Obama rejects Keystone XL

[TobiasFunke]

I'd rather have the trucks transport it than a pipeline. Trucker jobs, all the places they stop and eat at, all the male hookers they'll support, etc.

[red321]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3624116/how-would-you-like-your-oil-spilled-today-sir/

 

U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

There are numerous other factors at play. When a pipeline bursts, it can be harder to contain than a leaking oil tanker — only a certain, contained amount can spill out of a single punctured rail car. A pipeline can just keep spilling until the operator shuts down the flow, and will usually continue to gush until it’s empty. Large oil spills pose major, long-term risks to human health and the environment. Three years after the Kalamazoo spill, for example, cleanup crews were still workingto remove oil from the ground, and residents reported experiencing headaches, breathing problems, and nausea — not to mention a negative impact on business.

[Glen]

In before "thinkprogress lol."

[Jay]

Yes we already have 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines in the U.S.

 

The 1700-mile Keystone XL poses a gigantic increase in risk.

[Spirit]

I'd rather have the trucks transport it than a pipeline. Trucker jobs, all the places they stop and eat at, all the male hookers they'll support, etc.

 

 

Male hookers.  I forgot about that critical Obama demographic.  

 

 

Point conceded.  

[Spirit]

LOL @ Think Progress

[Spirit]

Damn it, Glen!

[TobiasFunke]

They're probably Marxists also. Most male hookers are.

[Adam]

I'd rather have the trucks transport it than a pipeline. Trucker jobs, all the places they stop and eat at, all the male hookers they'll support, etc.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/18/3624116/how-would-you-like-your-oil-spilled-today-sir/

 

U.S. pipelines spilled three times as much crude oil as trains over that eight-year period, even though incidents happened much less frequently. And that eight-year period was dominated by large pipeline spill events, including one that saw 800,000 gallons of Canadian tar sands crude spill in and around the Kalamazoo River, and another 63,000 gallon pipeline spill into the Yellowstone River.

There are numerous other factors at play. When a pipeline bursts, it can be harder to contain than a leaking oil tanker — only a certain, contained amount can spill out of a single punctured rail car. A pipeline can just keep spilling until the operator shuts down the flow, and will usually continue to gush until it’s empty. Large oil spills pose major, long-term risks to human health and the environment. Three years after the Kalamazoo spill, for example, cleanup crews were still workingto remove oil from the ground, and residents reported experiencing headaches, breathing problems, and nausea — not to mention a negative impact on business.

 

 

So how about they build a better pipeline?

[Jay]

Male hookers.  I forgot about that critical Obama demographic.  

 

 

Point conceded.  

 

Apparently they have an strong union.

[Spirit]

So how about they build a better pipeline?

 

 

Come on!  These are union workers we're talking about.

[Adam]

Shit

[red321]

So how about they build a better pipeline?

 

So, we should put some stringent government regulations on the quality of the pipeline...and huge fines, company crippling fines, if they screw up?

[mtangelsfan]

It isn't just the amount of crude spilled red.  It is the exhaust, the danger of trucks on the road and the overall use of petroleum products to fuel said trains and trucks.

[Adam]

Well no, they should just build the ****ing thing but from a statist standpoint, requiring a better pipeline (which I assume exists or is possible) is a slightly less disingenuous position for our President to hold. 

[red321]

It isn't just the amount of crude spilled red.  It is the exhaust, the danger of trucks on the road and the overall use of petroleum products to fuel said trains and trucks.

 

That's a fair statement. Though I imagine if Canada really wanted to get this shit out there they would build a pipeline through Canadian territory.

 

This tar sand crude is nasty stuff...much worse than light crude. But you cannot discount the impact of a pipeline spill MT, especially in some of the areas they are proposing this pipeline runs, right through the heart of the Ogalla aquifer that provides drinking water for 2 million some odd people and some of the most arable farmland in the world.

 

I also am surprised you don't take umbrage with the eminent domain issues and a foreign company attempting to strong arm local land owners and bypass local communities to get the land required to build the pipeline.

[mtangelsfan]

Spills happen a lot out in my area.  There is no doubt they suck.

 

There are a lot of things about the pipeline that I don't like, especially the eminent domain issue.  If Obama would make those kind of arguments I might be willing to listen.

 

However, I think we know that any part of the federal government that argues against the eminent domain issue are as hypocritical as you can be.

 

As far as the foreign country thing, I think I'm not too much of a border kind of guy.  I am kind of a globalist really.

[Rico]

The pipeline would take oil currently in the midwest and take it down to the gulf to be shipped out.  This would actually increase domestic gas prices.

[Rico]

Yes we already have 2.5 million miles of oil and gas pipelines in the U.S.

 

The 1700-mile Keystone XL poses a gigantic increase in risk.

This tar sands stuff is far more toxic than regular oil.  

[juansavage1]

Right, who needs temporary jobs. Might as well stay on welfare/unemployment.

Not a good call at all. This is the mentality I just don't get, (we will cut down on oil production and then come up with a suitable replacement to power our nation).

The logic is disturbing. Wouldn't it be prudent to come up with the solution first and then cut down on oil production? In the mean time we purchase our oil from those bastions of civil rights, the middle east, so they can use the money we give them to make their leadership rich and sponsor some terrorism on the side.

I reported you to the moderator for using reason too cover up your racist attack on Obama.

[juansavage1]

The pipeline would take oil currently in the midwest and take it down to the gulf to be shipped out. This would actually increase domestic gas prices.

I don't believe this. Source?

[juansavage1]

How much of this is because the dems are more influenced by quasi religious environmentalists, some of whom also happen to be billionaires, like Tom Steyer?

[Jay]

The project was already dead from being delayed so long while the Administration tried to make up its mind.

 

The announcement gives Obama something to brag about at next month's Climate Change Conference.

[Glen]

How much of this is because the dems are more influenced by quasi religious environmentalists, some of whom also happen to be billionaires, like Tom Steyer?

Is there something wrong with an environmentalist happening to be a billionaire?

[Brandon]

I was interested in this from the jobs perspective until the newest economy report came out/Yellin's testimony that job growth blew away expectations and is around 5% which economists agree is normal levels (insert accuracy and who has given up on searching employment argument), the incorrect number of jobs it would have created in conjunction of how many jobs it takes away or cuts back on with current methods. Throw in the risk factors of risk/reward and this doesn't make sense.