Biden to cancel the Keystone pipeline via executive action on 1st day, Trudeau already complaining, conservatives like Ann Coulter already pouncing!

[Uncensored2008]

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

You can't really be this stupid.

Okay, maybe you can.

 

[Dragonlady]

The real reason is that libs want expensive fuel to push theor green new deal.

Tankers are way more dangerous to the environment than pipelines.

We have pipelines crisscrossing the nation...but all of a sudden this XL Pipeline is going to kill us all?

Did they ever finish that fraud environmental impact study by Obama?

This also tends to "punish" a bunch of Trump voters. I would never underestimate that point.

Obama cancelled the project on the basis of the environmental study. This has nothing to do with Trump voters. Trump gave the go ahead to piss off Democrats, and to undo Obama's legacy. The environmental study said it was a bad idea.

Joe cancelled the pipeline to restore the Obama decision, which has been confirmed by the number and impacts of the leaks which have already occurred.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The real reason is that libs want expensive fuel to push theor green new deal.

Tankers are way more dangerous to the environment than pipelines.

We have pipelines crisscrossing the nation...but all of a sudden this XL Pipeline is going to kill us all?

Did they ever finish that fraud environmental impact study by Obama?

This also tends to "punish" a bunch of Trump voters. I would never underestimate that point.

....and Biden voters.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Liberal donor Warren Buffett gets to move more oil across his rail lines

 

[22lcidw]

The Keystone pipeline system, an addition to which has been the subject of environmental protests for years, leaked about 383,000 gallons of crude oil in North Dakota, covering an estimated half-acre of wetland, state environmental regulators said.

Keystone Pipeline Leaks 383,000 Gallons of Oil in North Dakota (Published 2019)

The spill in the northeastern part of the state, which occurred along a different stretch than the controversial XL pipeline addition, coated an estimated half-acre of wetland, officials said.

www.nytimes.com

.


HISTORY OF SPILLS: TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline (21 SPILLS: 2010-19)

Keystone Pipeline Spill History | Bold Nebraska

TC Energy oil spill PR oil discharge 12-9-22 (Photo: U.S. EPA) Site of 380,000-gallon tarsands oil spill from Keystone pipeline in northeastern North Dakota on Oct. 30, 2019. (Photo: Grand Forks Herald) April 2016 Keystone pipeline spill site on farmland near Freeman, South Dakota. (Photo...

boldnebraska.org

A whole half acre....

 

[healthmyths]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

You haven't given me any facts! How much oil will be spilled traveling 1 mile on the open ocean if a 1,000,000 barrel tanker has an accident, i.e. Exxon Valdez... Still affecting people after 30 years! Plus there are over 100,000 miles of pipeline... and you think 1% will then cause equal if not more leaks? Again where are your facts?

 

[harmonica]

The real reason is that libs want expensive fuel to push theor green new deal.

Tankers are way more dangerous to the environment than pipelines.

We have pipelines crisscrossing the nation...but all of a sudden this XL Pipeline is going to kill us all?

Did they ever finish that fraud environmental impact study by Obama?

This also tends to "punish" a bunch of Trump voters. I would never underestimate that point.

Obama cancelled the project on the basis of the environmental study. This has nothing to do with Trump voters. Trump gave the go ahead to piss off Democrats, and to undo Obama's legacy. The environmental study said it was a bad idea.

Joe cancelled the pipeline to restore the Obama decision, which has been confirmed by the number and impacts of the leaks which have already occurred.

..I've got news for you people: the US is going to die of debt/unemployment/BLM-black policies/economics/etc long before we will die of climate change--environmental crap
..I guess those were liberal studies--hahahhahahahahaha
leaks--????
post some links

 

[Dragonlady]

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

You can't really be this stupid.

Okay, maybe you can.

So those thousands of native peoples out there protesting the pipeline were just there for shits and giggles?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

What is the major, most important reason for Biden to cancel Keystone?

Pandering to special interest groups who helped get him elected

 

[ColonelAngus]

The real reason is that libs want expensive fuel to push theor green new deal.

Tankers are way more dangerous to the environment than pipelines.

We have pipelines crisscrossing the nation...but all of a sudden this XL Pipeline is going to kill us all?

Did they ever finish that fraud environmental impact study by Obama?

This also tends to "punish" a bunch of Trump voters. I would never underestimate that point.

Obama cancelled the project on the basis of the environmental study. This has nothing to do with Trump voters. Trump gave the go ahead to piss off Democrats, and to undo Obama's legacy. The environmental study said it was a bad idea.

Joe cancelled the pipeline to restore the Obama decision, which has been confirmed by the number and impacts of the leaks which have already occurred.

..I've got news for you people: the US is going to die of debt/unemployment/BLM-black policies/economics/etc long before we will die of climate change--environmental crap
..I guess those were liberal studies--hahahhahahahahaha
leaks--????
post some links

Libs who are more afraid of the climate boogeyman than the economy collapsing are dumb as fuck.

