XL Pipeline

[collegegirlforyou]

Just wanted to offer a different point of view on this thread. Not trying to get anyone upset or grumpy so if you disagree don't be ugly in replying as is common when discussing matters with political beliefs embedded in them.

OK, and with that disclaimer clearly stated I will begin point by point.

1. The number of jobs created whether it be 13,000 or 5-6,00 is only regarding the actual construction of the pipeline. It does not include the "spin off" jobs created by more business for local good and service providers. It does not include the maintaining and supply distribution jobs that would come along as well. However, i will concede that it is an immeasurable number and can't be used in a practical argument whether for or against, but nonetheless is something to keep in mind.

2. Environmental impact. This particular issue is more difficult to address as most people are prone to believe that the EPA, State Department, White house and so on actually have an understanding of what environmental precautions are favorable for the overall national interest. So I'm going to break it off into sub-categories to get my point across in a clear easy to read manner.

2. A. Yes there is no 100% safe way to transport, drill or even work with crude oil, oil sands, or refined oil. There will be leaks and problems to over come and it should be the responsibility of the oil companies and the oil managing companies to limit the amount of problems and to pay for everything that happens in the result of a spill or leak. Keeping in mind that any fines or penalty fees that are levied against the company by the American government are ineffective as it will just cause the company to just adjust the prices of their product so to pass it on to the consumer. It's a sneaky way of the government getting more of our money while "looking after our best interests".

2. B. The environmental movement is fueled by their desire to stop the production and use of fossil fuels thus replacing them with green renewable energy sources. Sounds nice, but they seem to only look at the problems associated with fossil fuel and ignore the problems with their green energy ideologies.
WIND POWER: Wind power poses several major dilemmas. First, wind remains uneconomic despite heavy subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers over the last two decades. Second, from an environmental viewpoint, wind farms are noisy, land intensive, unsightly, and hazardous to birds, including endangered species. With the National Audubon Society calling for a moratorium on new wind development in bird-sensitive areas, and an impending electricity industry restructuring that could force all generation resources to compete on a marginal cost basis, wind power is a problematic choice for future electricity generation without a new round of government subsidies and preferences.
SOLAR POWER: Solar power, at least when relied on for central-station or grid electricity generation, is not environmentally benign on a total fuel cycle basis and is highly uneconomic, land intensive, and thus a fringe electric power source for the foreseeable future.
HYDRO POWER: Hydropower has lost favor with environmentalists because of the damage it has done to river habitats and freshwater fish populations
GEOTHERMAL: Geothermal has turned out to be "depletable," with limited capacity, falling output, and modest new investment.
BIOMASS: Biomass is also uneconomic and an air-pollution-intensive renewable.

The above info concerning green energy was provided in: Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green" by Robert L. Bradley Jr
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, the author of the two-volume Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S. Experience, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.

2. C. With the above stated it can be concluded that unless we all want to pursue an Amish lifestyle there is no pretty way to supply the energy we consume. It's one of those things that can be compared to a person wanting a steak but not wanting to see the cow killed and butchered.....hmmm...now i'm craving steak. The United States is broke and cannot waste anymore time or money pursuing the wet dreams of Al Gore and Eco-nuts. We need jobs and we need energy, more importantly we needs lots and lots and lots of OIL!

3. It's not really fair showing screen shots of Fox News blaming Obama unless you want to talk about the canonization he receives by MSNBC (Obama's very own Media Political Action Committee, lol.), CNN, New York Times, and just about every other media source. OK, so they blamed Obama. If you don't wanna hear or see such atrocities there are oodles of other media outlets that will praise him for his achievements, progress, and whatever else they can paint a pretty picture of. Who knows if he gets re-elected he may even get a Nobel prize....oh wait he already got one in record time. LOL Talk about bias.

Any ways that's my two cents. Very good subject to discuss. None of what i wrote was to be condescending I just wanted to make sure my views and opinions were expressed in a manner that would not get confused or misread Take care all!!!! Sorry for any typos! I was trying to rush through it.

