Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Randy Thompson, a cattle buyer in Nebraska, was informed that if he did not grant pipeline access to 80 of the 400 acres left to him by his mother along the Platte River, “Keystone will use eminent domain to acquire the easement.” Sue Kelso and her large extended family in Oklahoma were sued in the local district court by TransCanada, the pipeline company, after she and her siblings refused to allow the pipeline to cross their pasture.
“Their land agent told us the very first day she met with us, you either take the money or they’re going to condemn the land,” Mrs. Kelso said. By its own count, the company currently has 34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas and an additional 22 in South Dakota.
In addition to enraging those along the proposed pipeline’s 1,700-mile path, the tactics have many people questioning whether a foreign company can pressure landowners without a permit from the State Department — the agency charged with determining whether the project is in the “national interest.” A decision is expected by year’s end on the pipeline, which would carry crude oil from Alberta to American refineries.
our usage is down, isn't it? and maybe this is why we are EXPORTING so much oil/gasoline???? or are our oil and gas companies just exporting for their own personal gain?Can you show me any example where more supply has been found, where it actually affected the price of oil in a downward motion?Supply and demand?
Honestly, I have not found one.
there have been HUGE MEGA FINDS of oil over the past decade and not a one, NOT ONE increase in supply from these finds has lowered the price of oil/gasoline.
It should work the way you propose....it should lower the price if more supply is found, BUT IT HAS NOT.
Now the only legitimate reason I can think, of why it has not, could be that no matter what they find, it can't keep up with the rising demand?
Under President Obama, we in the USA have increased our supply greatly...yet, no decrease in prices....instead oil and gas companies are exporting the excess oil and gasoline?
Are you aware of this? What do you think is going on here Quantum?
Um, we've increase our output/production slightly. We are no where near our peak in 1970.
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
our usage is down, isn't it? and maybe this is why we are EXPORTING so much oil/gasoline???? or are our oil and gas companies just exporting for their own personal gain?Can you show me any example where more supply has been found, where it actually affected the price of oil in a downward motion?
Honestly, I have not found one.
there have been HUGE MEGA FINDS of oil over the past decade and not a one, NOT ONE increase in supply from these finds has lowered the price of oil/gasoline.
It should work the way you propose....it should lower the price if more supply is found, BUT IT HAS NOT.
Now the only legitimate reason I can think, of why it has not, could be that no matter what they find, it can't keep up with the rising demand?
Under President Obama, we in the USA have increased our supply greatly...yet, no decrease in prices....instead oil and gas companies are exporting the excess oil and gasoline?
Are you aware of this? What do you think is going on here Quantum?
Um, we've increase our output/production slightly. We are no where near our peak in 1970.
U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)
Key Facts on Keystone XL | Tar Sands ActionGas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers
- By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
- TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
- Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
- According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.
You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.
The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.
TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.
The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.
Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?
asked ans answered. in 3 threads etc etc ....*sigh*
Yes, crude oil contains a mixture of substances dangerous to human health, including chemicals such as benzene, that are known to cause cancer in humans, and others that are toxic to the brain and central nervous system, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
So, yes, pipelines, when they leak into the water supply, do in fact cause cancer.
Any other questions?
Were you born this stupid?
Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman sent a letter today to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking them to deny a federal permit for a pipeline that would carry Canadian oil through his state, all the way to the Texas Gulf Coast.
Heineman wrote that he is opposed to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline because its planned route lies directly over a critical aquifer.
GOP Nebraska gov. asks Obama to stop tar sands pipeline - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
The key decision for current pipeline discussions is the permitting decision that will be made by the Obama administration, which is why I have urged President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to deny the permit, (Republican) Governor Heineman said in announcing the special legislative session. (The majority in Nebraska are Republicans who also control the state legislature).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/b...ystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=1&ref=nebraska
---------------------
So what is it right wingers? Are you liars? Stupid? Remember "state's rights"? Is that for everyone but Nebraska?
Or do you Confederate right wingers just have to have something about Obama to bitch about. You lie about the scope of the project. You lie about the project. I thought you weren't supposed to lie. Isn't that like a commandment in one of your occult texts? I guess if you see people like Romney and Gingrich at "leaders", you'll stoop to any level.
So ONE Governor convinced Obama to veto it???? I doubt it! I think you just can't admit that Obama screwed up AGAIN!
