Will do…!
Mufasa
51-49. The pipeline didn’t pass. I guess the LA Senator got her cover.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., argued on the Senate floor Tuesday that the project could lead to China-style pollution and other hazards.”
Moron.[/quote]
The best part is…china is going to buy that oil and burn that shit in an even more nasty manner.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
51-49. The pipeline didn’t pass. I guess the LA Senator got her cover. [/quote]
It’s highly unlikely that the Republicans are 1) losing any sleep over this Vote OR 2) will have an Un-Merry Christmas because of it.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., argued on the Senate floor Tuesday that the project could lead to China-style pollution and other hazards.”
Moron.[/quote]
The best part is…china is going to buy that oil and burn that shit in an even more nasty manner.
[/quote]
Yep.
As it is, a whole bunch of that oil rumbles right through Montana by train every minute of every day, headed to west coast ports and then off to hither and yon.
[/quote]
And let me guess, CSX railroad? Is Buffet well-invested in CSX?
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., argued on the Senate floor Tuesday that the project could lead to China-style pollution and other hazards.”
Moron.[/quote]
The best part is…china is going to buy that oil and burn that shit in an even more nasty manner.
[/quote]
Yep.
As it is, a whole bunch of that oil rumbles right through Montana by train every minute of every day, headed to west coast ports and then off to hither and yon.
[/quote]
And let me guess, CSX railroad? Is Buffet well-invested in CSX?[/quote]
Buffet is well invested in EVERYTHING.
I’ve been reading a lot about Keystone recently after having ignored it for some time, and I don’t see it as an inherently contentious issue. It seems to have become politicized after BHO opposed it to appease the Environmentalists in his party. This of course caused the Conservative right to work themselves up into a reactive lather.
This is just another infrastructure project that most likely won’t create the 10s of thousands of jobs it’s proponents claim, but nor will it become an ecological disaster.
It’s either economically feasible to get the tar sands oil out of the ground or it’s not. And if it is, it’s either going to go through the US to TX via pipeline or rail. Or, west to Vancouver then through a newly reconstructed Panama Canal and to TX refineries.
Or, to China. If the US won’t take it, then China will.
So, what are the objections to the pipeline?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I’ve been reading a lot about Keystone recently after having ignored it for some time, and I don’t see it as an inherently contentious issue. It seems to have become politicized after BHO opposed it to appease the Environmentalists in his party. This of course caused the Conservative right to work themselves up into a reactive lather.
This is just another infrastructure project that most likely won’t create the 10s of thousands of jobs it’s proponents claim, but nor will it become an ecological disaster.
It’s either economically feasible to get the tar sands oil out of the ground or it’s not. And if it is, it’s either going to go through the US to TX via pipeline or rail. Or, west to Vancouver then through a newly reconstructed Panama Canal and to TX refineries.
Or, to China. If the US won’t take it, then China will.
So, what are the objections to the pipeline?[/quote]
http://landownersagainsttranscanadapipeline.org/who-we-are/
Some landowners are opposed to it. I think using eminent domain to take this property is unconstitutional. The Constitution allows the government to take property for “public use” only, with “just compensation”. Such compensation should be determined by a third party.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I’ve been reading a lot about Keystone recently after having ignored it for some time, and I don’t see it as an inherently contentious issue. It seems to have become politicized after BHO opposed it to appease the Environmentalists in his party. This of course caused the Conservative right to work themselves up into a reactive lather.
This is just another infrastructure project that most likely won’t create the 10s of thousands of jobs it’s proponents claim, but nor will it become an ecological disaster.
It’s either economically feasible to get the tar sands oil out of the ground or it’s not. And if it is, it’s either going to go through the US to TX via pipeline or rail. Or, west to Vancouver then through a newly reconstructed Panama Canal and to TX refineries.
Or, to China. If the US won’t take it, then China will.
So, what are the objections to the pipeline?[/quote]
This is from the official Environmental Impact Statement filed with Congress and the feds. If you lie on this baby, you get called before congress for contempt.
you are aware that exports of oil from US is illegal right?
I know that posting a link to a Jon Stewart Daily Show piece will probably get me flamed in this forum, but this issue of eminent domain and the abuse of its powers to construct the pipeline is absolutely, positively, unconstitutional, as per our esteemed senators and congressmen. I thought this was pretty appropriate, just another example of the hypocrisy of our elected representatives…
I work in the industry, and every pipeline we build requires a negotiation with landowners on both routing and compensation. For those landowners that want too much money to lay the lines, we have to either go around or pay them. Why - because they own the land! Using the gov’t powers to force these landowners to allow the pipeline to be built at a non-negotiated price is ridiculous. This isn’t the interstate highway system…
[quote]Bourne12 wrote:
I know that posting a link to a Jon Stewart Daily Show piece will probably get me flamed in this forum, but this issue of eminent domain and the abuse of its powers to construct the pipeline is absolutely, positively, unconstitutional, as per our esteemed senators and congressmen. I thought this was pretty appropriate, just another example of the hypocrisy of our elected representatives…
I work in the industry, and every pipeline we build requires a negotiation with landowners on both routing and compensation. For those landowners that want too much money to lay the lines, we have to either go around or pay them. Why - because they own the land! Using the gov’t powers to force these landowners to allow the pipeline to be built at a non-negotiated price is ridiculous. This isn’t the interstate highway system…[/quote]
Since you work in the industry, why would the pipeline not decrease the price of oil?
And do you believe that 40k job creation estimate?
[quote]gdroberts23 wrote:
you are aware that exports of oil from US is illegal right?[/quote]
Not true. See: Pioneer Natural Resources and Enterprise Products Partners.
And how is this relevant to Canadian oil sands?
[quote]Bourne12 wrote:
I know that posting a link to a Jon Stewart Daily Show piece will probably get me flamed in this forum, but this issue of eminent domain and the abuse of its powers to construct the pipeline is absolutely, positively, unconstitutional, as per our esteemed senators and congressmen. I thought this was pretty appropriate, just another example of the hypocrisy of our elected representatives…
[/quote]
How is it unconstitutional? The Fifth Amendment explicitly allows eminent domain, but requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with “just compensation” for those whose property is taken.
Is the gov’t forcing landowners to accept below market prices? Keep in mind that the Constitution does not require that prices be negotiated, only that the landowner receive “just compensation”
btw, I watched the Jon Stewart video. He’s too stupid for words. No, I take that back, I actually think he’s very bright which means he purposefully conflates issues in order to persuade some group of Americans who get their news from Comedy Central. He’s certainly not someone I would look to for information.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
And do you believe that 40k job creation estimate?
[/quote]
I’m not the person you directed this towards, but a State Department “…environmental review estimated that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period â?? about 3,900 of them in construction, [and] the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. It estimated that it would create about 35 permanent jobs.”