Obama Cockblocks the Pipeline... Canadia says... CHINA!...

[paulitician]

China & Canada are doing very well economically. I'm sure their both just sitting back laughing at our Dummy President. So much for 'Shovel-Ready Jobs' i guess.

 

[mal]

Smart move by Canada & China. Dumb move by our President.

Oil is Evil...

Land Raping Solar Fields and Turbine Farms are the Future...

Fuck you!



peace...

 

[007]

 

[grunt11b]

For a president who is always talking about sticking up for the middle class and accusing Republicans of blocking job creating efforts, he sure as hell knows how to kill the very same jobs he claims republicans are killing. This man needs to be fired in November.

 

[Bern80]

Good for the President. Now let see how long before he caves.......again.


So, the NRDC has opened a volatile can of wiggling hydrocarbons. Bitumen is an extreme and difficult product that puts more wear and tear on crude infrastructure. The NRDC has asked a good question about pipeline safety based on good industry data.

Although the ERBC doesn't want to answer the question about bitumen's corrosive properties, new safety regulations are probably in order.

Despite what sheepish regulators might say, petroleum engineers recognize that bitumen is one nasty feedstock and hell on wheels for refineries as well as upgraders. (Pipeline transportation of DilBit is also two times more GHG intensive than shipping fully upgraded synthetic crude.)

Last but not least, diluting bitumen with foreign oil has now created a massive headache for free trade that no one really wants to talk about.

The Tyee – Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial

All of that may be very well be true. However, this would be a good time to really try to put yourself in the shoes of one of those evil big oil CEOs. If this stuff is so damn hard do deal with, why do they want so badly to build this pipeline? I mean these are businessmen. Making money is the bottom line. Reducing expenses and maximizing revenue. Do you really think they aren't aware of these potential costs? Yet they're going through with it anyway? Why is that?

Broadly what is confusing is all the worries some have over big oil. Everything you're afraid of big oil doing are things that simply aren't in any business interested in making money best's interest. Who has the greatest interest in preventing a pipe line from leaking? The government? Local citizens? None of the above. The answer is the oil company has the greatest interest in preventing a pipeline from leaking. That's lost revenue to them. The group some claim is so evil and is only interested in money is the same great that has the greatest interest financially to keep bad things from happening.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I was reading a article earlier where this environmental group wants you to send your thanks to the Obama for blocking this..

They or the Obama don't give two shits about our country or you people..

get it yet?

You forgot to mention.....

It's All About Jobs

 

[BlindBoo]

Good for the President. Now let see how long before he caves.......again.


So, the NRDC has opened a volatile can of wiggling hydrocarbons. Bitumen is an extreme and difficult product that puts more wear and tear on crude infrastructure. The NRDC has asked a good question about pipeline safety based on good industry data.

Although the ERBC doesn't want to answer the question about bitumen's corrosive properties, new safety regulations are probably in order.

Despite what sheepish regulators might say, petroleum engineers recognize that bitumen is one nasty feedstock and hell on wheels for refineries as well as upgraders. (Pipeline transportation of DilBit is also two times more GHG intensive than shipping fully upgraded synthetic crude.)

Last but not least, diluting bitumen with foreign oil has now created a massive headache for free trade that no one really wants to talk about.

The Tyee – Alberta Fills Pipes with Corrosive Denial

All of that may be very well be true. However, this would be a good time to really try to put yourself in the shoes of one of those evil big oil CEOs. If this stuff is so damn hard do deal with, why do they want so badly to build this pipeline? I mean these are businessmen. Making money is the bottom line. Reducing expenses and maximizing revenue. Do you really think they aren't aware of these potential costs? Yet they're going through with it anyway? Why is that?

Broadly what is confusing is all the worries some have over big oil. Everything you're afraid of big oil doing are things that simply aren't in any business interested in making money best's interest. Who has the greatest interest in preventing a pipe line from leaking? The government? Local citizens? None of the above. The answer is the oil company has the greatest interest in preventing a pipeline from leaking. That's lost revenue to them. The group some claim is so evil and is only interested in money is the same great that has the greatest interest financially to keep bad things from happening.

Profits. The US has reduce the amount of petrol we've been buying. To keep the refineries running a near 100 % and to not cause a glut in US inventories they want to ship it here for refining and then they want to sell the refined product overseas. Not reducing the price of gas for Americans at all. Some studies indicate that the pipeline and associated refining deal will cause a rise in gas prices in the US.

You know there is a whole lot of sweet crude in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, why don't the Republicrates push for drilling permits there?

You answered your own question. Sometimes (not always) when you reduce costs to maximize profits you create conditions that can create an ecological disaster, as the events surrounding the Deep Water Horizen project proved.

