E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRep. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Salon.com's Joan Walsh weigh in on the Keystone controversy.
The company behind the controversial pipeline that's become an environmental lightning rod -- not to mention a presidential campaign issue -- has unveiled its preferred alternative for a stretch that got bogged down in Nebraska and triggered an Obama administration review.
Unveiled on Thursday, the map of TransCanada's preferred alternative steers the new Keystone pipeline route well east of the sensitive Nebraska Sandhills region. Both Democrats and Republicans in the state had raised concerns about potential impacts by the pipeline to farms as well as water supplies in that area.
The U.S. State Department, which has federal jurisdiction because the pipeline comes from abroad, i.e. Canada, has held off approving the project because of those concerns.
Nebraska said it plans to hold public hearings and receive comments on the new proposal, which is now likely to get strong support in the state.
Click here for TransCanada's new proposal
TransCanada
TransCanada's preferred alternative is seen in green to the right of the brown area, which represents the Sandhills region. Its initial route, seen in blue, ran through the region.
At the national level, Republicans have accused President Barack Obama of trying to undermine the pipeline.
Last month Obama traveled to an existing stretch of the pipeline in Cushing, Okla., to show support for extending it farther south to Texas, where refineries would turn crude into oil and other petroleum products.
"I am directing my administration to cut through red tape, break through bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority," he said on March 22.
He also indicated he wasn't opposed to the Nebraska section as long as it passed an environmental review.
"To be extra careful that the construction of the pipeline in an area like that wouldn't put the health and safety of the American people at risk, our experts said that we needed a certain amount of time to review the project," he said.
The Keystone Pipeline is dominating the headlines recently, as some analysts say we're at the start of a new energy pipeline boom, reports CNBC's Bertha Coombs.
Environmentalists still oppose the overall project because it would carry a type of crude oil known as tar sands that they say is more damaging that traditional oil wells.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
See, Nebraskan Republicans and Democrats had a problem with the pipeline, not just environmentalists and Democrats, like the Republicans in D.C. want us to believe. Manipulative politicians...
Yes, but they found a way to solve the problem....unlike the environmentalists and Democrats in DC!
And how did the Republicans in D.C. help solve this problem?
Yes, it wipes out all the right wing electioneering rhetoric... Watch what happens when a catastrophic spill happens..
Republicans will attack Obama for building it & deny they ever had anything to do with Keystone
the administration misjudged the public reaction; they will approve the new route right away; 95% of all natural gas in this country is transported by pipelines, some running from Louisiana, to Ohio; crude oil from overseas is mostly pipe-lined from the giant oil port of the Louisiana coast to the many refinery's in Texas and Louisiana; if you pull up on google, the pipeline infrastructure running from Louisiana and Texas, throughout the united states, you would be very impressed, some are 42 inch cold rolled steel, triple coated and buried around 25 feet under ground, very impressive.
THis is OLD news, but a new excuse for "O" to approve it....Finally.
This was proposed a few months back, why is it just now making the news ? The NBC News.
JayTee-3231157
This is not old news, the original route was blocked by Nebraska months a ago, which forced a new route to be found, they gave it to the Governemnt yesterday.
I truly do not understand the push for this pipeline. It pushed gas prices up in the midwest, does not provide very many jobs, and has the possibility of spillage. Not that the company doesnt have the right to build it if they pass all the qualifications, but i dont get why there is an American push for it
Saxon, the pipeline isn't going to carry natural gas. It will carry tar sands. Very different and should there be a spill, incredibly different environmental impact.
In general, the yodels (aka republicans) in Washington forced the issue to make a political statement, regardless of what Nebraska wanted and regardless of any contemplated route alternatives. Like all the other issues in the capital, the yodels have decided to make it a right versus left country (red vs blue). The left may be guilty of some partisanship but the right has taken partisanship, fear-mongering and divisiveness to the extreme. Even policies promoted by the right in the 90s are now "socialist agendas".
