Obama nixes Keystone XL Pipeline permit.

• HitsRus

  

  ^^^I addressed this back in post #25 of this thread.

  There is more off shore drilling than there has been in the last 10 years.

  Link? Her's the one I found LOL.
  
  
  http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/15/one-year-after-oil-spill-was-stopped-government-issuing-few-drilling-permits/
• dwccrew

  

  stlouiedipalma;1110964 wrote:Will the Keystone Pipeline lower gasoline prices in the US?
  
  No
  
  
  This whole thread is an excellent example of the Republican mantra of "If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it to be true".

  It may not lower gas prices, but it definitely will help create jobs and help the economy. This is a good thing if they finally wisen up and approve it.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;1110964 wrote:Will the Keystone Pipeline lower gasoline prices in the US?
  
  No
  
  
  This whole thread is an excellent example of the Republican mantra of "If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it to be true".

  The only difference is that the Democrats get the MSM to lie right along with them. The Republicans have to lie on their own.
• stlouiedipalma

  dwccrew;1111773 wrote:It may not lower gas prices, but it definitely will help create jobs and help the economy. This is a good thing if they finally wisen up and approve it.

  Let me get this straight. Obama proposes a jobs bill to repair the infrastructure and it is roundly condemned by Republicans because the jobs are temporary. Obama nixes the Keystone Pipeline and he is vilified for destroying jobs, all of which would be temporary. Apparently up is down in the goofy world of Republicans.
• jmog

  stlouiedipalma;1112016 wrote:Let me get this straight. Obama proposes a jobs bill to repair the infrastructure and it is roundly condemned by Republicans because the jobs are temporary. Obama nixes the Keystone Pipeline and he is vilified for destroying jobs, all of which would be temporary. Apparently up is down in the goofy world of Republicans.

  You mean like the last stimulous bill that was for "shovel ready jobs" that ended up going to unions and companies like Solyndra? Oh wait, your fearless leader later said "maybe they weren't as 'shovel ready' as we thought"? Apparently the new "shovel ready" jobs would have really been shovel ready?
  
  Come on stlouie, the facts of the first stimulous bill Obama got passed when he had a D controlled congress was basically a payoff to the unions for helping him get elected coupled with a liberal agenda borrowing campaign. It had nothing to do with jobs as he said it did. Why would anyone believe him on the 2nd one?
• fish82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1110964 wrote:Will the Keystone Pipeline lower gasoline prices in the US?
  
  No
  
  
  This whole thread is an excellent example of the Republican mantra of "If you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it to be true".

  LOL....you people invented the tactic. Don't get all grumpy when it gets used against you for a change.
• QuakerOats

  [h=3]Keystone XL Supporters Pressure EPA For Pipeline Documents.[/h]The Hill (3/17, Geman) reports in its 'E2 Wire' blog that the "Institute for Energy Research is seeking internal Obama Administration documents about the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline to determine whether President Obama's rejection of the project was a political decision." The Hill reports that the "group, which supports the Alberta-to-Texas pipeline and frequently bashes White House energy policy, already believes" that the decision was political but field "a broad Freedom of Information Act request with the Environmental Protection Agency" Friday in order to find evidence to support their claim.
• dwccrew

  

  stlouiedipalma;1112016 wrote:Let me get this straight. Obama proposes a jobs bill to repair the infrastructure and it is roundly condemned by Republicans because the jobs are temporary. Obama nixes the Keystone Pipeline and he is vilified for destroying jobs, all of which would be temporary. Apparently up is down in the goofy world of Republicans.

  LOL at comparing private industry, permanent tax paying jobs to taxpayer funded, temporary jobs.
  
  Also, you sure do lumping people into groups even though they have never said certain things. You attempted to admonish me for telling people to "respect the dead" on the Breitbart thread because OTHER people in the past had said disrespectful things about Ted Kennedy. Now, because I believe this pipeline should go through, because others have disagreed with Obamas job bills in the past, I all of a sudden do as well?
  
  I just believe allowing private industry do build the pipeline and creat jobs will only help the economy.
• HitsRus

  

  LOL at comparing private industry, permanent tax paying jobs to taxpayer funded, temporary jobs.

  +1
• stlouiedipalma

  dwccrew;1121513 wrote:LOL at comparing private industry, permanent tax paying jobs to taxpayer funded, temporary jobs.
  
  Also, you sure do lumping people into groups even though they have never said certain things. You attempted to admonish me for telling people to "respect the dead" on the Breitbart thread because OTHER people in the past had said disrespectful things about Ted Kennedy. Now, because I believe this pipeline should go through, because others have disagreed with Obamas job bills in the past, I all of a sudden do as well?
  
  I just believe allowing private industry do build the pipeline and creat jobs will only help the economy.

  
  Sorry, but that whole paragraph could best be described as "goofy". WTF are you trying to say?
• QuakerOats

  stlouiedipalma;1110964 wrote:Will the Keystone Pipeline lower gasoline prices in the US?
  
  No

  
  Has shale gas dramatically lowered the price of natural gas in the U.S.?
  
  
  I rest my case.
• dwccrew

  

  stlouiedipalma;1122148 wrote:Sorry, but that whole paragraph could best be described as "goofy". WTF are you trying to say?

  I will try and slow it down for you, but try to keep up. You said this:
  

  stlouiedipalma wrote:Let me get this straight. Obama proposes a jobs bill to repair the infrastructure and it is roundly condemned by Republicans because the jobs are temporary. Obama nixes the Keystone Pipeline and he is vilified for destroying jobs, all of which would be temporary. Apparently up is down in the goofy world of Republicans.