The extension to the existing keystone pipeline will get approved sooner or later. Personally, I think they should go ahead and aprove the peice that goes from Duncan Okla. to Houston and Port Author.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

If sun or wind were viable the first company to turn a profit would immediately be referred to as big sun or big wind and the environmentalists would start gnashing their teeth and pissing themselves.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Rape and Pillage our environment?

Really? What laws are they breaking? My guess is you should be upset with the EPA.Oil companies send our troops to fight wars? Funny...I though Congress did that.

Dont give a flying fuck about anyone else? I guess evcery retailer in the country should be labelled that way. I mean...how insensitive that they make a profit selling shoes and winter coats to children.

Or at the very least, the NIMBY Republican Governor of Nebraska Dave Heineman for throwing cold water on the project to begin with.

Of course oil companies don't send troops to fight wars but the politicians oil companies bribe in any way they can certainly do.

Aww, children..... LOL Puppies and kitties too?

and ponies....dandylions....sunsets....and sex on the beach.

Who do you hold responsible...

the one who bribes...or the one who accepts it?

If congress doesnt accept the bribe, it is like the bribe never exists..

So your beef is with congress....not the oil companies.

No way, sorry.... If you try to bribe a cop and he or she doesn't accept it, they can still arrest you for trying to bribe a cop.

Both oil companies AND members of Congress share the blame in the back-scratching game.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Because it isn't a dieing industry. This is case where you really need to see the truth. The reality of oil is this; it is the most efficient and inexpensive source of energy currently available to the most people and we are finding more and more of it all the time. That hardly constitutes a dieing indsutry. There is no currently better alternative. If there was the free market would have brought it to market already. What you mean by better is really only one variable; cleaner. That's it. Unfortunately there are far more variables that go into what constitutes a 'good' energy source (i.e. whether it's profitable for anyone to produce, whether it's affordable, it's utility (how much energy you get out of it). The reality is your environmentally friendly option fail on most of those fronts.

Alternatives are in developmental stages. As long as we keep putting "band-aid", short-term solutions on the table, we Americans become too complacent and the real root of the problem won't get fixed. We should have taken the opportunity after the energy crisis of the 70s to develop alternative fuels and get off oil completely but we didn't. Yes, oil is a dying industry. We don't need to keep pumping money into it. We need to divert our resources towards a long term, cleaner solution.

Again you illustrate my pointy perfectly. All you idiot environmentalists care about is cleaner. That's the only variable that determines whether an energy source is 'good' in your eyes. That is not reality. Reality is America and the world needs energy. Since it is something we truly do need as oppose to want than the variables that best fill the need component are going to be the most essential. We NEED our energy source to be affordable so it is available for low income earners as well. It needs to be reliable. People are dependent on energy to heat their homes. A problem I know you Californians in fantasy land don't understand a lot of the rest of the country has to deal with. It's 10 below here now. No one could afford for the wind to stop blowing. Our energy source needs to be energy efficient. Some energy is always lost when potential energy is converted to usable energy (which you should remember from high school physics). The goal is to mimimize how much energy is lost and reduce the input relative to output. And stop kidding yourself into thinking there aren't trade offs in more environmentally friendly energy sources. If you wind to replace coal, you're going to trade mariginally cleaner air for more a loss of physical acerage as it will take more land in windmills to create the same amount of power. And of course there's the jobs. I wish you libs would grow a pair and admit that you care more about the envirnoment than you do anyone's standard of living. Because if you insist the government should force us off of fossil fuels MILLIONS of jobs will be lost.

I'll be the first to admit that I care more about the environment than I do your standard of living.

Because if your standard of living is ruining the environment, then the environment in turn is ruining everyone else's standard of living. They kind of go hand in hand, see?

Yes, I know....there is no way we could build enough turbines and solar panels to fuel our energy demands today. But what we can build will certainly help. Besides, there are lots of other alternative energy sources being tested and developed today.
Algae-based ethanol. Wave energy. Biodiesel. Geothermal. New battery technology. Cold fusion.

People seem to think if we destroy the Earth's atmosphere, we have another planet to move to and start all over again. Conservatives are so stuck in the "we've been using it for years so it must still be good" mindset and refuse to think outside the box. We need to get away from the filthy, polluting coal and oil of yesteryear and look ahead to the future and not just a few years into the future, we need to think long term.

 

[Toro]

And in other news, the Democrats plan to solve the energy crisis by encouraging people to ride unicorns to work and hop on a flying pig for air travel ...

 

[Stephanie]

SNIP:

What America is Thinking on Energy Issues - 70 percent of voters favor more oil and natural gas development

Share this


What America is Thinking on Energy Issues

Washington, D.C., January 18, 2012 – Seventy percent of American voters favor increased access to U.S. oil and natural gas resources, and similar numbers believe more oil and natural gas development would provide major benefits to the nation, including more U.S. jobs, according to a new poll released today.

