XL Pipeline

President Obama will likely reject the permit for the XL Pipeline today, any comments about this?

The POTUS is f'n nuts! Send him back to Chicago. Get him out in 2012!!!

Since they haven't finalized the route yet, much less done environmental studies, it does seem a little premature to approve... BTW, the completed part of the pipeline had 10 leaks in the first year. Want that in your back yard??

Ten leaks the size of a golf ball you morron!!! Lets put Americans back to work. You hyper environmentalist are dooming our country.

Why would we want that Canadian oil or our own abundent natural gas when we can send all that money to the middle east for their oil. We are such an ignorant society led by fools!!!!

This will be used against him continually throughout the campaign. It is a great example of why he needs to be fired.

Since they haven't finalized the route yet, much less done environmental studies, it does seem a little premature to approve... BTW, the completed part of the pipeline had 10 leaks in the first year. Want that in your back yard?? Originally Posted by OldYeller

Hey OldYeller, good to hear from you again!

Here are the job numbers for the XL Pipline:

TransCanada says 13,000 new jobs but the State Dept says 5000-6000 is the actual number.

TransCanada Said In 2010 That Keystone XL Pipeline "Is Expected To Create Over ... 13,000 New Jobs For American Workers." In a 2010 press release by TransCanada, the company funding the Keystone XL pipeline, touted their connection with various unions and claimed they would "create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers." From the press release:

TransCanada Corporation (TransCanada) (TSX, NYSE: TRP) today is pleased to announce a Project Labor Agreement for a significant portion of U.S. construction of the proposed US$7 billion Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline Project (Keystone XL). The agreement will provide TransCanada with a capable, well-trained and ready workforce in the U.S. to construct Keystone XL. During construction, the project is expected to create over seven million hours of labor and over 13,000 new jobs for American workers. [TransCanada, 9/14/10]

Wash. Post: Based On TransCanada's Numbers, "The Number Of People Employed" Would Actually Be 6,500. A November 5 article in The Washington Post reported that TransCanada CEO Russ Girling "said Friday that the 13,000 figure was actually not a true job number, but actually accounted for "one person, one year."" The Post went on to state that "if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500." From the article:

Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was "one person, one year," meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company's number closer to the State Department's; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix. [The Washington Post, 11/5/11]

Check out Fox News trying to figure out how to blame Obama for XL Pipeline LOL!! These are all screen shots from today!

If it benefits just Canada, then I can understand rejecting it.

I read somewhere that North Dakota wants to get connected to it, as they also have plenty of oil ( more than Canada).

Yes it will create jobs, but if it goes thru the middle of the USA, it needs more of a benefit than just creating jobs building it.

As for the environmentalists, they have some valid points, but they are also one of the main reasons we don't build new oil refineries, which is the bottleneck that causes our gas prices to be high. Green is good, but surviving this economic storm is also important.

Basically what Obama just did was kill the provision in NAFTA that required Canada to sell all there excess energy production to the US exclusively. The result is that we have now lost the most secure foreign oil supplier to the United States. Watch for the prices at the pump to jump to over $4.00 per gallon again by summer and by that much again within the following year.

Leaks in a pipeline not even built.

Is this like a record going gold before
it's even released?

Sad that the press types would take advantage
of most people being unaware how multijacketed
tubular welds are a bitch to seam.
Then comes pressure testing the welds.
Before the line is completed it will have
hundreds of leaks over hundreds of miles.
And every 'leak'- a bad weld- will be sealed
before one drop of oil goes through.

The Alaskan pipeline is testimony against
any fuggin argument these luddites
can dredge up.

There is no valid reason gasoline isn't
$1.15 per gallon 93 oct.
Current market price is the result of
idiotic govt regulations and oversight.

Sheik hussein likes high gas prices.
Makes his fellow sheiks more money.

Basically what Obama just did was kill the provision in NAFTA that required Canada to sell all there excess energy production to the US exclusively. The result is that we have now lost the most secure foreign oil supplier to the United States. Watch for the prices at the pump to jump to over $4.00 per gallon again by summer and by that much again within the following year. Originally Posted by Rakhir

Oil prices were already slated to rise as a symptom of developing countries like China growing at an exponential rate along with its consumption of oil.
Case in point:

"The former head of Shell Oil has warned that gas prices could hit $5 a gallon by 2012 because of fast-growing demand in emerging countries such as China and India, where more and more people are buying cars, combined with restraints on drilling in the U.S. in the wake of last year’s disastrous Gulf oil spill."

"Mr. Larry said the spike in energy prices is being driven by robust growth in oil consumption in Asia as well as steadily rising demand in the U.S., which remains the world’s largest consumer of oil.

“All signs point to an economic recovery, and that’s going to increase demand,” he said."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...sted/?page=all

This is all politics. Republicans and Democrats both. Nothing of substance here regarding the decision...

"The Alaskan pipeline is testimony against
any fuggin argument these luddites
can dredge up."


A simple Google search will tell you just how reliable the Alaskan pipeline is:

"BP pipeline leaks oily mixture onto Alaskan tundra
By Yereth Rosen and Tom Bergin
ANCHORAGE/LONDON | Mon Jul 18, 2011 9:10pm EDT
(Reuters) - BP reported another pipeline leak at its Alaskan oilfields, frustrating the oil company's attempts to rebuild its reputation after last year's disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76H0VA20110719

"A 30-Year-Old Network With A $550 Billion Price Tag

In 2006, two separate TAPS leaks shut down the transport of crude and subjected BP (NYSE:BP), the principal in both the North Slope production project and the pipeline, to a period of intense Congressional scrutiny. BP subsequently paid a $20 million fine, plus restitution, and replaced a 16-mile stretch of the pipeline.

In the nearly five years since then, TAPS concerns have hardly declined."


"A study released in November 2010, completed by the independent, non-profit investigator ProPublica, gave TAPS an "F" rating. The investigation cited an 80% corrosion factor in more than 150 locations on the line, including serious concerns over high-pressure connectors. ProPublica based its study on an internal BP evaluation of TAPS issued in October that had expressed the company's own misgivings about the rising number of episodes on the pipeline.

BP has not denied the conclusions of the report, but said that the specific problems would allow for a prioritized repair schedule."

http://oilandenergyinvestor.com/2011...twork-problem/

Pictures of Alaskan Pipeline(TAPS) leaks taken by "LUDDITES" LOL!

This is all politics. Republicans and Democrats both. Nothing of substance here regarding the decision... Originally Posted by snake_tony

If there is nothing of substance here, why don't you share with us what is substantive in your opinion? It gives us a chance at a different perspective and would be appreciated….