 

[Dragonlady]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

You haven't given me any facts! How much oil will be spilled traveling 1 mile on the open ocean if a 1,000,000 barrel tanker has an accident, i.e. Exxon Valdez... Still affecting people after 30 years! Plus there are over 100,000 miles of pipeline... an you think 1% will then cause equal if not more leaks? Again where are your facts?

I'm not an environmental scientist and I don't play one on the internet. Why don't you just google it a$$hat.

 

[Dragonlady]

What is the major, most important reason for Biden to cancel Keystone?

Pandering to special interest groups who helped get him elected

That "special interest group" is the American people, who have indicated that global warming is their biggest concern after covid19.

 

[harmonica]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

you're a goddam genius!!!!!!!!!!!! cut oil usage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[healthmyths]

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

You can't really be this stupid.

Okay, maybe you can.

So those thousands of native peoples out there protesting the pipeline were just there for shits and giggles?
Totally uninformed! YES.... You ask 100 of these "natives"... (who by the way thanks to the white man are living to age 75 versus when the white man came in the 1700s "natives" life span was 30!) how much of the Leaks would occur.
Again there are 16 monitors per mile of pipeline. 1 mile holds less than 700 barrels. Here is what enough oil to half fill an Olympic size swimming pool looks like.

View attachment 448927View attachment 448929View attachment 448930

 

[harmonica]

The real reason is that libs want expensive fuel to push theor green new deal.

Tankers are way more dangerous to the environment than pipelines.

We have pipelines crisscrossing the nation...but all of a sudden this XL Pipeline is going to kill us all?

Did they ever finish that fraud environmental impact study by Obama?

This also tends to "punish" a bunch of Trump voters. I would never underestimate that point.

Obama cancelled the project on the basis of the environmental study. This has nothing to do with Trump voters. Trump gave the go ahead to piss off Democrats, and to undo Obama's legacy. The environmental study said it was a bad idea.

Joe cancelled the pipeline to restore the Obama decision, which has been confirmed by the number and impacts of the leaks which have already occurred.

..I've got news for you people: the US is going to die of debt/unemployment/BLM-black policies/economics/etc long before we will die of climate change--environmental crap
..I guess those were liberal studies--hahahhahahahahaha
leaks--????
post some links

Libs who are more afraid of the climate boogeyman than the economy collapsing are dumb as fuck.

.....almost unbelievable that they think that way ---but they are stupid on the other issues also

 

[healthmyths]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Potential destruction of the ground water and water tables for indigineous peoples' communities along the route. The entire Keystone pipeline route endangers groundwater and the water tables in every state it passes through. There have already been leaks.

The obvious solution is to cut your oil useage. Millions of jobs will be created in the change over. Billions of dollars to be made.

you're a goddam genius!!!!!!!!!!!! cut oil usage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And while you cut out out... cut out these items!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Pandering to special interest groups who helped get him elected

That "special interest group" is the American people, who have indicated that global warming is their biggest concern after covid19.

Your religious beliefs are of no interest to me

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Votes.
The end.

 

[westwall]

I'm asking that question because from my understanding of critics of Keystone, the danger of oil spills damaging the environment is the number one reason. Do all of you that oppose Keystone agree? What other reason can there possibly be?

OK... so let's consider the damage that COULD be done if Keystone is not completed.
The pipeline, which has been in development for more than a decade, aims to transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refineries along the US’ Gulf Coast. Faced with lawsuits and strong opposition from environmental groups, the project was rejected by the Obama-Biden administration in 2015 over “environmental concerns” – a decision reversed by Donald Trump in 2017.

So as an alternative Canada’s government is also expanding the state-owned Trans Mountain line by 590,000 bpd to 890,000 bpd. That line terminates at the Port of Vancouver, where it should be able to deliver
1,000,000 barrels via tankers per day to the United States.

Even without Keystone XL, U.S. set for record Canadian oil imports

The Keystone XL pipeline project may be dead, but the United States is still poised to pull in record imports of Canadian oil in coming years through other pipelines that are in the midst of expanding.

www.reuters.com

So delivering oil by tankers to the USA using the open oceans seems to be an alternative.

HMMM... let's see.. 1,000,000 barrels traveling on the open ocean down to USA is safer than 830,000 barrels traveling 1,700 miles or less than 500 barrels traveling 1 mile on dry land through pipes with 16 monitors per mile.
Hmmm... which would be more dangerous? Remember 1989 Exxon Valdez?

Please someone explain how environmentalists can be in favor of 1 million barrels traveling on the open ocean?

Warren buffet gets the transportation cash instead of the pipeline operators.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

What is the major, most important reason for Biden to cancel Keystone?

Pandering to special interest groups who helped get him elected

That "special interest group" is the American people, who have indicated that global warming is their biggest concern after covid19.

What are the demleftists going to frighten everyone with so they have something to campaign on in 2024?
Not that it matters to you because you cant vote here hahahahahahaha.