The only way this country will ever get back to a real political system (of the people, by the people, for the people) is to kill the extreme, move towards the middle (Centrism) and remove all special interest/corporate money from the table.
sick of the right c..; agree, we were for about 200 years a middle of the road nation, the last 25 years we changed to two opposing camps, must get back to the middle; yes it will carry crude, non explosive; even the alkan pipe line in Alaskan above ground(could not be burred due to ice and rock), has had very little problems(except for a few drunks shooting holes in it), no real environmental damage; buried in the earth with modern cathodic protection it could easily last a couple of hundred years. liquid oil is a lot less hazardous than natural gas.
Anyone thinking there will be some sort of catastrophic spill has no clue about the automatic safety shutoffs that will be part of the construction. Let's use a little common sense...if a pipe breaks in your house, do you rush to the leak and attempt to stop it with your hands or do you turn off the main supply? Hopefully, we can all get a 100% on the right answer.
Initially, the pipeline will generate many construction jobs. After completion, it will employ more people than all of the solar panel farms and windmill farms in America at a lower cost to the taxpayer. The construction is being funded by the private sector. I like that better than the half billion dollar failure of Solyndra.
Thicker tar sand oil is actually easier to clean up after a spill than lighter crude, but the more important point is what dave20121 is saying; This new pipeline will be state-of-the-art in terms of design and safety. Which isn't to say that there could never be another major spill from modern pipeline like this, but if there is then it will be quickly identified, contained, and cleaned up.
Listen to the clip of Chris Matthews babbling on about how he worked for Ralph Nader decades ago and discovered that... "PIPELINES LEAK!" Well, yeah, duh, especially back then. The technology was in its infancy and people didn't care as much about things like oil leaks. It's good that we care now, and that technology has advanced.
1950s pipeline was like a Ford Edsel. Today's pipeline is like a modern vehicle equipped with anti-lock brakes, air bags, and all the other avanced engineering and safety measures built in to protect people and function as effectively as possible.
Bringing up the Edsel of outdated technology and pretending that's still relevant to this debate is just demagoguing the issue.
And now the drill and pipes will go through and destroy pristine areas of the ROCKY MOUNTAINS!
Get rid of the pipe immediately before it destroys LIFE!
(yes there will be leaks, as such happens naturally and those leaks could kill off some farms, and natural resources, including trees and wildlife.)
Hasn't the our search for more oil done enough damage already. IF you disagree then why not go down to the gulf and eat some of those clawless crabs and eyeless shrimp!
Dave2021 and Adam44: if you think that a tar sand spill (aka bitumen) is easier to clean up than a regular oil spill, you truly must not have studied the issue. This type of spill occurred on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan two YEARS ago. The residents of the area are STILL prohibited from approaching anywhere near what used to be a very nice recreational river.
Since the acquifer running under the area where the original pipeline was proposed provides drinking water to people in at least 7 states, it was prudent to move the pipeline a few miles.
@dirp...I do believe it was prudent to re-route the pipeline around the acquifer. In spite of technological advances, accidents happen. With that said, the rewards outweigh the risks at this time. It is prudent to minimize the risks, which has been accomplished with the new route. Now, aside from pandering to extreme environmentalist large contributors, there is no excuse for an expedited signature from the president. Perhaps, if the US House vote is any indication (69 democrats voted with republicans), it may not be necessary for the president to sign it into law if it passes with a veto proof vote in the US Senate.
That's what they said about BP's Deep Horizon.......nothing can go wrong, we have this safety, and that shutoff, and this valve, and that switch, and.............what they have is a submerged oil slick drifting around the Gulf of Mexico......
Found this recent story seeded by lilcrow...... http://lilcrow.newsvine.com/_news/2012/03/07/10604891-oil-pipeline-breaks-on-blackfeet-reservation-significant-volume-of-oil-floods-cut-bank-river-montana-video?affiliate=newsvine.com
Facts and Questions still unanswered:
1. This is the 2nd Keystone Pipeline. The first pipeline, already in operation, has had as many leaks as months in service. The first is smaller in diameter than the proposed new pipeline ergo the XL (extra large). Leaks and spills happen.
2. What is the benefit to the people in the United States? Temporary construction jobs. Temporary, as in not permanent. The scarring of the country will be permanent.
3. The Gulf of Mexico has been damaged with the effects to last decades if not permanently. What assurances do we have that this would not occur to the detriment to the land and the people.
