3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

Whereas normally you libertard idgets fanatically sanctify as "legitimately righteous" everything about unions this and unions that, you sanctimonious hypocrite! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

aside from me not being a liberal, youre blathering again

aside from me not being a liberal, your blathering again Originally Posted by CJ7

As that ol' saying goes (with a slight variation on the theme), "When CBJ7 posts like a libertard . . . quacks like a libertard . . . CBJ7 is a libertard!"

just because I counter all of your horseshit with the facts doesnt make me or anyone else that does a liberal ... it makes you a pos hypocritical rightwinger

just because I counter all of your horseshit with the facts doesnt make me or anyone else that does a liberal ... it makes you a pos hypocritical rightwinger Originally Posted by CJ7

You have a damn poor memory, CBJ7—your hypocritical, libertard-ass didn’t refute a damn thing:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...light=mckibben

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...stone+pipeline

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...stone+pipeline

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...stone+pipeline

bla bla bla

either rail against union labor building the pipeline, or laud the unions for building it ..

same goes for you anti union whirlie

bla bla bla Originally Posted by CJ7

That's about the most cogent statement you'll ever make, CBJ7.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...light=mckibben

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...stone+pipeline

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...stone+pipeline

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?...stone+pipeline

build the damn thing already ... the unions need the work and Canadian oil Companies need a new hub to export the oil, aka, Houston ... you rightwing idgets bitch about unions this and unions that, well heres your reason to bitch about keystone ... unless of course youre a damn hypocritical pos, which you are ..

http://www.pipeline-news.com/feature...-american-jobs Originally Posted by CJ7

I don't know why the Canadians don't just build the pipeline from the oil patch over to Vancouver, where there is a large port and shipping facilities already in place. Its not like they cannot access the sea from in-house. Although I do not know the Canadians refining capability in country. It sure would be a big fuck-you to the US and Obama in particular.

I don't know why the Canadians don't just build the pipeline from the oil patch over to Vancouver, where there is a large port and shipping facilities already in place. Its not like they cannot access the sea from in-house. Although I do not know the Canadians refining capability in country. It sure would be a big fuck-you to the US and Obama in particular. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

There is a big fuck you anyway. They want to sell to the asian market, period. Well not period, period as long as the asians are willing to pay more! We are basically raising our cost of gasoline to lower China's cost because of these pipelines. That does not sound like 'public interest' to me....unless you'tre Asian! LOL

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/23/news...hina/index.htm

In an effort to diversify its export base and sell to growing markets, Canada has been looking to build a pipeline to its West Coast long before the Keystone controversy even began.
And actually laying a pipeline to the West Coast will be just as hard as building one through the United States.
"It's not a question of either or," said Sarah Ladislaw, an energy analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "That [talk] is just politically convenient."
The Northern Gateway: While Keystone's builder TransCanada (TRP) has been dominating the headlines in the United States, its competitor Enbridge (ENB) has been getting lots of ink in Canada with plans to build a pipeline of its own.
Known as Northern Gateway, the pipeline is a $5 billion project to carry crude from the oil sands region in Alberta to Kitimat, a deepwater port on Canada's West Coast about halfway between Seattle and the Alaska border. From there it would likely be loaded onto tankers and sent to Asia.


The desire to build a pipeline to the West Coast was there long before Keystone ran into trouble this summer.
Production from Canada's oil sands currently stands at about 1.6 million barrels per day. But that's slated to grow to between 3 to 5 million barrels per day over the next couple of decades.
Canada wants to sell this oil to growing markets in Asia, not simply rely on the Untied States, where oil demand is stagnant or declining.
- See more at: http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/23/news....QOhTQp2h.dpuf

The Canadians should be able to sell their oil to whomever they want. Just like the Saudis, Russians, Iranians, etc do. If the US can make a few bucks on the Canadians oil in the process then OK with me.

The Canadians should be able to sell their oil to whomever they want. Just like the Saudis, Russians, Iranians, etc do. If the US can make a few bucks on the Canadians oil in the process then OK with me. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

You do realize that the Canadians are having a harder time getting a pipeline built through their own country than through ours!

A very very very select few people are making a buck on that pipeline...like I have said over and over, How is that ''public interests"?

If you hear tell , people say better the USofA getting the oil than China , when the truth is, China is getting it if and only if we build them a pipeline!

To top it off we are giving the god damn companies that refine it a huge tax break! SOME PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS!

Look if you want to defend that BS, fine with me. I was for it before doing some research. I personally like to see a law where oil in this region , stays in this region... or we tax the shit out of it if it leaves.

You do realize that the Canadians are having a harder time getting a pipeline built through their own country than through ours!

A very very very select few people are making a buck on that pipeline...like I have said over and over, How is that ''public interests"?

If you hear tell , people say better the USofA getting the oil than China , when the truth is, China is getting it if and only if we build them a pipeline!

To top it off we are giving the god damn companies that refine it a huge tax break! SOME PUBLIC INTEREST THAT IS!

