NO PIPELINE! Thanks Mr. President

That's funnier yet. You think you have been clear! LOL! Simply proves you don't know what you're talking about. But we all knew that before.

I have shbown way more knowledge on thbis subject than you have. I was in the industry for 15 years. You have admitted mixed emotions on the subject. That was a wise thing to admit. It is not so black and whiteand both sides continue with hyperbole. But to try and color me as anything but middle of the road on this subject is not a fair reading of what has be written by me. I have said there are plenty other subjects where you could do that and I would agree with you. This is not one of them. Have a good wekend cog. May you win all your bets on the super bowl. Lord knows I want to win my 200k one!

This wasn't about the pipeline, it was about you denying what you did actually say, and then saying you had made it perfectly clear. You were wrong, and I have no mixed emotions about that. You have a fine weekend yourself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 about 30 sec in is where he says under his plan rates will skyrocket. Remember his agenda is to get away from oil by making it cost too much. He stopped the gulf drilling, that made the drilling rigs leave, those are decade long commitments, he doesn't want keystone, petrobras in brazil with it's loan guarantee just struck oil that they are selling to the chinese. it's all about making our fuel cost so much we are forced to alternative energy even though it doesn't work.

We are burning food (corn) for fuel instead of petroleum, how does that make sense? It makes food cost more. And it screws up a lot of fuel lines and engines lacking the natural lubricating properties of fuel.

There are thousands of miles of pipelines criss crossing the US http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...ystone-XL.html if all you oil haters don't want one more pipeline stop using petroleum based products. Like your laptop, all of the plastic is petroleum based, the labels you, see, your car, even electric car, the plastic inside, the wire jacket in your house, the food that you eat was brought using fuel. just stop using it and make a statement.

You know, maybe you are right, oil is bad for the earth, let's dig it up and burn it all!! Down with oil, burn it BURN IT!!

We are burning food (corn) for fuel instead of petroleum, how does that make sense? It makes food cost more. And it screws up a lot of fuel lines and engines lacking the natural lubricating properties of fuel. Originally Posted by switchingroles

actually, its not food corn that's being used. its the other kind of corn that's inedbile for humans thats used for cattle feed and fertilizer. the farmers were growing more of that type corn than the food corn as they figured they would make more money with that crop.

You know, maybe you are right, oil is bad for the earth, let's dig it up and burn it all!! Down with oil, burn it BURN IT!!

ya know that would make this planet a very unhealthy place to live.

The future winners in energy will definitely be

Wind
Solar
Hydro-Electric

No Oil
No Gas
No Coal

Obama is just ahead of the time

Maybe gas has to go to $8 or $9 per gallon before we see what's right.
We'll get over it, get used to it.
In the long term, renewable energy is the best option we have, independent, safe and long lasting. Obama is really right about this.
Even Germany, (make no mistake its the powerhouse of the world), is closing nuclear power plants and going renewable.

This wasn't about the pipeline, it was about you denying what you did actually say, and then saying you had made it perfectly clear. You were wrong, and I have no mixed emotions about that. You have a fine weekend yourself! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You took what I said wrong.

No different that people taking what Mitt said wrong.

If you focus on one comment and not the entirety of my comment(s) it can be taken wrongly.

I have said from the start that I was for the project. But that it is not a huge deal either way as far as jobs go. Looking into it further, Neb. was the state that had the real problem with it and their state legislatures were not for it as routed. People are piling on Obama but not the GOP Neb state legislatures. That was my point.

You only see what you want to see COG. If I invented a common sense pill and gave it to you and you finially had some common sense , you would claim I gave you a placebo. Do you understand what I just said?

In case not....I said that when it comes to me, you will never show any common sense even if I invent a common sense pill!

LOL, SO GOOD

Being in Texas, traveling to Nebraska, and knowing family in the oil industry in Texas, I've seen and heard both sides of this debate.