4. One of the most distressing points with regard to this Keystone Pipeline is that a private foreign company has been suing US landowners using eminent domain as the basis for the lawsuit. How is that possible? Eminent domain was created for use and necessity for federal, state and local governments, and for the good of the general population, not for use by private companies (although private companies do benefit by decisions made by the government).
5. Canadian National Rail already owns most of the train freight lines in the midwestern region, it would behoove the US to research and determine whether CN could indeed be utilized rather than building another pipeline which is guaranteed to leak at some time or another. The sand and oil mix will erode the pipeline, how could it not?
6. The oil will be sent outside this country. Some reports state the cost of gasoline will actually increase in the midwest region. The oil companies (again private sector) may add few additional jobs, but the benefits and risks are not balanced. The risk outweighs the benefits. IMO.
It will be approved right before the election and Obama will take all the credit for it and his "subjects" will fall right into "lock-step."
stop please,
I am assuming by your post that you live in a cave, walk everywhere and are dependent free of all petroleum products.
DIRP:
First of all, the pipeline that spilled into a tributary of the Kalamazoo river was more than 40 years old AND buried in a swamp.
Secondly, people are not prohbitied from approaching the spill area. In fact the clean-up is complete. Would it have been better if it had not happened in the first place, absolutely. Was it an environmental calamity as you describe? No. Partly because it was thick, tar sand crude and therefore easier to contain. That holds true on both land or in water.
Floyd:
By your response one can only assume that you believe in order for persons in the United States to use oil products there must be a sell off of both land and rights, and to take the risk of another oil disaster.
I find your response puzzling. There is no windfall for our economy, taxes or permanent jobs. Considering the lackluster response from the Gulf of Mexico disaster by BP, I doubt that a private foreign company would respond quickly enough to minimize damage to US land.
Exactly what benefit will be received by the US in this endeavor? Very little in exchange for the risk.
The oil is heavy in lead content.
Terrorists just need another target.
We need more lead in the atmosphere from the refining of this tar sand oil.
It destroys the brain matter and they need more replicans/ t-baggers.
The lead is removed during processing.
The pipeline would be underground, are terrorists bringing a bulldozer to dig it up? They have better things to target.
There is a scrubbing system to take any lead out of the air before releasing it.
Correct, lead is not healthy for the brain.
Indy engine
The PICTURES of the PIPELINE already being constructed from Oklahoma is ABOVE GROUND.
Like the CLEAN COAL BS.
Some of it will be above ground and some of it buried, depending on local particulars. Either way, the same extensive sensors and emergency shut-off protocols will be in place to prevent anything major from going wrong.
you people claiming that new, better state of the art tech will prevent spills...you saw that another keystone pipleine leaked into the yellowstone river last year. the spill got 42 miles downstream before they were able to shut down the pipeline. so please don't use the pipeline is safe excuse because it is not. why condone the destruction of the greatest forest , the boreal forest in north america and urn into into a stinking, filthy, polluted, toxic animal killing sess pool. by a hybrid, turn off your lights and tv and read instead of spouting of nonsense.
Adam44: are those sensors and shut offs made by the same company which put them on the well which blew up in the Gulf of Mexico ?
BTW, if you truly believe that those sensors and shutoffs will work, I have some oceanfront property I'd like to sell you.... in Nebraska, right next to where the pipeline is going to be built.
The pipeline isn't going to be 20,000 leagues under the sea, so it's a moot point. When things do go wrong, they can be corrected very quickly, UNlike BP's crap.
Or Exxon's Valdez's........oh sorry, it is now Exxon Mobil.....I''ve been hearing about that pipeline in Alaska for years, springing leaks, bad gaskets, etc......once again.....it would be just as quick and cost effective to build the refinery in CANADA...eh......
Adam..lets assume you own 100 acres in the path of that pipeline........guess what you don't have 100 pristine acres anymore......some private company in Canada, paid off your "Administration" to take as many acres from you as they need.....now how do you like sitting on your patio, looking at a pipeline everyday, or the routine traffic to the pipeline to check on it.......its Canada's crappy tar sand, keep it up there.......Plus Canada can refine the crude coming from Alaska, and the Polar region when they start drilling at Santa's front door.......Can't wait to see that, some wildlife volunteer, trying to clean oil off a Polar Bear with a bottle of dawn detergent.......... :)
Skull Bones
Well Skull Bones I’m guessing they don’t want Canada to refine it because the price of the refined product would be more than the price of the un-refined product, in short getting Canada to refine it would eat into someone’s profits. But like I said it’s just a guess
The Alaskan pipeline is another out-of-norm example. The Keystone pipeline will not be traversing mountain ranges and 60 below zero temperatures.