P.S. Go Patriots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Likinikki]

The whole thing is frustrating, because once again, US POLITICS gets in the way of progress! We know there are environmental concerns, and it's hard to claim that oil sands are environmentally benign, but at least Canada’s government, industry, and environmentalists are working TOGETHER to go forward!

Obama says they need more time? It's been MORE THAN THREE YEARS since the application was filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline! How much more time does he need?

The economic impact is tremendous! Studies project that more than 100,000 jobs could be created over the life of the project...which includes an estimated 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing.

Projections over the life of the project...$20.931 billion in total spending...$9.605 billion in output...118,935 person-years of employment.

So, go figure why Obama wants to wait!

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by collegegirlforyou

Just wanted to offer a different point of view on this thread. Not trying to get anyone upset or grumpy so if you disagree don't be ugly in replying as is common when discussing matters with political beliefs embedded in them.

OK, and with that disclaimer clearly stated I will begin point by point.

1. The number of jobs created whether it be 13,000 or 5-6,00 is only regarding the actual construction of the pipeline. It does not include the "spin off" jobs created by more business for local good and service providers. It does not include the maintaining and supply distribution jobs that would come along as well. However, i will concede that it is an immeasurable number and can't be used in a practical argument whether for or against, but nonetheless is something to keep in mind.

2. Environmental impact. This particular issue is more difficult to address as most people are prone to believe that the EPA, State Department, White house and so on actually have an understanding of what environmental precautions are favorable for the overall national interest. So I'm going to break it off into sub-categories to get my point across in a clear easy to read manner.

2. A. Yes there is no 100% safe way to transport, drill or even work with crude oil, oil sands, or refined oil. There will be leaks and problems to over come and it should be the responsibility of the oil companies and the oil managing companies to limit the amount of problems and to pay for everything that happens in the result of a spill or leak. Keeping in mind that any fines or penalty fees that are levied against the company by the American government are ineffective as it will just cause the company to just adjust the prices of their product so to pass it on to the consumer. It's a sneaky way of the government getting more of our money while "looking after our best interests".

2. B. The environmental movement is fueled by their desire to stop the production and use of fossil fuels thus replacing them with green renewable energy sources. Sounds nice, but they seem to only look at the problems associated with fossil fuel and ignore the problems with their green energy ideologies.
WIND POWER: Wind power poses several major dilemmas. First, wind remains uneconomic despite heavy subsidies from ratepayers and taxpayers over the last two decades. Second, from an environmental viewpoint, wind farms are noisy, land intensive, unsightly, and hazardous to birds, including endangered species. With the National Audubon Society calling for a moratorium on new wind development in bird-sensitive areas, and an impending electricity industry restructuring that could force all generation resources to compete on a marginal cost basis, wind power is a problematic choice for future electricity generation without a new round of government subsidies and preferences.
SOLAR POWER: Solar power, at least when relied on for central-station or grid electricity generation, is not environmentally benign on a total fuel cycle basis and is highly uneconomic, land intensive, and thus a fringe electric power source for the foreseeable future.
HYDRO POWER: Hydropower has lost favor with environmentalists because of the damage it has done to river habitats and freshwater fish populations
GEOTHERMAL: Geothermal has turned out to be "depletable," with limited capacity, falling output, and modest new investment.
BIOMASS: Biomass is also uneconomic and an air-pollution-intensive renewable.

The above info concerning green energy was provided in: Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green" by Robert L. Bradley Jr
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, the author of the two-volume Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S. Experience, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.

2. C. With the above stated it can be concluded that unless we all want to pursue an Amish lifestyle there is no pretty way to supply the energy we consume. It's one of those things that can be compared to a person wanting a steak but not wanting to see the cow killed and butchered.....hmmm...now i'm craving steak. The United States is broke and cannot waste anymore time or money pursuing the wet dreams of Al Gore and Eco-nuts. We need jobs and we need energy, more importantly we needs lots and lots and lots of OIL!

