If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   State Department says Keystone XL Pipeline is environmentally sound. EPA told to sit in the corner until it can apologize   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 101
    More: Unlikely, Keystone Pipeline, State Department, EPA, anchors, environmentally friendly, pipeline, Shell Oil, Senator John Kerry  
•       •       •

897 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Mar 2013 at 6:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-01 04:20:24 PM
I'll reserver my judgment until the US Chamber of Commerce weighs in with their scientific study on the matter.
 
2013-03-01 05:11:42 PM
God dammit they are just determined to foist this POS on our country and screw the midwest aren't they.

fark you Canada, build your own stupid pipeline.
 
2013-03-01 05:24:11 PM

Elandriel: God dammit they are just determined to foist this POS on our country and screw the midwest aren't they.

fark you Canada, build your own stupid pipeline.


Yup. And even if there wasn't any environmental damage from it (and I'm not sure there is), the abuse of eminent domain to get this built is going to be very, very ugly.
 
2013-03-01 05:40:57 PM
Why in the world are we allowing our largest importer of oil to walk their oil right through our country in order to open up to new markets? Is there anyone who thinks the price of oil will go down when it becomes more efficient for Canada to sell to other buyers? And then there was this, highlighted in the article:

the draft Supplemental EIS concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area. [...]

We're not even going to be refining more oil? So no more additional jobs for even the refineries in the Gulf Coast?

WTF?

Is there any way in which Americans will benefit from this project?

I mean seriously, what exactly are they trying to sell us on? What benefit(s) to America are the oil companies touting?
 
2013-03-01 05:47:09 PM

make me some tea: I'll reserver my judgment until the US Chamber of Commerce weighs in with their scientific study on the matter.


I remember when doing an EIS was the job of the EPA. There was a reason for that, but I forget what it was. Something about qualified, objective scientists.

Also: FTFA: concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area

Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)
 
2013-03-01 06:00:37 PM

MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)


Oil companies that own representatives.
 
2013-03-01 06:11:31 PM

GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.


Word up.
 
2013-03-01 06:17:22 PM

GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.


My point is that if it's not affecting either end of production (extraction or refining), the Kock Brothers (or whoever) probably aren't getting direct oil profits out of it over what they would get otherwise

I'm really trying to suggest that it's almost entirely a political wedge tool.
 
2013-03-01 06:20:22 PM

MrBallou: GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.

My point is that if it's not affecting either end of production (extraction or refining), the Kock Brothers (or whoever) probably aren't getting direct oil profits out of it over what they would get otherwise

I'm really trying to suggest that it's almost entirely a political wedge tool.


Of course it is.  Never mind it doesn't create jobs, as long as you claim it will, the media will repeat it endlessly.  So if it's properly blocked, you claim the President is blocking jobs.

Keeping our food supply untainted doesn't matter to these people.
 
2013-03-01 06:26:05 PM

GAT_00: MrBallou: GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.

My point is that if it's not affecting either end of production (extraction or refining), the Kock Brothers (or whoever) probably aren't getting direct oil profits out of it over what they would get otherwise

I'm really trying to suggest that it's almost entirely a political wedge tool.

Of course it is.  Never mind it doesn't create jobs, as long as you claim it will, the media will repeat it endlessly.  So if it's properly blocked, you claim the President is blocking jobs.

Keeping our food supply untainted doesn't matter to these people.


Or the water table.
 
2013-03-01 06:43:55 PM
FTFA: Sierra Club responds: "We're mystified as to how the State Department can acknowledge the negative effects of the Earth's dirtiest oil on our climate, but at the same time claim that the proposed pipeline will 'not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects.' Whether this failure was willful or accidental, this report is nothing short of malpractice. "

I wasn't able to find out, but is there any evidence that the Keystone XL usage would displace even dirtier currently used fuels, as TP mentions (in general) in its Carbon Bomb article? If so could it be a net benefit as far as pollutant levels go?
 
2013-03-01 06:45:20 PM

MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)


Its not conspiratorial thinking to "follow the money." That's a pretty good way of finding out who indeed would benefit from this.
 
2013-03-01 06:56:12 PM
So, environmentally safe but totally useless.  Why is this even being considered?

All told, over $178 million was spent 2012 to lobby in support of the pipeline - outdoing opponents by a whopping 35 to 1.

Oh...right.
 
2013-03-01 07:06:37 PM

Lionel Mandrake: So, environmentally safe but totally useless. Why is this even being considered?


Money's got to be made damnit!!!