Fine with me if Canada refines it. I'm sure they have their reasons for not doing so, probably having to do wtih weather and enormous investment required. It wouldn't be too hard to look into why they don't refine it themselves. Look it up if you're curious; Google is your friend.
Even if they do refine it themselves they'd still have to send it through pipelines to get to their west coast over the Rocky Mountains.
p.s. Moving the heavy crude over the Canadian Rockies would be much more environmentally hazardous then going down through the flatlands of middle America.
Obama is busy campaigning........he don't have time to create jobs and boost the economy
He can't. Any proposal, good or bad, gets shot down by Congressional Republicans.
@wahoo2...the democratically ran senate has failed to pass a budget in over 1080 days. The Senate and the US House voted on the president's budget submitted last year and even the democrats voted against it.
Personally, I've grown to like the President traversing the country on his continuous campaigning. It means he isn't in the White House trying to pass laws that expand the size and scope of the federal government.
Of course, the Republican Party filibusters any Democratic proposal, even ones they agree with, except of course those dealing with defense or to name post offices.
Good thing we get them all named, gotta have a post office named before the USPS has to close it in order to fund a 3% tax cut to the top wage earners.
dave, that point is always ignored by the sheeple. Republicans in the House have sent several budget proposals to the Democrat controlled Senate only to have them shelved by the Democrats with no debate. Obama threatens to veto any proposal that is not exactly what he wants. And the entire time the sheeple are fed the BS line that the Republicans won't compromise. Democrats are given a pass on their uncompromising history during the Obama Administration. Obama continues to split this country down lines of class and race knowing his only hope of reelection is to promise more from the pockets of others to bribe votes from those who know more about handouts than blisters on their hands. I voted for this guy and am bitterly disappointed.
Watch Ted Nugent start screaming implied threats at Obama for his support of Keystone
He's "Braveheart" & thinks he is in Scotland, oddly enough the story is about a foreigner in a foreign country (not America) fighting against foreign rule.... Last time I checked it didn't have anything to do with America
Nugent should move to his beloved Scotland & take his lunatic cowardly Hollywood act with him
They need to hurry up with this, China needs that oil.
And gas/diesel is too cheap in the Midwest.
Maybe China should move to the Midwest.
OIL OVER LIFE---now what is more important????
The President has been doing the right things in this issue. The Republicans wanted to cater entirely to the oil companies, as usual. The President had to examine not only the environmental concerns but the rights of the state of Nebraska to have a say in where the pipeline should be routed. Where was the Republicans concern for the STATES RIGHTS of Nebraska in this? Their phony ideology is showing!
I believe the President is sincere in this. He is no fool. He knew he would take a lot of political and personal flack for his decision to wait for approval of the pipeline until the state of Nebraska could be satisfied with the routes and other precautions that will be taken to protect them. He knew this would be called a flip-flop incident.
It's been proven that the number of jobs that will be created from the building of this pipeline are nowhere near the numbers the Republicans claim. And those who have done research on the economic impact of this pipeline say the cost of gasoline at the pump will VERY LIKELY RISE because of it and the job creation will only be a couple thousand NOT the hundreds of thousands the lying Republicans claim.
Now, see, that wasn't so hard. It just took a little time to provide an acceptable alternative route that can now be reviewed for approval.
It's fascinating how the Republican candidates blamed President Obama for the delay, but failed to recognize that it was the states representatives that raised the objections. I wonder if the Republican candidates wish to ignore the states and impose their viewpoints on the states?
If you heard Romney's latest, he said he'd provide childcare for all welfare mothers of dependent children age 2 and up, "to give them the dignity of work", but he expected the States to foot the bill. Guess that answers part of the question, eh?
He also said he'd "...likely remove the federal income tax credit for State income tax and property taxes". Apparently he thinks he can make the States do anything, without listening to their citizens or dealing with their elected governments; and that double taxation won't bother us. That's not my idea of "small government".