Look if you want to defend that BS, fine with me. I was for it before doing some research. I personally like to see a law where oil in this region , stays in this region... or we tax the shit out of it if it leaves. Originally Posted by WTF

If the Canadians really want to get the oil out of there that bad they can always load up tanker trucks and drive it to their coast. Geographry will play a big role building to their west coast. There's a lot of mountains between the two.

Public interest is irrelevant assuming the landowners sign over the land right-of-ways and the pipeline owner plays by the US environmental rules. If a few landowners object, then t goes back into the legal system. Your problem with the whole deal is on the legal side. There is so much established law in the books concerning eminant domain change would be difficult, but not impossible.

You know where I'm at with ANY tax subsidies to ANY companies.

Finally, you want to see another new law? Why does the government need to dictate where/when/to whom/price any company sells its product? From oil to auto parts to golf clubs to Cheetos.

Finally, you want to see another new law? Why does the government need to dictate where/when/to whom/price any company sells its product? From oil to auto parts to golf clubs to Cheetos. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Don't forget tanks, planes and nukes!

There is that thing call 'public interests'. , you know the thing the government relies on in things like land grabs with eminent domain!





People forget that irony is my strong suit. I cursed with it, much like JD with his throat expanding love of hot weenies!

If the Canadians really want to get the oil out of there that bad they can always load up tanker trucks and drive it to their coast. Geographry will play a big role building to their west coast. There's a lot of mountains between the two.

. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

If you read the history, there are a lot of environmentalist between that tar sands and the coast, including a couple of Indian Tribal lands.

Do any of you read Jarrod Diamond?
http://www.economicsciencecommunity....ollapsing.html

To Diamond, social collapse nearly always springs from an environmental problem. The episodes covered in the book resulted from exhaustion or spoliation of a vital resource – soil, water, plants, animals, trees, fuel. Even where war, ethnic genocide, disease, natural disasters, or shifting trade patterns are clearly evident, he sees these as outgrowths, or symptoms, of some underlying environmental abuse. History’s failed societies are those that irreparably fouled or over-exploited their natural resources, with deadly final consequences.

Why would any society allow itself to reach that point? Collapse offers three main explanations – (1) Ignorance – some societies failed to appreciate the environmental consequences of their actions until it was too late to rectify things; (2) Impotence -- some saw the problem coming in time but lacked the knowledge or means to avert disaster, or else chose wrongly among possible solutions; or (3) Intransigence -- some saw the problem coming, were aware of possible solutions, but ignored them and stayed on a path to oblivion anyway....


....
In discussing why some societies collapse even while aware of pending doom, Diamond points to two forms of social intransigence, one arising from rational behavior of individuals, the other not. In discussing rational intransigence, he turns to economics, citing three problems:

1. Concentrated gains, dispersed losses. His example:

…until 1971, mining companies in Montana on closing down a mine just left it with its copper, arsenic, and acid leaking out into rivers, because the state of Montana had no law requiring companies to clean up after mine closure. In 1971 the state did pass such a law, but companies discovered they could extract the valuable ore and then just declare bankruptcy before going to the expense of cleaning up. The result has been about $500 million of cleanup costs to be borne by the citizens of Montana….

Finally, you want to see another new law? Why does the government need to dictate where/when/to whom/price any company sells its product? From oil to auto parts to golf clubs to Cheetos. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I'll tell you why.... check out the link below, it is very similiar to common good eminent domain. While this is not the case in question , it is very similiar.
http://beta.fool.com/pierredv/2013/02/23/dow-chemical-vs-exxon-mobil-over-future-shale-gas-/25411/

Dow is vehemently opposed to the project because it believes that LNG exports will lead to lower natural gas supply at home and higher prices, which in turn would compromise its future construction of chemical plants and hurt its bottom line.

What I find strange is how some of you call on the government to help private companies take citizens land and yet denounce government to restrict companies which would benifit citizens. That common good sure looks like a one way street with no speed limit nor stop signs for big business and a dirt road with speed traps and pot holes for private citizens.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Its part of the Bill of Rights, if you don't like it work to get the amendment repealed, it can and has been done before. I've already been through the "taken" part with you, yet you continue to use that inaccurate term. You either agree with the Constitution, or you don't.

In your story above, the pertinent part of it is this

Dow's financial position has been in a bit of a jam lately. Its profit margins have declined. Its earnings per share are now 75% lower than what they were in 2008, and the stock price has gone nowhere since early 2010. The company was in the process of restructuring and moving its business to Asia on a massive scale in order to improve its bottom line, but then the horizontal hydrofracking revolution came as fresh summer rain to the chemical giant

Simply self-preservation move by Dow trying to block EM. They can't compete and be competitive, so they go to court, been happening with business forever. With as much natural gas the US has, its a bullshit strawman smokescreen. Dow needs to adapt and change their way of business or fail. Good companies can do it, failing companies cannot.