I live in the Midwest and I for one can't wait to see gas prices rise as a result of this pipeline. Since we already get oil from Alberta anyways, nothing is gained from our end.
 
2013-03-01 07:09:07 PM
You mean gas prices go up again?  So instead of this oil bringing down the price of oil in the local market (the U.S. and Canada) it goes on the global market and brings their price down a little and ours up a little?

So how does this help us?
 
2013-03-01 07:15:55 PM

2wolves: GAT_00: MrBallou: GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.

My point is that if it's not affecting either end of production (extraction or refining), the Kock Brothers (or whoever) probably aren't getting direct oil profits out of it over what they would get otherwise

I'm really trying to suggest that it's almost entirely a political wedge tool.

Of course it is.  Never mind it doesn't create jobs, as long as you claim it will, the media will repeat it endlessly.  So if it's properly blocked, you claim the President is blocking jobs.

Keeping our food supply untainted doesn't matter to these people.

Or the water table.


Actually, I'm thinking of my own self interest: that pipeline goes in, my fuel prices go up.
 
2013-03-01 07:18:57 PM

coco ebert: GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.

Word up.


But... but 20,000 JOBS!!!*

*not intended to be a factual statement
 
2013-03-01 07:21:54 PM
So...the Koch Brothers and Big Oil have a few ringers in the State Department? Hell no. This isn't going to create any American jobs, so fark the Republicans and their donors. Consider this payback for all their budget temper tantrums.

Don't even get me started on the environmental rape and the land grabs...
 
2013-03-01 07:22:15 PM
Ahhh... the Barbell EIS. Only reviewing impact on the ends.
What about the rivers it crosses? Wetlands? Protected areas?
It will be like a Cristo's Running Fence that you can't take down.
 
2013-03-01 07:22:19 PM

ox45tallboy: Is there any way in which Americans will benefit from this project?


The yacht polishing community frowns upon your shenanigans.
 
2013-03-01 07:25:31 PM

MrBallou: make me some tea: I'll reserver my judgment until the US Chamber of Commerce weighs in with their scientific study on the matter.

I remember when doing an EIS was the job of the EPA. There was a reason for that, but I forget what it was. Something about qualified, objective scientists.

Also: FTFA: concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area

Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)


China (who gets the oil) and Canada (who sends it to them)
 
2013-03-01 07:27:42 PM
Canada is already hurting because oil has become cheap enough to make extracting it out of the tar sands not economical.

Gotta make it more economical somehow!
 
2013-03-01 07:29:05 PM

meat0918: Canada is already hurting because oil has become cheap enough to make extracting it out of the tar sands not economical.

Gotta make it more economical somehow!


Their gas prices are no lower than before. The price of a barrel of crude is the same no matter where you go.
 
2013-03-01 07:29:48 PM
It would be a shame if completed sections were bombed while it was under construction and not carrying any oil. A damn great shame.
 
2013-03-01 07:30:18 PM
FTFA: Based on information and analysis about the North American crude transport infrastructure (particularly the proven ability of rail to transport substantial quantities of crude oil profitably under current market conditions, and to add capacity relatively rapidly) and the global crude oil market, the draft Supplemental EIS concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area. [...]

Does that sound like an environmental impact study, or a marketing study?  How many chemists, biologists, hydrologists, and geologists does the State Department have on staff?  This is bullshiat.  Is the Department of Veterans Affairs doing a study as well?
 
2013-03-01 07:30:29 PM
i192.photobucket.com

Hahahaha, suckers.

/Just because I might be in favor of a pipeline does not disqualify me from pointing out that Obama is full of shiat
 
2013-03-01 07:32:26 PM

Pinner: meat0918: Canada is already hurting because oil has become cheap enough to make extracting it out of the tar sands not economical.

Gotta make it more economical somehow!

Their gas prices are no lower than before. The price of a barrel of crude is the same no matter where you go.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/ener gy -and-resources/oil-and-gas-industry-facing-a-roller-coaster-ride/artic le8900814/

"But global economic conditions are pressuring fuel prices worldwide, and Canada's oil and gas sector has the added frustration of a deficit in infrastructure that, among other things, is driving the price of western Canadian oil down by nearly $25 from benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude. "

Also in that article, the fact we are exploiting the Bakkan Shale is impacting their ability to export to us.

And that "deficit in infrastructure" is the lack of a pipeline to the Gulf.
 
2013-03-01 07:32:49 PM

cman: [i192.photobucket.com image 320x266]

Hahahaha, suckers.

/Just because I might be in favor of a pipeline does not disqualify me from pointing out that Obama is full of shiat


Damn...you just don't make any damn sense these days.
 