I still really wish we would NOT build this pipeline. It still seems like a disaster waiting to happen. It still seems like we are thinking of the now (need for more oil) and sacrificing our childrens future on earth. Yes the United states has tons and tons of pipelines already, whats one more, but all pipelines leak its bound to happen and then the environmental damage will not be worth it for the normal citizen. Only the oil companies think the risk is worth it, and of course those that just think its going to help our need for more and more oil.
The sad part is, the republicans will find a way to criticize Obama when he approves this.
Obama: "You can build this, but you're not allowed to build it directly through the aquafier because Nebraska said no. Find an alternate route."
Repubs: "Obama is killing jobs!"
TransCanada: "All right, here's our plan for building the pipeline around the aquafier instead of through it."
Nebraska: "Spiffy."
Obama: "You're good to go then, thanks for being reasonable."
Repubs: "Obama is a flip-flopping panderer!"
What amazes me is the lack of attention the testimony by TransCanada officials in front of the Canadian Parliament is getting. They testified that the price of oil/gas in the Midwest will be going up because it will no longer be held there. It will all be put through the pipeline to the refineries in the South.
The whole state of Nebraska, and the entire Ogalla aquifer is already crossed with pipelines. The only thing special about the Sand Hills is the fact it is unsuitable for farming. People are making a big deal out of a potential environmental danger that has existed there for decades.
"Not in my back yard." I guess it is OK to have pipe lines and refineries as long as they are in Saudi Arabia and not the United States. Does it matter to the planet if the green house gases are produced in Asia instead of North America? Do you think they have better environmental protections in the middle east?
Does anyone still believe this will lower gas prices?
The pipeline will not help lower gas prices, it will not help make us independent of foreign oil, and it definitely will not help the environment.
The pipeline will only help foreign countries and the oil companies make money off US taxpayer dollars.
And its going to all go to foreign countries anyway. We are just taking on the environmental risk. Yum...Oil flavored corn on the cob courtesy of the same industry that gave us king crab smothered in oil.
But this time they say they wont have a drunk in charge.
No, because we need more refineries to have that happen, and the oil companies are not going to build any as long as they are making record profits.
They export gasoline. We have enough refineries to take care of the US. We give them 4-5 billion dollars a year and they screw us by exporting gasoline so they can create a shortage here.
guy-2789881 there is not any corn grown in the sandhills of Nebraska because it is useless to agriculture. Another point, do you think it is safer to trasport oil by pipeline or by an oil tanker?
guy-2789881 where have you seen a shortage of gasoline in the US? This is not 1973, you can get gas at any pump in America. You may not like the price but that is not because there is a shortage. Every time there is a crisus in Iran, Iraq, Libia, or ghe gulf the price of oil spikes.
The myth of “drill baby, drill”
Depending on whose facts you believe, the U.S. sits on between 2 and 6% of the world’s oil reserves. Yet the U.S. consumes 25% of the world’s oil. This unto itself casts serious doubt on any idea that we can “drill” our way out of dependence on foreign oil.
Another problem with that idea is what oil is left in North America, and how much it costs to drill and refine it. The oil that is easy to get to was tapped a long time ago. What remains is under thousands of feet of ocean, in remote, frozen and inhospitable places or is buried under very difficult to drill through geological formations.
This makes any new drilling very expensive. The oil industry will not drill unless they can make a profit. When the market price for oil makes it profitable to drill in these areas, the oil industry drills. This explains why there are thousands of oil leases already approved on public land that at present are not being drilled. As the market price of oil increases, the drilling will follow. As new drilling adds more oil to the open market, the supply will eventually go up and the market price will go down. When the price goes down enough, the drilling in these expensive areas will decrease or stop.
Another factor that comes to bear is that all oil drilled and/or refined in North America goes to the global oil market where the highest bidder takes it.
Drilling for oil in North America is not the only answer. To reduce our dependence on foreign oil imports we must; decrease our consumption and develop alternative energy sources.
Brought to you by Thermen Merman®. Copyright © 2012, All rights reserved.
Only 3% of our raw crude is exported. The rest is mostly diesel and kerosene.
