Republicans stop pipeline then lie and say it was Obama. Business as usual.

[Intense]

Is that governor for ObamaCare too?

I was hearing on FOX this morning that the Governor supports the pipeline.

 

[uscitizen]

Just curious, where did you stand on New London?

New london? Was that trhe place where they condemned private property to build a hotel or something?

I am against using emenint domain for private enterprise.
It is for roads, bridges, schools, etc.

We feel pretty much the same there. We disagree on the necessity of the pipeline though. It is Infrastructure and in a sense, strategic reserve. A shopping mall, where the local government can charge a higher property tax, for selfish reason, doesn't fly with me. This issue is right of passage, I assume fair compensation, and I would suggest negotiating improved Emergency Response planning and equipment.

And who would pay for the improved Emergency Response planning and equipment?

Business will externalize thru the government all of their expenses that they can.

 

[Trajan]

Just curious, where did you stand on New London?

New london? Was that trhe place where they condemned private property to build a hotel or something?

I am against using emenint domain for private enterprise.
It is for roads, bridges, schools, etc.

We feel pretty much the same there. We disagree on the necessity of the pipeline though. It is Infrastructure and in a sense, strategic reserve. A shopping mall, where the local government can charge a higher property tax, for selfish reason, doesn't fly with me. This issue is right of passage, I assume fair compensation, and I would suggest negotiating improved Emergency Response planning and equipment.

look, the gov. has already got into the biz. of picking winners and losers. Pfizer wins, XL loses. now, looking at it, as a reasonable person, one of them fulfills a need in many ways which benefits all of us, every single person in the US, one doesn't. yet? Who got what?

if the approval for Pfizer was political, the refusal of XL is as well, its been flipped. and meets the benchmark I think of what we both see as a public benefit that requires ED.

The aquifer is run over now with pipelines, making that an excuse is nakedly partisan.

 

[Trajan]

Have we established that he is in fact against that?


Why has his administration issued maybe a few thousand drilling permits?

And I hope he is against using the power of iminent(sp?) domain in the hands of corporations.

how many permits have been denied? you seem to have either a short or selective memory. example-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/business/energy-environment/18oil.html why did a

Permits denied by whom? The feds or the states?

And that article speaks of permit applications not acted on in a timely manner not the same thing as denied.

Kinda like me "denying" thousands of women of my sexual favors.
Just not got around to them yet, I did not deny them.
So far none of them have sued me yet though.

you are being disingenuous again....

Obama grants first deepwater drilling permit after BP spill - Feb. 28, 2011

and you didn't answer the question- is it your position that the obama admin. sppts. fossil fuel exploration, marketing and use?

 

[Trajan]

Is that governor for ObamaCare too?

I was hearing on FOX this morning that the Governor supports the pipeline.

 

[uscitizen]

New london? Was that trhe place where they condemned private property to build a hotel or something?

I am against using emenint domain for private enterprise.
It is for roads, bridges, schools, etc.

We feel pretty much the same there. We disagree on the necessity of the pipeline though. It is Infrastructure and in a sense, strategic reserve. A shopping mall, where the local government can charge a higher property tax, for selfish reason, doesn't fly with me. This issue is right of passage, I assume fair compensation, and I would suggest negotiating improved Emergency Response planning and equipment.

look, the gov. has already got into the biz. of picking winners and losers. Pfizer wins, XL loses. now, looking at it, as a reasonable person, one of them fulfills a need in many ways which benefits all of us, every single person in the US, one doesn't. yet? Who got what?

if the approval for Pfizer was political, the refusal of XL is as well, its been flipped. and meets the benchmark I think of what we both see as a public benefit that requires ED.

The aquifer is run over now with pipelines, making that an excuse is nakedly partisan.

Yep why not increase the risk?

umm common sense is why.

 

[Trajan]

We feel pretty much the same there. We disagree on the necessity of the pipeline though. It is Infrastructure and in a sense, strategic reserve. A shopping mall, where the local government can charge a higher property tax, for selfish reason, doesn't fly with me. This issue is right of passage, I assume fair compensation, and I would suggest negotiating improved Emergency Response planning and equipment.

look, the gov. has already got into the biz. of picking winners and losers. Pfizer wins, XL loses. now, looking at it, as a reasonable person, one of them fulfills a need in many ways which benefits all of us, every single person in the US, one doesn't. yet? Who got what?

if the approval for Pfizer was political, the refusal of XL is as well, its been flipped. and meets the benchmark I think of what we both see as a public benefit that requires ED.

The aquifer is run over now with pipelines, making that an excuse is nakedly partisan.