3. It's not really fair showing screen shots of Fox News blaming Obama unless you want to talk about the canonization he receives by MSNBC (Obama's very own Media Political Action Committee, lol.), CNN, New York Times, and just about every other media source. OK, so they blamed Obama. If you don't wanna hear or see such atrocities there are oodles of other media outlets that will praise him for his achievements, progress, and whatever else they can paint a pretty picture of. Who knows if he gets re-elected he may even get a Nobel prize....oh wait he already got one in record time. LOL Talk about bias.

Any ways that's my two cents. Very good subject to discuss. None of what i wrote was to be condescending I just wanted to make sure my views and opinions were expressed in a manner that would not get confused or misread Take care all!!!! Sorry for any typos! I was trying to rush through it.

P.S. Go Patriots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First let me says thank you for weighing in! I have few points and questions for you to address:

My first observation is concerning your post as a whole. You have tried valiantly to portray your comments as centrist and middle of the road(Bipartisan?) while pursuing a conservative agenda.

Collegegirl - "The above info concerning green energy was provided in: Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not "Green" by Robert L. Bradley Jr
Robert L. Bradley Jr. is president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, the author of the two-volume Oil, Gas, and Government: The U.S. Experience, and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute."


You reference the Cato Institute as the source for your information, but just who is the Cato Institute and where does their funding come from?

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC, was founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, the largest privately held oil company in the U.S. -These are the guys that funded the fake grass-roots Tea Party Freedom Works.

The Cato Institute holds regular briefings on global warming with known climate 'skeptics' as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy, all of whom believe that the current scientific understanding of climate change is inconclusive. Cato held similar briefings on climate change in Washington in July 2003 and 2002. (C. Coon, & Erin. Hymel (2003) Sound Policy for the Energy Bill, Heritage Foundation Reports, 23 September. ) According to People for the American Way, Cato has been funded by: Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Bell Atlantic Network Services, BellSouth Corporation, Digital Equipment Corporation, GTE Corporation, Microsoft Corp- oration, Netscape Communications Corporation, NYNEX Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Viacom International, American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc. (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=9261) Between 1985 and 2001, the Institute received $15,718,040 in 112 grants from only ten conservative foundations: Castle Rock Foundation (reformed Coors Foundation), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, Earhart Foundation, JM Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation, Carthage Foundation, David H Koch Foundation. (http://www.mediatransparency.org/sea...cipient.php?51) The Cato Institute is a member of the State Policy Network 4/04

These companies that are listed as funding the Cato Institute are representative of what this country is trying to get away from much less looking to them for setting public policy.

I don't know what people are thinking sometimes, but I would not use propaganda from Corporate America or Big Oil to set policy for this country.

And as far as portraying MSNBC or any of the other news networks as an equal to FOX NEWS is a false equivalency.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Likinikki

The whole thing is frustrating, because once again, US POLITICS gets in the way of progress! We know there are environmental concerns, and it's hard to claim that oil sands are environmentally benign, but at least Canada’s government, industry, and environmentalists are working TOGETHER to go forward!

Obama says they need more time? It's been MORE THAN THREE YEARS since the application was filed to build the Keystone XL pipeline! How much more time does he need?

The economic impact is tremendous! Studies project that more than 100,000 jobs could be created over the life of the project...which includes an estimated 20,000 jobs in construction and manufacturing.

Projections over the life of the project...$20.931 billion in total spending...$9.605 billion in output...118,935 person-years of employment.

So, go figure why Obama wants to wait!

I posted earlier that these numbers were incorrect and that information was from TransCanada themselves:

"TransCanada Said In 2010 That Keystone XL Pipeline "Is Expected To Create Over ... 13,000 New Jobs For American Workers." In a 2010 press release by TransCanada, the company funding the Keystone XL pipeline, touted their connection with various unions and claimed they would "create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers."

Go to my post for the link to Transcanada's press release.