2013-03-01 07:34:42 PM
Be fair, guys. This pipeline may be an ecological disaster. It may involve massive eminent domain abuse to enrich a few oil executives.  It may drive up our fuel costs.

But, it could create as many as 20 PERMANENT JOBS!

Two tens, biatches!
 
2013-03-01 07:37:15 PM
Um, no.  The State Dept. admitted that the pipeline WILL have an impact on the environment.  But, it "sees no other viable alternative" to the current plan.  so, it is approving the pipeline.

As for who this benefits?  No one, save for the Canadian company that will be selling their crap oil to other markets - through our ports.
 
2013-03-01 07:38:05 PM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: [i192.photobucket.com image 320x266]

Hahahaha, suckers.

/Just because I might be in favor of a pipeline does not disqualify me from pointing out that Obama is full of shiat

Damn...you just don't make any damn sense these days.


Didnt Obama run on an putting the Lobbyists in place platform?

There is no way in hell that the State Department would say this is a good thing unless if they were influenced to say so.
 
2013-03-01 07:42:06 PM
this is just bad

bad, obama, BAD

no more talk about being liberal for you

no, not by anyone
 
2013-03-01 07:58:43 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: It would be a shame if completed sections were bombed while it was under construction and not carrying any oil. A damn great shame.


Hayduke Lives!
 
2013-03-01 08:11:45 PM

Somacandra: I wasn't able to find out, but is there any evidence that the Keystone XL usage would displace even dirtier currently used fuels, as TP mentions (in general) in its Carbon Bomb article? If so could it be a net benefit as far as pollutant levels go?


That's worth considering. However, isn't the whole point of the pipeline to export Canadian oil to countries other than the US? It's not like we'll be increasing the amount of Canadian oil usage; in fact we might very well be decreasing our use from one of our biggest non-threats, non-possibility of going-to-war friends out there. Unless one argues that the decrease in availability of Canadian oil might prompt the use of cleaner-burning fuels from other sources, I don't think that this scenario is likely.
 
2013-03-01 08:13:37 PM

Therion: The yacht polishing community frowns upon your shenanigans


Don't yachts run on diesel? Which means that yachts won't be out on the sea as often, which means they won't need to be polished as often.

I think the yacht polishers should be as upset about this one as anyone.
 
2013-03-01 08:16:44 PM

2wolves: Or the water table.


Fracking scares the crap out of me a lot more than tar sands, at least in relation to the water table. At least with the tar sands they don't bury all of the chemicals far beneath the earth to seep into the groundwater.
 
2013-03-01 08:17:00 PM

Omahawg: this is just bad

bad, obama, BAD

no more talk about being liberal for you

no, not by anyone


What the hell does Obama have to do with it? He hasn't come down one way or the other and won't for at least months.
 
2013-03-01 08:18:03 PM

cman: /Just because I might be in favor of a pipeline does not disqualify me from pointing out that Obama is full of shiat


If he was that full of sh*t, he would have just greenlighted it right away instead of refusing to do so. Not to say he won't do it anyways, but it's not like he just signed off on it as soon as it crossed his desk.
 
2013-03-01 08:20:36 PM

MurphyMurphy: What the hell does Obama have to do with it? He hasn't come down one way or the other and won't for at least months.


I think it's the fact that Obama hasn't "hell no" and tossed the whole project out on its ear like should have happened. Instead he's delaying it while more studies are done and more information is gathered.

This is the latest conservative talking point - look at how many non-liberal things Obama is doing! See, he's not the Messiah! You liberals should have never put your faith in him! He's really a conservative that has been lying to you the whole time!
 
2013-03-01 08:28:31 PM

cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: [i192.photobucket.com image 320x266]

Hahahaha, suckers.

/Just because I might be in favor of a pipeline does not disqualify me from pointing out that Obama is full of shiat

Damn...you just don't make any damn sense these days.

Didnt Obama run on an putting the Lobbyists in place platform?

There is no way in hell that the State Department would say this is a good thing unless if they were influenced to say so.


What?  Which is it?  Unless or if?
 
2013-03-01 08:34:19 PM

GAT_00: MrBallou: Just who benefits from this thing? (Adjusts tinfoil hat)

Oil companies that own representatives.


Representatives that own (lots of shares) in oil companies.
 
2013-03-01 08:49:46 PM

ox45tallboy: MurphyMurphy: What the hell does Obama have to do with it? He hasn't come down one way or the other and won't for at least months.