Yep why not increase the risk?

umm common sense is why.

uhmmm no, not in that context, if that all it takes then we won't do anything. risk is assigned a value based on past results and present safety criteria.


so, let us explore that, true false-

pipelines are the safest, method of oil transportation ?

 

[uscitizen]

look, the gov. has already got into the biz. of picking winners and losers. Pfizer wins, XL loses. now, looking at it, as a reasonable person, one of them fulfills a need in many ways which benefits all of us, every single person in the US, one doesn't. yet? Who got what?

if the approval for Pfizer was political, the refusal of XL is as well, its been flipped. and meets the benchmark I think of what we both see as a public benefit that requires ED.

The aquifer is run over now with pipelines, making that an excuse is nakedly partisan.

Yep why not increase the risk?

umm common sense is why.

uhmmm no, not in that context, if that all it takes then we won't do anything. risk is assigned a value based on past results and present safety criteria.


so, let us explore that, true false-

pipelines are the safest, method of oil transportation ?

NOt sure would have to see statistics to make that call.

 

[Trajan]

Yep why not increase the risk?

umm common sense is why.

uhmmm no, not in that context, if that all it takes then we won't do anything. risk is assigned a value based on past results and present safety criteria.


so, let us explore that, true false-

pipelines are the safest, method of oil transportation ?

NOt sure would have to see statistics to make that call.

wait a minute, you just said common sense says that adding that one more drop of risk to the proverbial barrel of oil would make it overflow, in effect one more pipeline in addition to the 25K that exists already is a no go, becasue the risk would be increased beyond a measure common sense dictates as 'safe'. Thats not how a safety analysis is done btw.


I can make the call- the asnwer is yes. you can research it at your leasiure.

oh heck here ya go-

# How safe are pipelines? What are the statistics?

Pipelines are the safest and most cost-effective means to transport the extraordinary volumes of natural gas and hazardous liquid products that fuel our economy. To move the volume of even a modest pipeline, it would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of seventy-five 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday. These alternatives would require many times the people, clog the air with engine pollutants, be prohibitively expensive and -- with many more vehicles on roads and rails carrying hazardous materials -- unacceptably dangerous.

Relative to the volumes of products transported, pipelines are extremely safe when compared to other modes of energy transportation. Oil pipeline spills amount to about 1 gallon per million barrel-miles (Association of Oil Pipelines). One barrel, transported one mile, equals one barrel-mile, and there are 42 gallons in a barrel. In household terms, this is less than one teaspoon of oil spilled per thousand barrel-miles.

Pipelines also generally have a better safety record (deaths, injuries, fires/explosions) than other modes of oil transportation. For example, compared to the pipeline record, there are 87 times more oil transport truck-related deaths, 35 times more oil transport truck related fires/explosions, and twice as many oil transport truck-related injuries.

Pipeline statistics for calendar year 2002 report 139 liquid pipeline accidents resulted in the loss of about 97,000 barrels and about $31 million in property damage, but no deaths nor injuries. Natural gas transmission line accidents in 2002 resulted in one death and five injuries.

For more statistics visit our statistics pages.

PHMSA - FAQs - Safe Pipelines FAQs


Now the common sense take; a closed, stationary pipeline vs. tankers ( ship) , trucks, rail etc. ?

 

[uscitizen]

uhmmm no, not in that context, if that all it takes then we won't do anything. risk is assigned a value based on past results and present safety criteria.


so, let us explore that, true false-

pipelines are the safest, method of oil transportation ?

NOt sure would have to see statistics to make that call.

wait a minute, you just said common sense says that adding that one more drop of risk to the proverbial barrel of oil would make it overflow, in effect one more pipeline in addition to the 25K that exists already is a no go, becasue the risk would be increased beyond a measure common sense dictates as 'safe'. Thats not how a safety analysis is done btw.


I can make the call- the asnwer is yes. you can research it at your leasiure.

oh heck here ya go-

# How safe are pipelines? What are the statistics?

Pipelines are the safest and most cost-effective means to transport the extraordinary volumes of natural gas and hazardous liquid products that fuel our economy. To move the volume of even a modest pipeline, it would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of seventy-five 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday. These alternatives would require many times the people, clog the air with engine pollutants, be prohibitively expensive and -- with many more vehicles on roads and rails carrying hazardous materials -- unacceptably dangerous.

