Keystone Pipeline Approval

Every time you hear an anti shale representative ask for a moratorium or a review to make sure it's safe,just think of New York State and the Keystone Pipeline. Once they get their way and have the moratorium in place it will become permanent.

The Keystone Pipeline has been under review since 2007 ( and the review has actually been completed twice). This is just ridiculous. Our nation completely outfitted the army, navy, air force, marines etc and won WWII in less than five years.

President Obama knows the extreme environmental left will never approve of the pipeline. He will never cross them because they are big donors to the President and the Democrat Party, and he needs them for the political campaign of 2014.

So anytime you hear these extremists talk about safety and protecting the environment it is just a ruse. They are not sincere.

Views: 3909

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by gary smith on January 28, 2014 at 5:00am

wow, can you read? I included the presidents party. the dems have hurt us for a long time. and the reason Obama hasn't been able to stop the last six years work is because it is on private land. they tried some chicanery out in Wyoming, the epa polluting their own well. but they got caught. the president does not have the best interests of the American dream in his plans.  Obama would have the country look like coumo's new York if he could. and you know it.

Permalink Reply by M.A.B. on January 28, 2014 at 6:42am

I believe the one thing not talked about is perception. The keystone pipeline would provide to our OPEC friends the perception that the USA is continuing to move toward sustainability. One year ago OPEC mused among themselves that hydraulic fracturing would have a negligible impact on their exports. Recently they now realize that this is far from the truth, even to the point of realigning investments. When the oil embargos of the seventies and early eighties were happening most ideas were said to take too long (5, 10 20 years) to bear fruit and little was accomplished. Here we are 30 to 40 years later still bickering about the same things. I believe its called insanity. We are paying $3.56 for gas and 4.30 a gallon for diesel and we are de-sensitized into thinking we are getting a deal because it's not higher in price. We ignore strides we have made, ex:Coal burns much cleaner through improved technology but power derived from coal has fallen to 50 from 75% (good for natural gas but bad for our families in the coal industry). We penalize coal for the sake of clean air but watch coal plants being built in China and India at record levels without the technologies. The gov't should get out of the way and let private industry and free enterprise do what is does best.

Permalink Reply by gary smith on January 28, 2014 at 8:44am

1.87  a gallon when the organizer took over.

Permalink Reply by Appalachian on January 28, 2014 at 10:39am

Gasoline was as low as 99c/gal in 1999 when Clinton was still in office...what's your point?  That Bush was a bad president because gasoline prices rose during his term?

The necessity of these large lines is in my mind questionable.  Rockies Express.  Large supply of gas in the Western states with no market so we "needed to get the gas east.  Now they are reversing the line westward after the line was deemed "necessary for the good of the public".  Refining capacity or lack there of is used to justify price increases at the pump to all of us, so why would we tie up our refineries with Canadian products destined for other shores?  If it is not going to be exported, what's the use of piping it to the Gulf?  Would it not be more practical for Canada to build a refinery and pipe the Gasoline down to us to be distributed as it heads southward?  

Permalink Reply by gary smith on January 28, 2014 at 12:15pm

the attacks of 9/11 wacked our economy, including gasoline prices.  since bush it's gone up two dollars. the democrats and rino's are bad for the country. 92 million out of the workforce right now. tonight Obama will tell us more about his class warfare project. hows that for a few points, with a score more waiting in the wings.  

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on January 28, 2014 at 12:43pm

Appalachian,

They pipe it south because that's where the refineries are.

Build a new refinery, you're joking right ?

The extreme environmental left would never allow that to occur.

There hasn't been a new refinery built in over 30 years thanks to the extreme environmentalists.

Permalink Reply by Roger Pyle on January 28, 2014 at 1:34pm

Right.  And the two being built in North Dakota are just warehouses.

Besides why build new ones when demand is falling?

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on January 28, 2014 at 1:49pm

Roger,

Not all oil products are refined in the U.S. with the development of domestic sources of oil there is a need for increased domestic refining capacity. It's also more cost effective to refine as close as possible to the actual source of production.

Any reduction in demand is due to the recession prolonged by the Obama administration. That administration will soon be gone and the economy can finally recover producing an increased demand for oil.

It is a matter of fact that no new refineries have been built in the U.S. in over 30 years. This is why the pipelines go to the gulf.

Permalink Reply by Roger Pyle on January 28, 2014 at 2:04pm

Two new refineries break ground in North Dakota:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10551

U.S. refineries are now shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel abroad.

As crude production soars in places like the Eagle Ford shale formation in Texas, U.S. refiners along the Gulf Coast are increasingly using local oil, which is less expensive than the North Sea crude that European refiners use. That often means diesel and other fuels made in the U.S. are a bargain abroad even after adding the shipping costs.

Drivers in the U.S. are buying less gasoline, largely thanks to more energy-efficient automobiles.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on January 28, 2014 at 3:33pm

Roger,

You are a typical anti fossil fuel activist. You twist and contort information to fit your misinformed and misguided argument.

The reduction in gasoline consumption does not equate to an overall reduction in demand for fossil fuels in the U.S. If the demand for oil and gas is down then why the two new refineries?

I would say nice try but I can't; it was a pathetic effort.

Permalink Reply by Roger Pyle on January 28, 2014 at 3:43pm

Where does it say I am an anti fossil fuel activist? 

I was merely pointing out your erroneous generalizations that may have been true a few years ago, but aren't today.

I despise renewable energy subsidies that take money from my pocket for little benefit. I am all for exploiting our resources to the benefit of everyone.  But I also despise blatantly false and biased statements that can easily be exposed for what they are.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on January 28, 2014 at 3:45pm

Roger,

You anti shale folks always bring up the issue of exports of petroleum products, and from what I gather you are against those exports.

Why limit your ban on exports to petroleum products ? Why not ban the export of agricultural products? It's well known that our farmers feed the world. Perhaps we should save all that food for ourselves.

How many other products manufactured in the U.S. do you want to ban from being exported ?

You leftists kill me, you have no comprehension of basic economics. That's why  places such as Cuba struggle in poverty, leftists such as yourself dictate how YOU think things should be. You people all think you are so much smarter than those everyone else. That's why we are in the recession now.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service