"Voters know developing more of America's homegrown energy makes sense for our economy and our energy security," said API President and CEO Jack Gerard. "Our economy will demand large amounts of oil and natural gas for at least several more decades even as the role of alternative energy increases. Common sense says we should have Americans producing that oil and gas here at home as much as possible."

read it all here.
What America is Thinking on Energy Issues - 70 percent of voters favor more oil and natural gas development

 

[naturegirl]

Alternatives are in developmental stages. As long as we keep putting "band-aid", short-term solutions on the table, we Americans become too complacent and the real root of the problem won't get fixed. We should have taken the opportunity after the energy crisis of the 70s to develop alternative fuels and get off oil completely but we didn't. Yes, oil is a dying industry. We don't need to keep pumping money into it. We need to divert our resources towards a long term, cleaner solution.

Again you illustrate my pointy perfectly. All you idiot environmentalists care about is cleaner. That's the only variable that determines whether an energy source is 'good' in your eyes. That is not reality. Reality is America and the world needs energy. Since it is something we truly do need as oppose to want than the variables that best fill the need component are going to be the most essential. We NEED our energy source to be affordable so it is available for low income earners as well. It needs to be reliable. People are dependent on energy to heat their homes. A problem I know you Californians in fantasy land don't understand a lot of the rest of the country has to deal with. It's 10 below here now. No one could afford for the wind to stop blowing. Our energy source needs to be energy efficient. Some energy is always lost when potential energy is converted to usable energy (which you should remember from high school physics). The goal is to mimimize how much energy is lost and reduce the input relative to output. And stop kidding yourself into thinking there aren't trade offs in more environmentally friendly energy sources. If you wind to replace coal, you're going to trade mariginally cleaner air for more a loss of physical acerage as it will take more land in windmills to create the same amount of power. And of course there's the jobs. I wish you libs would grow a pair and admit that you care more about the envirnoment than you do anyone's standard of living. Because if you insist the government should force us off of fossil fuels MILLIONS of jobs will be lost.

I'll be the first to admit that I care more about the environment than I do your standard of living.

Because if your standard of living is ruining the environment, then the environment in turn is ruining everyone else's standard of living. They kind of go hand in hand, see?

Yes, I know....there is no way we could build enough turbines and solar panels to fuel our energy demands today. But what we can build will certainly help. Besides, there are lots of other alternative energy sources being tested and developed today.
Algae-based ethanol. Wave energy. Biodiesel. Geothermal. New battery technology. Cold fusion.

People seem to think if we destroy the Earth's atmosphere, we have another planet to move to and start all over again. Conservatives are so stuck in the "we've been using it for years so it must still be good" mindset and refuse to think outside the box. We need to get away from the filthy, polluting coal and oil of yesteryear and look ahead to the future and not just a few years into the future, we need to think long term.

I wish California would just break off and fall into the Pacific Ocean, well at least the Southern half............why don't we just give it back to Mexico???

 

[uscitizen]

And in other news, the Democrats plan to solve the energy crisis by encouraging people to ride unicorns to work and hop on a flying pig for air travel ...

At least it is a plan

 

[Avatar4321]

why scamble after the dregs of a dying industry when we can pave the path to the future with new safer industries that provide better alternatives?

Becsuse then bohner wont make as much money?

What on earth gives you the impression that oil is a dying industry? Because you like other energy sources instead?

 

[Avatar4321]

why do you do this?


The pipeline would have been a disaster for the nation ecological wise.

You see the shit they send throught this pipe is eull of grit that woudl canstantly be sanding down the inside of the pipe.

It was a disator waiting to happen and would have traveled over huge areas with underground water tables that would have been contaminated by spill after spill.

The people who run these companies have already prove they dont care as much about safety as profit.

Why do you pretend NOTHING matters but short term corporate profit?

Short term coporate profit?
There you go again...all about money....you greedy selfish jealous phony.

I simply want to stop sending money to countries that hate us.

Short term corporate profit?

TM....there is more to life than money....and who is and who is not making it;

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH


Then ungrip the cock of the oil industry long enough to join the people who dont want profit to be the main human endevor.

What's wrong with profit? Why is it wrong to do something that creates value in this world?

 

[Avatar4321]

The future is alternative energy sources.



Do you want the US on top of the emerging market or clinging to the dying industry?

You keep saying it's dying but you havent provided any evidence to support your claim.

 

[Avatar4321]

Tell me, how can oil be a dying industry? Oil provides more than just energy. It provides the chemicals needed in countless products, including plastics.

As long as we use plastic, oil will not be a dying industry.

 

[mal]

Tell me, how can oil be a dying industry? Oil provides more than just energy. It provides the chemicals needed in countless products, including plastics.

As long as we use plastic, oil will not be a dying industry.

Many Liberals are Emotionally Driven and Ignorant of Fact...

They are also the ones who want to Permanently Rape Land with Wind Turbines and Solar Farms...



peace...

 

[Toro]

President Romney will approve the pipeline.