Relative to the volumes of products transported, pipelines are extremely safe when compared to other modes of energy transportation. Oil pipeline spills amount to about 1 gallon per million barrel-miles (Association of Oil Pipelines). One barrel, transported one mile, equals one barrel-mile, and there are 42 gallons in a barrel. In household terms, this is less than one teaspoon of oil spilled per thousand barrel-miles.

Pipelines also generally have a better safety record (deaths, injuries, fires/explosions) than other modes of oil transportation. For example, compared to the pipeline record, there are 87 times more oil transport truck-related deaths, 35 times more oil transport truck related fires/explosions, and twice as many oil transport truck-related injuries.

Pipeline statistics for calendar year 2002 report 139 liquid pipeline accidents resulted in the loss of about 97,000 barrels and about $31 million in property damage, but no deaths nor injuries. Natural gas transmission line accidents in 2002 resulted in one death and five injuries.

For more statistics visit our statistics pages.

PHMSA - FAQs - Safe Pipelines FAQs


Now the common sense take; a closed, stationary pipeline vs. tankers ( ship) , trucks, rail etc. ?

Where did I say that adding more risk would make it overflow?

Adding more risk is what caused the finiancial collapse.

My point was your statment that we already have so many pipeline adding a few more will not hurt.
It WILL increase the risk factors though, which is what I said.

 

[Trajan]

NOt sure would have to see statistics to make that call.

wait a minute, you just said common sense says that adding that one more drop of risk to the proverbial barrel of oil would make it overflow, in effect one more pipeline in addition to the 25K that exists already is a no go, becasue the risk would be increased beyond a measure common sense dictates as 'safe'. Thats not how a safety analysis is done btw.


I can make the call- the asnwer is yes. you can research it at your leasiure.

oh heck here ya go-

# How safe are pipelines? What are the statistics?

Pipelines are the safest and most cost-effective means to transport the extraordinary volumes of natural gas and hazardous liquid products that fuel our economy. To move the volume of even a modest pipeline, it would take a constant line of tanker trucks, about 750 per day, loading up and moving out every two minutes, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The railroad-equivalent of this single pipeline would be a train of seventy-five 2,000-barrel tank rail cars everyday. These alternatives would require many times the people, clog the air with engine pollutants, be prohibitively expensive and -- with many more vehicles on roads and rails carrying hazardous materials -- unacceptably dangerous.

Relative to the volumes of products transported, pipelines are extremely safe when compared to other modes of energy transportation. Oil pipeline spills amount to about 1 gallon per million barrel-miles (Association of Oil Pipelines). One barrel, transported one mile, equals one barrel-mile, and there are 42 gallons in a barrel. In household terms, this is less than one teaspoon of oil spilled per thousand barrel-miles.

Pipelines also generally have a better safety record (deaths, injuries, fires/explosions) than other modes of oil transportation. For example, compared to the pipeline record, there are 87 times more oil transport truck-related deaths, 35 times more oil transport truck related fires/explosions, and twice as many oil transport truck-related injuries.

Pipeline statistics for calendar year 2002 report 139 liquid pipeline accidents resulted in the loss of about 97,000 barrels and about $31 million in property damage, but no deaths nor injuries. Natural gas transmission line accidents in 2002 resulted in one death and five injuries.

For more statistics visit our statistics pages.

PHMSA - FAQs - Safe Pipelines FAQs


Now the common sense take; a closed, stationary pipeline vs. tankers ( ship) , trucks, rail etc. ?

Where did I say that adding more risk would make it overflow?

Adding more risk is what caused the finiancial collapse.

it was a metaphor.

so what was your point? there is no other way to interpret your remark- add 'risk' = adding the danger of a spill. IF, you cannot point to a history that sppts such your not making a point other than to employ what amounts a throw away comment.

your point- adding one more pipeline increases the risk of a spill when in fact that is a very poor statement, thats not how it works when you assign risk, the new pipeline would not effect the OTHER pipelines. see? Only the new one.

the financial collapse? that analogy or connection is totally ridiculous.

 

[Mr. H.]

So ONE Governor convinced Obama to veto it???? I doubt it! I think you just can't admit that Obama screwed up AGAIN!

The governor of the state of Nebraska asked Obama to stop the pipeline because it ran directly over the water supply for a good portion of the state.

Since when should corporate interests trump the inhabitants of the region, or the rights of the state?

Of course the White House listened. That's their JOB.

It should also be the job of the representatives from Nebraska in congress. Where the fuck were they in all this?

Obviously not representing their constituents.

Why does Big Ag consistenly trump all- inhabitants, politics, commerce?

The Nebraska aquifer has been polluted for decades by farming.

Why was the Alberta Clipper pipeline heralded by Obama and the State Department, yet this project is villified?