The four big reasons supporters have backed Keystone/TransCanada's pipeline are that it will provide domestic oil, an increase in jobs, and money into the economy, all while being safe to the existing environment.

Problem is, none of those things are true.

The linked Cornell University report goes right to the source for jobs, safety, and output data--KXL and TransCanada's own documentation submitted to the individual states in question stating the number of jobs they'll create and for how long.

First off, 13,000 jobs is incorrect. We're looking at approx. 5k temporary jobs that will be created, with the majority of those temporary jobs expiring in two years time. Cornell University used KXL's own state-by-state submissions to come up with the numbers of people that will be employed. Of note, TransCanada's own estimates (Based on data provided by TransCanada to the State Department) only between 506 and 1,387 workers would be hired locally, with the majority of these new hires being in Texas where the oil will be refined for export.

And if you want to use the 'residual job' number for an argument, please understand that KXL/TransCanada have standing contracts with Indian and Chinese steel pipeline providers. Additionally, TransCanada has already purchased and imported a significant portion of the pipeline. So other than a few hands to put the pipe together, there will be little in the way of residual jobs, and what jobs are created will last only for a couple of years at best. And if you think TransCanada is going to break an international business contract to get steel from the US, you've been living in fairy tale land for too long.

That comes to point number two--the oil will *not* be for domestic (United States) use. It's already been stated time and again this oil is intended for export to developing nations--specifically China, India, and Brazil. While another poster here was correct in ascertaining this would ultimately drive down overall oil prices, it does nothing to shore up domestic energy security or short-term oil prices. The oil is too dirty for domestic consumption, but is fine for emerging countries with low to no air quality standards.

This comes to the next point--pipeline safety. The linked Cornell University report highlights 14 known reports of spills from KXL in 2010 (2011 isn't available yet) from a similar pipeline carrying a similar type of 'dirty' tar sand oil. And these are only the reports we know about that came from within KXL.

Now, I could care less if you're a hippy tree hugger or that you backyard compost, wipe your butt with palm leaves, or whatever--but common sense dictates that you don't let pollutants come close to where you eat or drink, and the Nebraska aquifer in question is both, as it provides drinking water and water for crop irrigation. Plus, Nebraska isn't just impacted by this--Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas are all impacted if something happens to that aquifer.

Finally, the amount of money that Keystone will spend in the US on this deal isn't in the tens of billions that people are throwing around. The Cornell University report found that the real money that will be spent in the US will be closer to $4.5 to 5 billion US. The tens of billions we keep hearing are the amount being spent on the *overall* project--the project that has 30-40% of its infrastructure in Canada. Additionally, much of this money has already been allocated--per KXL and TransCanada themselves, they've already spent over 70% of it. So the real leftover money the US can expect from this deal is significantly smaller than what we're hearing.

Oh, and if you've been DATY for too long and haven't paid attention to the news, the oil is still flowing to Texas, despite the lack of a pipeline. It's going by rail, which is what is so sad and funny about this discussion--the whole time, KXL has been playing people saying that the processing will go elsewhere, but it can't--TransCanada doesn't have anywhere else remotely close that can process the oil, save for existing contractors in Texas. So instead they're sending it by railcar, which makes Warren Buffet all the smarter for having picked them up months ago.

The sooner that proponents of the pipeline can realize they're being played like a fiddle, the sooner they can perhaps go back to enjoying the fine quality women this board helps us get in contact with. And frankly, that will be a lot more enjoyable and more worth the effort than parroting lobbyists.

---

Also, just for clarification, Nebraska is technically a purple state--they dole their delegates out proportionally per the popular vote, so Obama did get a delegate (Omaha, Lincoln) from the state, though the other two went to McCain.

Being in Texas, traveling to Nebraska, and knowing family in the oil industry in Texas, I've seen and heard both sides of this debate.

The four big reasons supporters have backed Keystone/TransCanada's pipeline are that it will provide domestic oil, an increase in jobs, and money into the economy, all while being safe to the existing environment.