I too hope for a breakthrough in some alternative energy sources. Solar is looking more and more like a dead end ... probably will NEVER provide any significant output to our energy grid, and wind is only good for a very few % of our needs, MAYBE. Also, solar is prohibitively expensive.
People always bitch about the price of gasoline. Well, the value of your dollar is being printed away by the Federal Reserve. Oil transactions are conducted in dollars ... for the moment. As the strength of the dollar decreases, the cost of the oil increases. It's not rocket science. And when the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency, and we have to convert dollars to whatever takes its place (an additional cost), gasoline, food, basically, everything will become more expensive. Checkmate. We're already there, just haven't conceded the game yet.
@Jim B. That is precisely why we need to drill more and transition our vehicles to LNG/CNG. You are right... "when" the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency...many products and commodities will become prohibitively expensive.
Bio fuels are not the answer. The current mandate of ethanol added to fuel is impacting the consumer. First, it is subsidized by the federal government (us, the consumer). Second, it increases the cost of corn and all corn products. Third, it lowers gas mileage. Finally, it is bad for your engine and engine parts causing you to spend money on repairs.
Anyone claiming that the Keystone pipeline will increase the cost of gasoline on a national average have not spent a single minute listening to a professor teaching economics. It may cause fuel prices in the midwest to increase slightly...but the national price will not go up because more supply is being introduced into the global market. You can't fix stupid.
dave
But u r trying
to fix it
right
do not open mouth or write
and remove all doubt that u r
would be my suggestion for a first step
twelve step solution
The Republican lie machine may be reset half-speed, but it will never go away. Facts are foreign to them...
Chip, Please! Facts are twisted by almost ALL politicians. Maybe Ron Paul is a truthful guy ... we may not agree with him, but basically truthful.
Obama, Geithner, Boehner, Cantor, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, are ALL liars.
BTW, I voted for Obama. Once. :)
Another clap-trap article from the Lie Machine of msnbc.
Pipeline Attacks the World, The World needs Insurance
Canada is a foreign county, Eh, so this solvent laden brew is foreign oil, Ek, so in Texas it will be refined, and immediately exported to the international market. After it is built, thousands of Americans will be placed on 24 hour security duty watching the grass growing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
From the information in the link above, the mining waste (100%) removed for (100%) Oil could completely fill Lake Erie, or would pave the all 4,000,000 lane-miles of American Highways to unbelievable depth of 62.67 feet.
This not exactly possible but a factor 10, 20, 30 or 60 still ;eaves us astonish.
Then again this investment is so, so huge, the damage is so extraordinary, the pollution so dangerous, and the plan so complicated, but what is the returns, the benefits? Will we have something to show for this extraordinary effort, something like less depended on Oil fuel, or just a huge no-man's land. Will there then be enough energy left on the World to correct the damage?
There needs to be a complete cost accounting because the loss will be borne by government and the tax payer, who risk is this anyway? It is the governments and the taxpayer who are at risk, shouldn't government and taxpayers sign up for liability ahead of time, as the Lord knows there is not much promise in this boondoggle.
The people, the taxpayer and the government need a contract, a really big prepaid liability insurance package underwritten by all the major financial institutions, insurance companies and hedge fund managers and a full lean against all property of its supporters.
This project is doomed.
Oil Industry Eating the Planet Though, Straw from a Camels back.
I'm still waiting for my wind powered car instead...
Cruize to Taco Bell and get a methane powered car instead.
I cannot find evidence on whether taxpayer money is going to be spent on this. I expect the plan includes spending American taxpayer money, otherwise we would have assurances to the contrary. Spending our money to place our nation at risk, and then deriving no benefit for ourselves, is stupid. Worse than no benefit, I believe oil and gas prices would go up for Americans, as we use refining capacity for export, and feed foreign markets.
As mentioned above, a very large bond will be wise to cover eventual disaster with the pipeline. $200 Billion is a good starting point.
You know the only thing this pipeline is going to accomplish is to give china more oil. Canada won't sign any documents that will sell ANY oil to us in the US. The only thing we are going to get are the spills and a very few jobs.
Obama was against it...
then he was for it....
then he was against it...
now he is for it...
before long it will turn out to be his idea...