No sense, no set of priorities, no concern for Americans- the definition of the Obama White House.

 

[rdean]

So ONE Governor convinced Obama to veto it???? I doubt it! I think you just can't admit that Obama screwed up AGAIN!

The governor of the state of Nebraska asked Obama to stop the pipeline because it ran directly over the water supply for a good portion of the state.

Since when should corporate interests trump the inhabitants of the region, or the rights of the state?

Of course the White House listened. That's their JOB.

It should also be the job of the representatives from Nebraska in congress. Where the fuck were they in all this?

Obviously not representing their constituents.

Why does Big Ag consistenly trump all- inhabitants, politics, commerce?

The Nebraska aquifer has been polluted for decades by farming.

Why was the Alberta Clipper pipeline heralded by Obama and the State Department, yet this project is villified?

No sense, no set of priorities, no concern for Americans- the definition of the Obama White House.

That's what he gets for listening to Republicans, right?

A special legislative session that began with tumult and trepidation ended on a comparatively tranquil note Tuesday as Nebraska lawmakers approved two oil pipeline bills in response to TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL project.
Lawmakers passed the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (LB1), by Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, which will give authority for siting future oil pipelines to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which oversees telecommunications, mass transit and utilities.
They also passed a bill (LB4) by Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler as part of a deal struck by Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk with TransCanada to route the Keystone XL away from Nebraska's environmentally fragile Sandhills.

Both measures passed on a 46-0 vote.


Governor signs two oil pipeline bills into law

Oops.

 

[Jroc]

A new report from a New Orleans-based group reveals that the Obama administration is approving just 35 percent of the oil drilling plans for the Gulf of Mexico so far this year. It is also taking an average of 115 days — nearly four months — to secure approval from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Those numbers contrast sharply from previous years. This historical average is a 73.4% approval rate. The approval time has nearly doubled; the historical average is 61 days for the government to approve plans.

For plans that require drilling activity, the numbers are even worse. New regulations require all deepwater drilling plans to undergo an environmental assessment process. Those plans have an average approval time of 222 days or more than seven months.

The data were included in the latest release of the Gulf Permit Index from Greater New Orleans Inc. It has monitored this trend since last year’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The delays have continued for more than 18 months later.

Drilling permits don’t fare much better under the Obama administration either. One sign of hope might be a recent uptick in shallow-water permits. Greater New Orleans Inc. reported:

Deep-water permit issuance continues to lag the monthly average observed in the year prior to the oil spill. Only 5.0 deep-water permits are being issued per month since September 2011, representing a 0.8-permit — or a 14% — monthly reduction from the average of 5.8 permits per month. This number also represents a 2.0-permit — or a 29% — reduction from the historical average of 7.0 permits per month over the past three years.

Shallow-water permit issuance is rising above the historical average. Since September 2011, 8.3 shallow-water permits, on average, were issued. That number represents an increase of 1.2 permits — or 31% — from the monthly average of 7.1 permits per month observed in the year prior to the oil spill. However, this number represents a 6.4-permit — or a 44% — reduction from the historical average of 14.7 permits per month over the past three years.

Obama Administration Approving Only 35% of Gulf Drilling Plans

 

[Mr. H.]

The governor of the state of Nebraska asked Obama to stop the pipeline because it ran directly over the water supply for a good portion of the state.

Since when should corporate interests trump the inhabitants of the region, or the rights of the state?

Of course the White House listened. That's their JOB.

It should also be the job of the representatives from Nebraska in congress. Where the fuck were they in all this?

Obviously not representing their constituents.

Why does Big Ag consistenly trump all- inhabitants, politics, commerce?

The Nebraska aquifer has been polluted for decades by farming.

Why was the Alberta Clipper pipeline heralded by Obama and the State Department, yet this project is villified?

No sense, no set of priorities, no concern for Americans- the definition of the Obama White House.

That's what he gets for listening to Republicans, right?

A special legislative session that began with tumult and trepidation ended on a comparatively tranquil note Tuesday as Nebraska lawmakers approved two oil pipeline bills in response to TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL project.
Lawmakers passed the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (LB1), by Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, which will give authority for siting future oil pipelines to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which oversees telecommunications, mass transit and utilities.
They also passed a bill (LB4) by Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler as part of a deal struck by Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk with TransCanada to route the Keystone XL away from Nebraska's environmentally fragile Sandhills.

Both measures passed on a 46-0 vote.


Governor signs two oil pipeline bills into law

Oops.

Oops what? Bully for them. Itra-state and inter-state pipelines do not concern the State Department.