Problem is, none of those things are true.

The linked Cornell University report goes right to the source for jobs, safety, and output data--KXL and TransCanada's own documentation submitted to the individual states in question stating the number of jobs they'll create and for how long.

First off, 13,000 jobs is incorrect. We're looking at approx. 5k temporary jobs that will be created, with the majority of those temporary jobs expiring in two years time. Cornell University used KXL's own state-by-state submissions to come up with the numbers of people that will be employed. Of note, TransCanada's own estimates (Based on data provided by TransCanada to the State Department) only between 506 and 1,387 workers would be hired locally, with the majority of these new hires being in Texas where the oil will be refined for export.

And if you want to use the 'residual job' number for an argument, please understand that KXL/TransCanada have standing contracts with Indian and Chinese steel pipeline providers. Additionally, TransCanada has already purchased and imported a significant portion of the pipeline. So other than a few hands to put the pipe together, there will be little in the way of residual jobs, and what jobs are created will last only for a couple of years at best. And if you think TransCanada is going to break an international business contract to get steel from the US, you've been living in fairy tale land for too long.

That comes to point number two--the oil will *not* be for domestic (United States) use. It's already been stated time and again this oil is intended for export to developing nations--specifically China, India, and Brazil. While another poster here was correct in ascertaining this would ultimately drive down overall oil prices, it does nothing to shore up domestic energy security or short-term oil prices. The oil is too dirty for domestic consumption, but is fine for emerging countries with low to no air quality standards.

This comes to the next point--pipeline safety. The linked Cornell University report highlights 14 known reports of spills from KXL in 2010 (2011 isn't available yet) from a similar pipeline carrying a similar type of 'dirty' tar sand oil. And these are only the reports we know about that came from within KXL.

Now, I could care less if you're a hippy tree hugger or that you backyard compost, wipe your butt with palm leaves, or whatever--but common sense dictates that you don't let pollutants come close to where you eat or drink, and the Nebraska aquifer in question is both, as it provides drinking water and water for crop irrigation. Plus, Nebraska isn't just impacted by this--Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas are all impacted if something happens to that aquifer.

Finally, the amount of money that Keystone will spend in the US on this deal isn't in the tens of billions that people are throwing around. The Cornell University report found that the real money that will be spent in the US will be closer to $4.5 to 5 billion US. The tens of billions we keep hearing are the amount being spent on the *overall* project--the project that has 30-40% of its infrastructure in Canada. Additionally, much of this money has already been allocated--per KXL and TransCanada themselves, they've already spent over 70% of it. So the real leftover money the US can expect from this deal is significantly smaller than what we're hearing.

Oh, and if you've been DATY for too long and haven't paid attention to the news, the oil is still flowing to Texas, despite the lack of a pipeline. It's going by rail, which is what is so sad and funny about this discussion--the whole time, KXL has been playing people saying that the processing will go elsewhere, but it can't--TransCanada doesn't have anywhere else remotely close that can process the oil, save for existing contractors in Texas. So instead they're sending it by railcar, which makes Warren Buffet all the smarter for having picked them up months ago.

The sooner that proponents of the pipeline can realize they're being played like a fiddle, the sooner they can perhaps go back to enjoying the fine quality women this board helps us get in contact with. And frankly, that will be a lot more enjoyable and more worth the effort than parroting lobbyists.

---

Also, just for clarification, Nebraska is technically a purple state--they dole their delegates out proportionally per the popular vote, so Obama did get a delegate (Omaha, Lincoln) from the state, though the other two went to McCain. Originally Posted by 7071949597

interesting perspective on the pipeline deal

looks like someone been had.....

The often quoted "Green Manifesto" from the Cornell University Global Labor whatchamacallit...

Has Sean Sweeney, PhD on the cover as one of the authors. Who is Sean Sweeney? Surprisingly, "about the author" is usually found at the end of most scholarly works. Nothing about Sean or the co-author Laura Skinner.

