But this won't make a difference on gas prices. It won't create jobs.
i just want to say that all of you that accuse me of being a democrat need to douse yourselves in kerosene and light a fire. Without further ado:
Theres more to be fond at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...pipeline-videoIn a bid to defuse Republicans' claims he isn't doing enough to boost US energy security or squelch soaring gasoline prices, President Obama on Wednesday embraced a plan to grant fast-track status to the proposed southern leg of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
“Unresolved concerns” over the original 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast refineries – including energy security, economic effects, and environmental impacts – caused Mr. Obama in January to reject the overall pipeline application. Environmentalists cheered the president then, while noting Obama's caveat that the decision could change after environmental reviews are completed. But few expected the White House to be banging the drum for Keystone XL so soon.
In a visit Thursday to Cushing, Okla., which touts itself as the "pipeline crossroads of the world," the president unveiled his support for a smaller 500-mile portion of the pipeline – a southern leg that would run to Gulf Coast refineries in Port Arthur, Texas. The longer northern portion of the route – which crosses the environmentally sensitive Ogallala Aquifer and Nebraska's Sandhills – would still face intensive review, he said.
But this won't make a difference on gas prices. It won't create jobs.
It will increase midwest gas prices.
As for jobs its already been reported what labor pool they typically pull from. Have you even read the Cornell report or are you one of those that think top universities should be trusted less than politicians and PACs?
I work on average 15 hours. then I go home and make training plans and take care of my three kids so no I don't read every effin report or read every news article about every freaking subject.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallab..._Reportpdf.pdf
They talk about supply chains and labor markets.
And at a certain point perhaps you should refrain from coming to judgement rather than take obvious nonobjective sources at their word and parroting their opinions as your own.
True.
You've been paying attention!
Good boy!
I will say this. From a geopolitical perspective, the pipeline makes sense from a conservative standpoint. If Canadian oil goes to Texas then Texas refines it and sells it at a markup across the Atlantic to Europe which helps them out tremendously. Europe has had some widely publicized economic woes of its own. They also are our allies.
China is the alternate location for the Canadians to send it but they have been experiencing economic growth for decades at this point. Between them and Russia, they control most of the Eurasian continent's natural resources.
I never hear that argument.
The fast tracking of that section makes sense. Why are conservatives so eager to build a pipeline right through the aquifer without a second thought?
"build a pipeline right through the aquifer"
it's not their aquifer. (oil) profits trump human health, water, land, air. That's why the Repugs and Randian Paul want to kill the EPA and Clean Water Act.
Doesn't Europe get most of their oil from russia?
Russia is the largest exporter of oil to the EU. As of 2009, that was approximately 33%.
So, no, they do not get most of their oil from Russia.
Russia's overall production is due to keep sliding, by most analyses I have seen. Not enough re-investment
Russia also supplies huge amounts of natural gas to Europe.
Please, you really want to claim a report from Cornell Global Labor Ins ute is less biased than any other source?
What conflict of interest exists? I can point to ones in funding from the Heritage Ins ute. I know they work with unions but exactly how does something that is supposed to generate jobs become against a unions interests. I can think of reasons why chevron, exxon and the like would do quite a bit to sell you the pipeline.
Spoken like an actual critical thinker.
You're right.
It is soooo much easier to bypass things like critical thinking and just accept others' emotionally appealing pre-written fluff op-eds on subjects.
I mean doing some minor fact checking through google is just so hard. It takes like whole minutes or something. Who has time for that? Especially when one can be spoon-fed ready made talking points.
We get more oil from Canada than any other country.
Are the Canadian companies free to sell that oil to anyone they want to?
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...bama-in-a-bindIn just the first week of his second term, President Obama is being confronted with what could become one of the most controversial decisions of his presidency: what do with the Keystone XL pipeline.
Mr. Obama put off the decision twice, citing concerns that the 1,700-mile pipeline extensions present environmental safety concerns in Nebraska. The original plans had it stretching along the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground water supply that is the greatest irrigation source to US farmland, supplying eight states. Sixty-five percent of the aquifer is in Nebraska, which makes the state ground zero in the debate over the pipeline.
The president ultimately blocked the pipeline’s approval in January 2012, which then allowed TransCanada, the operator based in Calgary, Alberta, to draft a new proposal in May.
On Tuesday, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R), who previously hesitated at approving the project, sent Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a letter saying he is now satisfied with the pipeline’s new routing. The potential environmental risks, he says, are lessened.
TransCanada is set to carry $200 million in third-party liability insurance to cover any cleanup costs, Governor Heineman says in the letter. He also writes that the proposed reroute “avoids many areas of fragile soils in Northern Nebraska” and “avoids a shallow groundwater area ... where the aquifer is thin, wells are shallow, and bedrock is close to the surface.”
The pipeline construction would generate $418 million in economic benefits to the state and about $13 million in property-tax revenues in its first year of operation, Heineman adds.
Anyone want to bet O does not approve this pipeline? I bet he will green light it.
It's already a done deal I'm bettin.
It will happen. Obama just wanted to push the decision past the election.
Considering how his base/peers despise oil sand production he may just surprise you guys.
Obama wants to take credit for jobs being created so he'll tell the greenies it's all good and that he made the Keystone guys jump through some hoops and won't really care whether or not they buy it. The recession has pretty much neutered the greenies for the time being.
The way I look at it is the is getting extracted, refined and burned regardless, so we might as well get a few jobs out of it and refine the stuff in our refineries. Valero has a big stake in it so there is a local component as well.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)