  Why would you bring up Obama when I never said anything about him (you were responding to me I presume since you quoted my post)? You turned it into a partisan issue even though I never mention anything about Obama. You did the same on the Breitbat thread when I said the Rolling Stone article's author should "respect the dead".
  
  For some reason you felt the need to respond to me on that thread about Ted Kennedy getting disrespected when he died as if I had said something about Kennedy (which I had not). So why do you continue to respond to me with statements that make no sense or have no correlation to what I am stating in my posts?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Oil is fungible...but if there's a lot more of it flowing into the system, costs are going to come down. That's how the market works.
  
  However, as noted, the more important thing is two-fold: you are creating lots of good paying jobs AND your source for the oil is much more stable politically when it can come from an ally, and not some source where speculative costs can jump on a whim if there are rumors of war.
  
  This country should be going forward on as many energy sources as possible these days to (1) create jobs and (2) help lower costs, along with ensuring domestic sources of energy for the immediate future. The US probably has enough natural gas reserves on its own to power this country well into the next next century. It's clean and doesn't affect climate change (if you believe man can affect it), and cars can be converted fairly easily to use it.
  
  All of these resources should be in play (including nuclear, where possible) so the US can get out from under the thumb of the Middle East or S. American despots. We already know renewables are not ready for prime time -- even though our feckless leader would rather have prices go up so they can join the game.
• majorspark

  

  The world holds plenty of oil. And it is constantly producing more and has been for millions of years.. The idea that humans can deplete it in just a few hundred years is ludicrous.
  
  People have to take note the difference between "proven" oil reserves vs recoverable reserves. Proven reserves are those economically feasible to extract at the time. That is what private investors are putting their money on. Other geologically valid categories of oil reserves are ignored. They are too costly to extract. But as the cost of oil rises coupled with advances in technology, unconventional oil supplies become increasingly economically feasible to extract and refine. This is why Venezuala and Canada are becoming bigger players in the world oil market.
  
  These recoverable reserves are the wave of the future. Its a shame so many seek to block efforts to develop infrastructure to move the new reserves of the future. The free flow of oil at market prices is directly tied to the average Americans (the masses) independent lifestyle in todays world. The central planners that have infiltrated the federal government thrive on the dependancy of the masses on them. Whatever they can do to further that they will do.
  
  http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/
• Writerbuckeye

  

  majorspark;1122593 wrote:The world holds plenty of oil. And it is constantly producing more and has been for millions of years.. The idea that humans can deplete it in just a few hundred years is ludicrous.
  
  People have to take note the difference between "proven" oil reserves vs recoverable reserves. Proven reserves are those economically feasible to extract at the time. That is what private investors are putting their money on. Other geologically valid categories of oil reserves are ignored. They are too costly to extract. But as the cost of oil rises coupled with advances in technology, unconventional oil supplies become increasingly economically feasible to extract and refine. This is why Venezuala and Canada are becoming bigger players in the world oil market.
  
  These recoverable reserves are the wave of the future. Its a shame so many seek to block efforts to develop infrastructure to move the new reserves of the future. The free flow of oil at market prices is directly tied to the average Americans (the masses) independent lifestyle in todays world. The central planners that have infiltrated the federal government thrive on the dependancy of the masses on them. Whatever they can do to further that they will do.
  
  http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/

  Liberals in this country deny this and call people who believe it paranoid...but it's exactly what's happening. Why else would you make buying birth control (which is relatively cheap) a campaign issue? The folks who want us all dependent on nanny government don't want personal responsibility and accountability any more. They want victims who cry out for more intervention in every aspect of American life.
• Footwedge

  Writerbuckeye;1122401 wrote:Oil is fungible...but if there's a lot more of it flowing into the system, costs are going to come down. That's how the market works.
  
  However, as noted, the more important thing is two-fold: you are creating lots of good paying jobs AND your source for the oil is much more stable politically when it can come from an ally, and not some source where speculative costs can jump on a whim if there are rumors of war.
  
  This country should be going forward on as many energy sources as possible these days to (1) create jobs and (2) help lower costs, along with ensuring domestic sources of energy for the immediate future. The US probably has enough natural gas reserves on its own to power this country well into the next next century. It's clean and doesn't affect climate change (if you believe man can affect it), and cars can be converted fairly easily to use it.
  
  All of these resources should be in play (including nuclear, where possible) so the US can get out from under the thumb of the Middle East or S. American despots. We already know renewables are not ready for prime time -- even though our feckless leader would rather have prices go up so they can join the game.

  Agreed on all fronts. Environmental laws can still be enforced and we can still capture energy here in our country. Anything to help the private sector in creating good paying jobs should be encouraged, not shut off for political reasons.
  
  It would seem to me, that research grants (R&D), especially for clean, natural gas, is a much better way to invest federal money, than the reckless pissing away of dollars in the Middle East.
• gut

  I think as far as subsidies go, green/renewable energy is a pretty good choice - our future economic strength depends on being a leader in that tech. But in the short-run/interim, we shouldn't cripple our economy pushing something before its time.
  
  We have a ridiculous amount of coal and natural gas that could make us energy independent for the next 200 years and create millions of jobs. But the environmentalists will have none of that. And to be honest, a bigger share of that subsidy going to renewables should probably be going to clean coal and natural gas tech.
• believer

  

  We live in an era where environmental insanity reigns supreme over energy sensibility.
  
  The tree huggers won't be happy until we're all wearing Mao suits and riding bicycles to the office while our Chinese masters build Three Gorges Dams and drill for oil off our coastlines.
• QuakerOats

  PIPELINE TO NOWHERE: Obama plan would leave 1,179-mile gap between oil source, pipeline... [HR][/HR]
  
  Change we can believe in ...