Interesting if the link is correct, that EPA squashed State.
I do have a question in relation to the Environmental impact though, in relation to the Toxicity of Tar Sands Oil. Is it so caustic that it would corrode the Pipeline prematurely? Yes or no?
If yes, wouldn't it make more sense to Refine it closer to home, if it is corrosive?
What is the life expectancy of the pipe carrying standard crude V.S. Tar Sands Crude?
If the accusations are unsupported. If they are exaggerations, let that be established.
by law, the State Department has to approve anything crossing our borders...I just read that...Interesting if the link is correct, that EPA squashed State.
I do have a question in relation to the Environmental impact though, in relation to the Toxicity of Tar Sands Oil. Is it so caustic that it would corrode the Pipeline prematurely? Yes or no?
If yes, wouldn't it make more sense to Refine it closer to home, if it is corrosive?
What is the life expectancy of the pipe carrying standard crude V.S. Tar Sands Crude?
If the accusations are unsupported. If they are exaggerations, let that be established.
As far as I can tell, the EPA didn't squash anything.
It was the President who responded to it, due to the direct request of the people of Nebraska, through their duly elected governor.
And since the issue was a public health hazard, not an international treaty matter, State would have no jurisdiction. If anything, it should have been a matter for HHS.
taking 2 to 3 or so years to approve a pipeline seems the norm though.
none of them are approved quickly...even the one obama approved in 2009 that was mentioned, its review started back in 2007 or earlier....
i'd say it's premature to tout and shout from the roof tops that it has been KILLED.
by law, the State Department has to approve anything crossing our borders...I just read that...
I think you are missing the point.
The Nebraska state legislature has no input on federal projects.
TransCanada is spending their own money, not taxpayers, they shouldn't have to resubmit a route when the old one met all applicable environmental concerns.
Obama is President of the United States of America. He likes to compare himself to Truman, he should remember this part of the job.
There was a proposal, Obama shelved it.
I think Nebraska negotiated an "oil leak fund" for WHEN it happens, to clean up the mess for 100 million, south dakota is now complaining saying they deserve to have a 100 million for the clean up of the oil spills in south dakota.... so who knows where this is all going? and it sounds like they EXPECT A DISASTER to happen? Or maybe the states are just taking precautions for the IF it happens?taking 2 to 3 or so years to approve a pipeline seems the norm though.
none of them are approved quickly...even the one obama approved in 2009 that was mentioned, its review started back in 2007 or earlier....
i'd say it's premature to tout and shout from the roof tops that it has been KILLED.
Indeed. It would seem that all they have to do is move the proposed route to not go over the major aquifer... I'm not really seeing why that's such an issue.
Surely it would cost them less in the long run to move the pipeline than it would to pay off all the people harmed if worse came to worst?
You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.
The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.
TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.
The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.
Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?
I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.
I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.
thats because you have to be dishonest....once again.....in the threads here on this subject 90% of the posters thought it may lessen our dependance on foreign oil......you cant possibly be that stupid Dean....or can you.....
I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.
thats because you have to be dishonest....once again.....in the threads here on this subject 90% of the posters thought it may lessen our dependance on foreign oil......you cant possibly be that stupid Dean....or can you.....
it's not up to us on what oil we use here harry...the oil/gas companies decide and right now they are exporting our oil/gasoline by the boocoos....
.there is absolutely no guarantee that the usa will use more Canadian oil due to this pipeline, in fact it is less likely that we will use more of their oil....the WHOLE REASON for the pipeline is so that canada can get more of their oil available for the global market, not the usa ''market''....they already had access to us and our refineries in the northern midwest....Canada EXPECTS the price per barrel of oil, once the keystone pipeline is complete to go UP in price....this is why they want it, so the various articles say....
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.
I know that....the Keystone people were actively looking for an alternate route around Nebraska...Obama jumped the gun and didn't even wait for them to find one! He vetoed it before they could find or offer an alternate route...so in other word...Obama didn't want it and didn't even give them a chance! He screwed at least 20,000 people out of a job ... Aren't you proud?
Congressional Deadline
"Obama acted before a Feb. 21 deadline Congress set after he postponed a decision to allow for a review of of a revised route through Nebraska. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673- kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Albertas oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, crossing six states and creating an estimated 20,000 jobs."
Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route - The Washington Post
