support services.  I know there was a Texas company that had a division in the area that was building the trailers and such that are being used in the 'camps' although I believe they laid off a bunch of people when the Saudi's decided to destroy the world's oil producers by overproducing and driving the price down.   As for the oil producers specifically, I'm not positive but I think those foreign companies pay  royalties to the Canadian government as they pull resources out of our land so it isn't accurate to say that we are 'trusting the US to handle our products'.  Foreign corporations have 'bought' the resource and their business process is to remove it from our land.

And the reason that the oil companies want the pipeline is because it reduces the cost of shipping from $25 per barrel down to $9 so the push for the pipeline really has little to do with safety (rail vs. pipeline) so much as it relates to their bottom line.  

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-...ulling-plug-their-projects-albertas-tar-sands


----------



## lovemylittleboy (Mar 10, 2015)

Amen! Thank you!:iagree:


----------



## BobF (Mar 10, 2015)

Interesting read.   I did not know that oil companies had started to shut down.   But with the Arabian countries having so many problems, then it might just be restarted soon.   I hope that soon the pipeline gets authorized, our Congress with both parties wanting the pipeline would like to see the vote again.   This last vote was pretty close to winning, but it did not.   Too much of the current voting is pure political and not for just reasons.   Political is not a just reason.    So if this Arab uprising continues the oil problem may increase.   Already the gas prices at the pumps are going up again.   Trains and trucks are not the answer to moving this oil.


----------



## Debby (Mar 11, 2015)

How soon the price of oil goes back up (which would encourage oil company's to begin working again) is apparently up to OPEC.   And it seems to me that as long as the EAU, Saudi Arabia and all the rest of the group can continue to pump oil, which they are doing, the state of the ME, bad as it is, doesn't seem to be any kind of catalyst for the price of oil going back up.

And the closing of this article by the BBC:  http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30212365   the author refers to a comment by The New York Times columnist, Tom Friedman, where Friedman asks, "Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war under way pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?"   He wonders whether the US and Saudi Arabia are trying to do what he says they did before to Soviet leaders: "pump them to death".    So maybe the question is will 'they' give up first or will Russia and Iran blink?  Or the unlikely possibility of both sides deciding to cooperate?   A great big "Ha!" to that one.

As for the pipeline, so many motivations at work and so many variables, but somehow I think in the end, it will get done (my guess for what a guess is worth), but you're right there will be ample 'politics' involved.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 11, 2015)

The biggest "side effect" from these oil prices may be the Russian Economy.  Oil is about the Only thing Russia has to export, and it needs oil in the $80+ a barrel price range for its economy to remain fairly stable.  The Ruble is falling, and the Russian economy is very close to going into recession.  Couple that with the Russian leader, Putin, who is coming under increasing pressure...especially with his "adventure" in the Ukraine, which is siphoning off even more money from the Russian economy, and Russia could become very unstable in the near future, if these oil prices continue to stay low.  Putin is a "wild card" and no telling what he might do if he feels his "reign" is threatened.  

Iran is another powder keg, with these low prices.  That extremist regime has pledged support to many of these Middle East terrorist organizations, and is a constant threat to Israel.  If Iran decides to use Israel as an excuse, all Hell could break loose over there, and we would be dragged right into the middle of it. 

At least, we are very close to not needing any oil from Russia, the Middle East, or places like Venezuela, but much of Europe and Asia must still depend upon those sources. 

The Keystone Pipeline, or something very similar, Will eventually be built...it's just a question of when the nations energy needs, and the profits of the oil companies finally overcomes politics.


----------



## BobF (Mar 11, 2015)

Gas here in southern Arizona had fallen to less than $2, like about $1.90.   A couple weeks later and it is now, two days ago, at about $2.20 for mid grade.   Next gas I will look again and likely find it at $2.40 per gallon or even maybe much more.   I really can not see it staying as low as it was last week and the week before.   The only problem we have with not having the pipeline being built is the White House.   The gas companies would like it.   The unions say yes, they want more work for their members.   Likely many safety folks would like to have fewer kiled or injured in train wrecks and truck wrecks.   Only the White House wants no more pipelines built.   Where were they over the last several years as pipelines were being built to transport oil?