[1NEMESIS]

Here is a list of the contributors to the Cato Institute:

Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

1991
$unknown Exxon Corporation
Source: Cato Institute 1991 Annual Report

1998
$15,000 Exxon Corporation
Environmental and Natural Resources Program
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report

2001
$20,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report

2002
$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
general support
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2002
$5,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
annual gala dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report

2003
$25,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report

2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Environmental Education and Outreach
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report

2006
$20,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report

[Precious_b]

Let'em pump the oil down here.

Let's use all the oil we can.

The faster we use it up, the faster we can come to our senses on how to live without it.

*I* personally think that it is unfair for Americans to demand cheap energy (and food) while other countries pay, what we consider, a fortune for it.

*Pb awaits to pay $5-7 a gallon of gas*

And don't forget, high oil prices are a good thing for Texas.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Let'em pump the oil down here.

Let's use all the oil we can.

The faster we use it up, the faster we can come to our senses on how to live without it.

*I* personally think that it is unfair for Americans to demand cheap energy (and food) while other countries pay, what we consider, a fortune for it.

*Pb awaits to pay $5-7 a gallon of gas*

And don't forget, high oil prices are a good thing for Texas.

Yeah, that would be a good thing if we could drill and get it refined quick enough. I think so long as we're hooked into this source of energy our national security is compromised.

[ExTr21]

Originally Posted by anaximander

Leaks in a pipeline not even built.

pipelines leak all the time, the leaks gets collected and stored in tanks that have to be emptied at different times depending on capacity.

[satexasguy]

doesn't really matter where the oil comes from. even if we extracted the oil from the USA and refined it here, the speculators on Wall Street would jack up the prices some way or another. Wall Street controls the price of oil .. NOT supply and demand. If we could get rid of the speculators (who would find a way to raise prices if someone in OPEC farted on a cloudy day) and go back to basic supply and demand, then prices would drop.

[flinde]

Gawd that Darryl Hannah looks hot in those handcuffs.

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by satexasguy

doesn't really matter where the oil comes from. even if we extracted the oil from the USA and refined it here, the speculators on Wall Street would jack up the prices some way or another. Wall Street controls the price of oil .. NOT supply and demand. If we could get rid of the speculators (who would find a way to raise prices if someone in OPEC farted on a cloudy day) and go back to basic supply and demand, then prices would drop.

That's true, I'm just waiting for them to start "worrying" about the Strait of Harmuz and start shoving gas prices up so they can line their pockets with our money.

[collegegirlforyou]

I would probably write a more lengthy reply, but it's pointless as it has come to my attention that you write, sound, and use the same terminology as a certain child-like individual that got banned from this site a while back. It baffles me why someone would join a sex centered site only to spew liberal platitudes and make arguments surrounded in thick political rhetorical instead of anything relying on cognitive thought.

Ramrod.....

I don't want to have discussions where the other person is going to just cut and paste enough to look like he made a point. You are the individual that got banned. I urge everyone reading this not to reply to this person's thread anymore. Lets ignore him like last time and wait for him to lash out using his potty mouth like mentality.

[Rakhir]

College Girl I simply love you! You get it and I love that you called out this idiocy!

[1NEMESIS]

Originally Posted by collegegirlforyou

I would probably write a more lengthy reply, but it's pointless as it has come to my attention that you write, sound, and use the same terminology as a certain child-like individual that got banned from this site a while back. It baffles me why someone would join a sex centered site only to spew liberal platitudes and make arguments surrounded in thick political rhetorical instead of anything relying on cognitive thought.

Ramrod.....

I don't want to have discussions where the other person is going to just cut and paste enough to look like he made a point. You are the individual that got banned. I urge everyone reading this not to reply to this person's thread anymore. Lets ignore him like last time and wait for him to lash out using his potty mouth like mentality.

Sure, you're more than free to do and say what you want, it's the American way.

[Mokoa]

For those of you who do not find the topic of this thread interesting I would suggest that you simply move on to another one.

The topic of this thread is the XL Pipeline.

Previous handles are not germane to this topic.