Well a quick Google lookup has him as chief of staff to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel until Emanuel left Washington in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...99O_topic.html

OK, this may not be the same Sean Sweeney, the educational backgrounds are different. Here's something from another(?) Sean Sweeney, PhD. From http://toeprintproject.com/?p=1575 : Sean Sweeney, Ph.D., Director of Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, who will deliver a policy update. He has been an an observer at all UN Climate Gatherings, including the recent talks in Bali and Copenhagen.

The often quoted "Green Manifesto" from the Cornell University Global Labor whatchamacallit...

Has Sean Sweeney, PhD on the cover as one of the authors. Who is Sean Sweeney? Surprisingly, "about the author" is usually found at the end of most scholarly works. Nothing about Sean or the co-author Laura Skinner.

Well a quick Google lookup has him as chief of staff to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel until Emanuel left Washington in 2010.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...99O_topic.html

OK, this may not be the same Sean Sweeney, the educational backgrounds are different. Here's something from another(?) Sean Sweeney, PhD. From http://toeprintproject.com/?p=1575 : Sean Sweeney, Ph.D., Director of Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, who will deliver a policy update. He has been an an observer at all UN Climate Gatherings, including the recent talks in Bali and Copenhagen. Originally Posted by gnadfly

+1

The name “Global Labor” says it all - it promotes a socialist agenda. Global Labor “aims to help shape international social cooperation based on workers’ rights, environmental protection, needs-based sustainable development, and the extension of economic democracy and popular participation in shaping communities and societies.” http://wiki.triastelematica.org/inde...abor_Institute

Sean Sweeny, PhD, is not a non-partisan academic. Sean Sweeny is an associate of Bill McKibben, and McKibben has a long history in the “tree-hugger” movement. These two have an agenda, and anything they write is partisan and should be taken with a grain of salt, e.g., http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct...eline-20111005

+1

The name “Global Labor” says it all - it promotes a socialist agenda. Global Labor “aims to help shape international social cooperation based on workers’ rights, environmental protection, needs-based sustainable development, and the extension of economic democracy and popular participation in shaping communities and societies.” http://wiki.triastelematica.org/inde...abor_Institute

Sean Sweeny, PhD, is not a non-partisan academic. Sean Sweeny is an associate of Bill McKibben, and McKibben has a long history in the “tree-hugger” movement. These two have an agenda, and anything they write is partisan and should be taken with a grain of salt, e.g., http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct...eline-20111005 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yet, they've provided more evidence and citations of KXL's and TransCanada's own state submissions than both of you combined.

You may not care for the politics of the messengers, but you've done nothing to invalidate their findings. You've just placed a label on it and shoved it to the side because what it says undermines your whole position on the debate.

Now, if there are any adults that would like to have a rational conversation about this, then let's have one. Otherwise, go back to accepting your daily dose of Fox News and Glenn Beck at face value.

Yet, they've provided more evidence and citations of KXL's and TransCanada's own state submissions than both of you combined. Originally Posted by 7071949597

No, they have not.

You may not care for the politics of the messengers, but you've done nothing to invalidate their findings. You've just placed a label on it and shoved it to the side because what it says undermines your whole position on the debate. Originally Posted by 7071949597

Funny. Sweeny and McKibben have done exactly this, yet you buy into their arguments.

Now, if there are any adults that would like to have a rational conversation about this, then let's have one. Otherwise, go back to accepting your daily dose of Fox News and Glenn Beck at face value. Originally Posted by 7071949597

You are a joke. Read Sweeny and McKibben. They dismiss other arguments out-of-hand: they are biased and lack credibility.

One of Obama's smartest decisions was against this pipeline.

No matter how you turn it, do we really want the most dirty oil in the US for refinery, just to export it to countries that don't give a shit about the environment?

Come on, get real.

The above message is not (NOT) for Texas residents.
We all know that they don't give shit about the environment.