Tar Sands pipeline
 

Should the United States give permission for Transcanada to build it's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline from Canada to Texas?

Abso-f**king-lutely.

Yes but with that idiot in office it's not going to happen.

Obama could simply require US workers be used to dig and maintain the pipeline and use the new badly needed 'jobs' excuse to get the enviro whackos off his case. The refineries in Texas will also need to expand and hire and that would be for as long as the canucks pump oil. The best part is they and not the US taxpayer pays for it. Maybe we too can lay a pipeline on top since the hole will be dug anyway and start harvesting our own oil in N.Dakota.

As a side benefit we fight terrorism by starving the terrorist countries of US and Canadian oil dollars.

In addition to labor, he can require that all materials used to build the pipeline are domestic. It is nothing new to the construction industry, but he can take credit it for it as his idea.

So basically he has all his talking points for his speech on the 8th.

"We will build the pipline to reduce reliance on foriegn oil (clapping). This will produce jobs that will help the economy (Clapping). Thank you and have a good evening."

jms. dont forget to squeeze 'its going to take time' in there somewhere. i think its a requirement that obama say that phrase each time he is in front of a mic.

OMG - anybody have a copy of Obama Buzzword Bingo? We'll need it.

"Worst Economy since the Great Depression"
"It won't happen overnight"
"Americans are resilient people"

"Let me be Clear"
"Make No Mistake"
"Health care"
"Working families"
"I inherited this"
"The previous administration"

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president"

So ... Canada will not approve or build this pipeline to either of their coasts (they are not idiots). But we should.

There have already been 11 oils spills with this field. Spills are virtually guaranteed due to type of corrosive crude being sent through pipeline.

TransCanada has already repeatedly lied to Nebraskans regarding taking their property (telling them they already had permits to build, that the neighbors had already sold out, offering too little for land, etc)

Many Republicans oppose this project (it cuts through only red states)

This will raise oil prices in the US midwest (by removing the current overabundance locally that suppresses prices)

Ogallalala. That would be the end of the US as the "bread basket" of the world on the great plains.

The climate damage and forest damage will be irreversible.

This is why our country is in the handbasket, wondering why we are getting warmer every day.

The fear is that it readily will.

:zz:

Drill Baby Drill

Everyone knows the ND-SD-NE-KS-OK-TX corridor is America's forest. Well maybe not? :wf

Farmers/ranchers, by large, are VERY protective of their land. I'd listen to them.

i looked up the subject, the wash post article i read said the state dept study claims this would have a minimal impact on the environment. seems to me that this is probably a done deal.

No, they are talking about the Canadian forests they are destroying. The oil sands are in Canada. Canada won't let them build a pipeline to get to west or east coasts. So the private company wants us to allow them to build a pipeline through the US.

Alot of them are saying no way.

Let's hope not. That "environmental impact" is only for the pipeline running underground through the US - with zero reference to any possible leakage through the aquafier.

And the "it will help our US oil needs" is false. Read this:

The top NASA climate scientist got arrested at the protests over this, explains the environmental impact on climate change, the Canadian boreal forests and the US major Ogallala aquafier in the midwest:

http://solveclimatenews.com/news/201...en-white-house

i did some reading on the alaska pipeline, as i figured that would be a valid comparison..based on what i read, the concerns voiced, the steps taken before and during building, the lack of negative environmental impact, and the fact that the pipeline has proved to be the best way to move all that petroleum, i see no reason to reject the building of this proposed project. according to the post article i read, canada will be extracting the oil regardless of mode of transport. a pipeline would be a better way to move that product than any alternative form of transport. state dept has already done its study, i think we should do it.