----------



## Debby (Mar 12, 2015)

Don M. said:


> The biggest "side effect" from these oil prices may be the Russian Economy. Oil is about the Only thing Russia has to export, and it needs oil in the $80+ a barrel price range for its economy to remain fairly stable. The Ruble is falling, and the Russian economy is very close to going into recession. Couple that with the Russian leader, Putin, who is coming under increasing pressure...especially with his "adventure" in the Ukraine, which is siphoning off even more money from the Russian economy, and Russia could become very unstable in the near future, if these oil prices continue to stay low. Putin is a "wild card" and no telling what he might do if he feels his "reign" is threatened.
> 
> Iran is another powder keg, with these low prices. That extremist regime has pledged support to many of these Middle East terrorist organizations, and is a constant threat to Israel. If Iran decides to use Israel as an excuse, all Hell could break loose over there, and we would be dragged right into the middle of it.
> 
> ...




With regards to Russia and Putin, you and I both see the exact things going on, but my perspective on it is very different than yours and it's this.  If another country was threatening my country the same way that Russia is being threatened, I would want my government to not just sell out and 'bend over' and I dare say if your country was being threatened in the same way, you'd want your government to be strong and to encourage and seek adjustments in how tax money is being allocated to keep things going as much as possible.  And you wouldn't want your government to get all mealy mouthed and suck up to your aggressor but would hope that your government would speak strongly and with confidence.  And all these things Putin does......and the average person and most governments 'spin' it to make him look like a bad leader, a despot.....
From the reading that I've done, he's confident, he's smart, he's a workaholic and he works 'quietly' and without a lot of fanfare, and he understands people and he's not afraid.  He also loves Russia and his intention is to protect Russia now and for the future.  All attributes that you would want from your government.

It also seems to me that taking Iran to task for 'support of terrorist organizations' is a little bit of the American pot calling the kettle black when you consider how much in American tax dollars has been sent to terrorists (over many years) in Afghanistan, now Syria, Libya and Ukraine. 

I do agree that eventually the pipeline will be built and the 'slowness' of that approval is mainly about politics vs. the bottom line and the safety factor is only being touted by the pro camp as it lends a little more weight to their argument, but they don't really care so much about that.  $25.00 a barrel vs. $9.00 a barrel - big incentive especially if oil prices remain low for a while.  A big help as those companies try to survive.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 6, 2015)

Another crude oil train derailment, fire and evacuation in North Dakota.  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/06/3655595/north-dakota-oil-train-derailment-fire/



> A town in North Dakota was evacuated Wednesday after an oil train derailed and caught fire.
> 
> The BNSF Railway train went off the tracks Wednesday morning about two miles from the town of Heimdal, North Dakota. The derailment forced approximately 35 people to leave the town, but officials say there’s been no injuries. Ten out of the 109 cars on the train caught fire, but officials did not yet know as of Wednesday afternoon if the cars had exploded or were simply burning. Fire crews had been called in to try to contain the blaze.
> 
> ...


----------



## Josiah (May 6, 2015)

Let's let Canada keep its tar preferably in the ground. The future is with solar and for Canada hydroelectric.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 6, 2015)

I agree Josiah, the future is in solar and other alternatives, but that won't happen overnight.  I think in the meantime, a pipeline is much better than transport by rail.


----------



## Don M. (May 6, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree Josiah, the future is in solar and other alternatives, but that won't happen overnight.  I think in the meantime, a pipeline is much better than transport by rail.



Perhaps in 50 years, we won't have much need for huge quantities of oil products....but for now, we are stuck with that goo.  Moving this stuff by rail...especially on our aged rail lines....is just asking for trouble.  One day, one of these trains is going to derail in a populated area, and the damage will be huge.  Pipelines aren't perfect, but they are much better than moving this stuff by rail or truck.


----------



## Warrigal (May 6, 2015)

It's funny how people can see the damage done by one rail derailment but cannot see the much greater damage caused by warming up the planet.
The coal and oil needs to stay exactly where it belongs - in the ground.


----------