I think it's the fact that Obama hasn't "hell no" and tossed the whole project out on its ear like should have happened. Instead he's delaying it while more studies are done and more information is gathered.

This is the latest conservative talking point - look at how many non-liberal things Obama is doing! See, he's not the Messiah! You liberals should have never put your faith in him! He's really a conservative that has been lying to you the whole time!


THIS

saying about how you're all for green energy this and that and then not shooting this down when the Nebraska GOP got called back into session to say 'uh, sandhils?'

think about that, the nebraska legislature called back by the gop governor and obama just fence sits, looking weak and carter-like

yes, nebraska legislature is officially non-partisan.
 
2013-03-01 08:52:28 PM

ox45tallboy: Is there any way in which Americans will benefit from this project?


A trivial amount of tax revenue and a few thousand fleeting jobs. Of course, those will be more than drowned by the environmental damage but, hey, rich people can't loot the earth after they're dead!
 
2013-03-01 08:58:47 PM

Omahawg: ox45tallboy: MurphyMurphy: What the hell does Obama have to do with it? He hasn't come down one way or the other and won't for at least months.

I think it's the fact that Obama hasn't "hell no" and tossed the whole project out on its ear like should have happened. Instead he's delaying it while more studies are done and more information is gathered.

This is the latest conservative talking point - look at how many non-liberal things Obama is doing! See, he's not the Messiah! You liberals should have never put your faith in him! He's really a conservative that has been lying to you the whole time!

THIS

saying about how you're all for green energy this and that and then not shooting this down when the Nebraska GOP got called back into session to say 'uh, sandhils?'

think about that, the nebraska legislature called back by the gop governor and obama just fence sits, looking weak and carter-like

yes, nebraska legislature is officially non-partisan.


Only in the GOP's America is doing things legally and logically a Bad Thing.

Of course, only in today's liberal America is doing things legally and logically a Bad Thing, too.
 
2013-03-01 09:34:42 PM
I troll conservative relations on facebook who are all keystone! keystone! and ask if they are good americans by wanting a foreign company to use eminent domain on a bunch of farmers and ranchers just to pump benzene sludge to the gulf coast for export.

the only thing good about all of this is that it has made a few reflexive republican voters (who voted for eisenhower 'cause lincoln won the war) in the solid red hinterlands of nebraska take a bit of a deeper look at how much they are getting screwed by their own team.

all politics is local, tip
 
2013-03-01 09:41:40 PM

Lionel Mandrake: cman: Lionel Mandrake: cman: [i192.photobucket.com image 320x266]

Hahahaha, suckers.

/Just because I might be in favor of a pipeline does not disqualify me from pointing out that Obama is full of shiat

Damn...you just don't make any damn sense these days.

Didnt Obama run on an putting the Lobbyists in place platform?

There is no way in hell that the State Department would say this is a good thing unless if they were influenced to say so.

What?  Which is it?  Unless or if?


Strike the "if"

My English is if not good at times
 
2013-03-01 09:54:46 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: The State Dept. admitted that the pipeline WILL have an impact on the environment. But, it "sees no other viable alternative" to the current plan.


I didn't see this statement in either the article or the linked report.

Regardless, one viable alternative would be to make the farking Canucks build the damned thing through their own farking country.
 
2013-03-01 10:00:46 PM

Crunch61: Grand_Moff_Joseph: The State Dept. admitted that the pipeline WILL have an impact on the environment. But, it "sees no other viable alternative" to the current plan.

I didn't see this statement in either the article or the linked report.

Regardless, one viable alternative would be to make the farking Canucks build the damned thing through their own farking country.


FTFA:

"Construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would create "numerous" and "substantial" impacts on the environment, the State Department said Friday in a draft environmental impact statement. But the project is a better bet than any of the alternatives, it said in essentially clearing the project to go ahead. "
 
2013-03-01 10:22:57 PM

Omahawg: this is just bad

bad, obama, BAD

no more talk about being liberal for you

no, not by anyone


Many liberals knew he wasn't liberal before he was even elected i.e telecom immunity. The only people who thought Obama was a "liberal" were those on the right who are afraid of the blac... I mean ... communi .. that is to say the Musli ... I'm sorry the fasci .... ahem the  nigBOING and the left who bought into the Teapublicans claim that he was.
 
2013-03-01 10:25:08 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: FTFA:

"Construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline would create "numerous" and "substantial" impacts on the environment, the State Department said Friday in a draft environmental impact statement. But the project is a better bet than any of the alternatives, it said in essentially clearing the project to go ahead. "


We must be reading different articles.  I don't see any part of that quote in the linked article I'm reading.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report