It's like John Kerry and Al Gore doing the who's on 1st skit.
Obama and the Enviro-Nuts have a clear agenda to block development of oil resources.
dick
were u named for the great murderer of two people that would not give their total inheritance to Yeshu'a group
not to the Temple of Yaweh
but to Yeshu'a group
You have just described the economic decisions that have to be taken into consideration by every oil company all over the world. The oil companies believe they can make a profit from refining the tar sands otherwise they wouldn't be investing their money into the operation. Of course the price of oil is set by the global market. Same goes for wheat and corn. That doesn't stop us from producing it in north America. Do you think it is cheaper to buy a barrel of oil in the middle east and ship it to a North American refinery, or pipeline it down from Canada? What do you think the cost of a million troops in the middle east is costing us?
I am all for alternative fuels. I am also for keeping oil jobs, and money here in the US if possible.
They can build a refinery where the oil is!!!
You can pipe the oil or you can pipe gas. Not sure what your point is. If the refineries in Texas and Lousiana have capacity, why would they want to build a new one?
You can pipe the oil or you can pipe gas. Not sure what your point is. If the refineries in Texas and Lousiana have capacity, why would they want to build a new one?
If u
will put a hose in car tail-pipe
and run it into car window where u sit
there will be one less retard
I wonder what Texas is going to do with all of the waste from the production of tar sand oil.
Oh snap....oh no he didn't!
Roger I assume you want a hose from my tailpipe to your car seat since you are wanting to remove the retards from the debate. I am not sure your plan will work since it involves a pipe line and green house gasses. I don't think the environmentalist will approve your plan. I suggest you try offing yourself with some kind of green energy source, perhaps solar. Just roll up the windows on your car and wait for a sunny day. If that doesn't get the job done, then perhaps you can generate some methane from that pile of cow flop you call a brain.
I personally do not own or operate a vehicle
I use Public Transportation always in country
When I go OCONUS I travel by aircraft until I reach destination
Then I use Public transportation
I did not use any names of individuals in posting
Have to assume my remarks hit an unintended target
I do try to use TACT
TACT= The ability to tell someone to got to hell and have them looking forward to the trip.
Do not know if I am the only one that has Noticed;
The earth is constantly moving
Tetonic Plates which cause EARTHQUakes
The oil pipeline which would be an aberration (the oil needs a refinery where it is)
Had better be like a slinky that shifts with the earth
Conclusion:
There will be leaks. Either man-made or nature made.
The Problem is:
The OIL Companies can not BRIBE or intimidate Canadian Politicians like they can the FOOLS they elect in Texas.
The Republicans in this country are truly sick and deranged. They have no grip on reality. Just a fundamental envy of the man in the white house. And they are willing to do or say anything to get him out of there. Just like they said three years ago...their main objective going forward is to defeat Barack Obama. Nothing else matters. They will say anything, do anything. Just witness their assault on gas prices. With gas hovering just below $4 a gallon in the Midwest they attack the president for allowing prices to rise to all time highs when everyone on the planet earth knows that just before the meltdown on Wall Street gas was selling far north of $4 a gallon everywhere. (Summer of 2008.) But that's okay, the Republicans just keep on spewing their brand of vitriol in hopes that some poor soul will buy it. The strategy is much like blaming the federal debt on Obama. When we will all remember that the budget was very well balanced, thank you, when George W. Bush took office. Eight years later the economy is tanking--after a very hefty tax hike, by the way--and the country is in very deep do-do because the only option left is some federal stymulus money. (And we were already looking at red ink thanks to the Bush Wars in the Middle East.) A strategy, actually, initiated by, guess who, GWB! A Republican president would be the worst thing that could happen to this country. The tea baggers need to do a reality check on who they are sleeping with. The Republicans are the big spenders in D. C.
It will not matter who,s in the White House, There will always be people that disagree with whom ever is President. Anyway, that,s why we have two parties . Go to a bar and see how many people drink the same kind of beer. One persons beer is supposed to be better than anothers ? No, either one can blind you to which is the best at the end of the night. So all in all, most common working people will not make any diffrence in what the Dem,s or Repl,s due while they are in office. I have heard all their crap for over 65 yr,s now. Nothing has changed, NOTHING !!