http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-usa-keystone-idUSKBN0LS2FH20150224 So what's big deal with this damn pipe? They've been fighting like kids over this shit for years... why do we need a pipe? is there a reasonable explanation other than it will create (temporary) jobs during construction. which pretty absurd... if you need temporary construction jobs build a bridge a big-ass tower or a solar plant. why a pipe?
From what I've read recently the drop in oil prices have made deals like this pipeline and fracking very unprofitable.....
The power of the veto is designed to protect rights, not allow the president to be a dictator... -yuri
Whats funny is the stupid eco trugger hippies are against this. Well all of that oil is still flowing and being transported..via truck and train HAHAHA. To the OP why do we need the pipeline...no country on the Earth and none close to Canada has the refinery capabilities that we do. Saudi oil is literally shipped to our facilities and then cargo shipped to other countries. The oil in Canada is considered "dirty". When one says that you think bad...its just not like Saudi oil which requires very very little refinement. All of that oil has to be refined in some way or shape. China was highly interested in it but they lack the ability to process it so they basically turned away most deals to accept it. The US is the only one that can. A pipeline would allow quick safe transportation of it to its destination. Heres the deal...it will get there regardless but at a higher cost. Its all coming via ship that goes around the country, legions of trucks and many many trains. As for jobs tons created to build it and many long term jobs to sustain it. Use the Alaska pipeline as a example. Its created thousands of jobs over its lifetime. Either way though the oil is coming to where it needs to be.
The shitty ppart is that this bill passed, and in his infinite wisdom Obama himself took matters into his own hands and vetod -yuri
Out of all the things he could veto there is a strong chance of Veto Override. Many Democrats who's ass is handing on the lines in 2016 are for it. West VA Senator for instance is for it. It provides tens of thousands of jobs, many long term jobs, its environmentally friendly which every study that Obama commissioned came to a conclusion for. Its funny they had 4 studies because they wanted negative information reported..similar to when the government commissions a study on cannabis...yet they all come back recommend to build. Either way though that oil will flow...via ship, truck or train. A pipeline is just icying on the cake. There is so much being pumped its estimated that the trucks, trains will still roll even at a max pipeline flow.
Good, we wouldn't get anything out of it expect an expensive eye sore that does nothing for our personal taxes or the economy. It is not a fair trade-off. The people get nothing while the rich get richer. All hail the people's greatest proponent, Obama. And scorn to those who blindly support that which does not even serve their interest in order to preserve the falsities of their superiority.
Decent paying jobs at that. I don't know about the US but Haz Chem licensed driver's earn a decent wage here...
You don't think it's fair if those who have made no contribution to the pipeline get nothing from it? What does fair look like where you live? I agree with your last sentence but since it applies to both sides I don't know which side you're referring to.
i can't say that environmental concerns are unfounded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century from what i understand if part of that pipe ruptures the damage to the area could be devastating. but purely from a business point of view this doesn't make any sense? if the oil is going to get there anyway then why invest 8 billion dollars into another pipe? seems to me like this project is only beneficial to those already involved.... the oil companies and developer(s)... all this "job creation" is nonsense. for 8 billion we could figure out better ways to crate jobs than around an oil pipe.
Good! The last thing we need are more species and habitats being wrecked over our thirst for oil. The pay off would be minimal and not enough jobs would be created to justify.
We don't pay the 8 billion, the oil company pays it and the money comes from profits. Any jobs created doesn't cost the taxpayer anything. Pipelines are the safest, most economical, and most environmentally friendly way to transport large amounts of oil. Do you think less oil will be used if there is no pipeline? The oil is going to be produced and shipped regardless if this pipeline is built or not. There is less potential for environmental harm than shipping by rail or boat.
really? using existing shipping lanes and rail roads is more damaging then digging in and building a new pipe line? really? you are aware crack is not good for you right?
LOL Looks like a bunch of anti-government libertarian/anarchists against obama-hilter's veto and in favor of eminent domain. Who's land do you think the government will steal to build their pipeline? My father is losing his 150 acre plot of land in upstate NY to have two natural gas pipelines built right through the center of it. He has no choice. He is going to lose everything courtesy of the government and its supporting "it'll create jobs and help our economy" freedom-first zealots. But thank goodness we have political advocates of liberty and freedom here to back us up so they can afford cheap gas delivered directly to their small-penis trucks made entirely possible by the threat of violence to anyone and everyone who chooses to exercise their property rights.
Oil is too cheap atm to transport via rail, trucking, etc. Those modes are only viable when oil is about 80 plus / barrel. Same goes for tar sand oil - too expensive to produce.
There are fewer spills from pipelines than other methods and more fuel is burned getting the oil to markets using rail than pipeline. Digging holes doesn't damage the environment. We can't discuss crack here and I haven't used it, I used alternative methods to dampen my intelligence. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ib_23.htm#.VO7vvKbn85s
is this data a joke? i think there is a clear misinterpretation of statistics. from a mathematical stand point there are less incidents per billion ton-miles. what does it really mean? i guess this table shows us the reality. so pipelines clearly dump a lot more hazardous material into the environment then a rail or road. let's look at the conclusion from the report am i looking at the same data where it clearly says that avg waste release per year from pipelines is 6.5 mil gallons vs road which is a fraction of that? conveniently it is ignored. of course when you move 20x more oil through the pipelines the total per ton-mil is going to be vastly different from that of the road transportation. so the data in the report is totally skewed to represent apparent environmental safety. the report numbers, tell a different story. if you have an average release of 6.5 mil gallons of oil per year into the environment it is not safe by any means. and the report doesn't account for anything beyond 2009, and we've had a few problems since then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill long story short, this report is b.s.... it misrepresents the data and actually proves that pipes are very far from environmentally friendly method of transportation. i don't care where the 8 billion comes from, it could be spent on a better project than a fucking pipe. it's retarded to support a dying technology and invest so much money into it. even if you don't consider any of the above data and look at this whole project as an investor. nobody invests in the past. but i understand that TransCanada and friends have already spent a shit ton of money on this project, so now they have to get this damn pipe in place... and they will twist the facts and misrepresent the data and lobby and pay people to think a certain way. is that not obvious?