Oops.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A point.

It seems to me that this whole thing is to get the Federal government to say that transCanada has the right to take your property to build this pipeline and you have no say in the matter.

Instead of acting like a private business venture and dealing with each landowner and going around them if an agreement is not reached.
That is non government interference capitalism in action.

sorta like Pfizer making a deal with Connecticut then saying fuck it after the houses were eminent domained and torn down? like that?

I do not remember that screwing, but yes.

You don't remember Kelo?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A point.

It seems to me that this whole thing is to get the Federal government to say that transCanada has the right to take your property to build this pipeline and you have no say in the matter.

Instead of acting like a private business venture and dealing with each landowner and going around them if an agreement is not reached.
That is non government interference capitalism in action.

Just curious, where did you stand on New London?

New london? Was that trhe place where they condemned private property to build a hotel or something?

I am against using emenint domain for private enterprise.
It is for roads, bridges, schools, etc.

Pipelines are considered to be right of way actions, not economic ones, they have a much lower threshold in court, and the property owner usually gets access to his land and can use it for whatever the local government allows.

That said, most of the pipeline follows already existing right of way, the entire debate is over a small portion of the pipeline that crosses the Nebraska Sandhills, most of which is public property anyway. There may be some use of eminent domain, but the issue is supposedly that an oil spill on the surface would contaminate an aquifier that is buried thousands of feet down, and being rapidly depleted anyway.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Have we established that he is in fact against that?


Why has his administration issued maybe a few thousand drilling permits?

And I hope he is against using the power of iminent(sp?) domain in the hands of corporations.

how many permits have been denied? you seem to have either a short or selective memory. example-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/business/energy-environment/18oil.html why did a

Permits denied by whom? The feds or the states?

And that article speaks of permit applications not acted on in a timely manner not the same thing as denied.

Kinda like me "denying" thousands of women of my sexual favors.
Just not got around to them yet, I did not deny them.
So far none of them have sued me yet though.

The permits were all approved, and only needed a final approval from the State Department. Environmentalists lobbied the White House, and Obama delayed the decision until next year to avoid the political fallout. When forced to choose he picked environmental activism and bad science over jobs. then blamed the Republicans for rushing a process that was finalized under Bush.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The governor of the state of Nebraska asked Obama to stop the pipeline because it ran directly over the water supply for a good portion of the state.

Since when should corporate interests trump the inhabitants of the region, or the rights of the state?

Of course the White House listened. That's their JOB.

It should also be the job of the representatives from Nebraska in congress. Where the fuck were they in all this?

Obviously not representing their constituents.

Why does Big Ag consistenly trump all- inhabitants, politics, commerce?

The Nebraska aquifer has been polluted for decades by farming.

Why was the Alberta Clipper pipeline heralded by Obama and the State Department, yet this project is villified?

No sense, no set of priorities, no concern for Americans- the definition of the Obama White House.

That's what he gets for listening to Republicans, right?

A special legislative session that began with tumult and trepidation ended on a comparatively tranquil note Tuesday as Nebraska lawmakers approved two oil pipeline bills in response to TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL project.
Lawmakers passed the Major Oil Pipeline Siting Act (LB1), by Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, which will give authority for siting future oil pipelines to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which oversees telecommunications, mass transit and utilities.
They also passed a bill (LB4) by Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler as part of a deal struck by Speaker Mike Flood of Norfolk with TransCanada to route the Keystone XL away from Nebraska's environmentally fragile Sandhills.

Both measures passed on a 46-0 vote.


Governor signs two oil pipeline bills into law

Oops.

Funny how the supremacy clause trumps state law except when you think it doesn't.

 

[uscitizen]

how many permits have been denied? you seem to have either a short or selective memory. example-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/business/energy-environment/18oil.html why did a

Permits denied by whom? The feds or the states?

And that article speaks of permit applications not acted on in a timely manner not the same thing as denied.

Kinda like me "denying" thousands of women of my sexual favors.
Just not got around to them yet, I did not deny them.
So far none of them have sued me yet though.

you are being disingenuous again....

Obama grants first deepwater drilling permit after BP spill - Feb. 28, 2011

and you didn't answer the question- is it your position that the obama admin. sppts. fossil fuel exploration, marketing and use?

I think the latest count for offshore drilling permits is close to 300 for the Obama admin.
And yes Obama supports big business. He has not called for investigations into Big oils profits or possible price fixing has he?
And was I correct of not did that article speak of denied permits or just delayed approvals and such?

and most do not understand the linkage of Palins pipeline to this project.