Give this some thought, This administration went into office immediately (helping) struggleing buisnesses .get up and going again ,did they not? Using our money to prop up the auto co,s banks of all kinds a phoney energy co. Selyndra -check spelling- and any one else that would take the money…. In simple terms better known as …….nationalizing , the private sector. Now what a chance for those vermine to nationalize a huge piece of American buisness. . We’ll make a deal. I was In Alaska during that pipeline, and Alyeska pipeline co nearly lost control of the whole thing by the govt . trying to steal it. By enviromental stealth, over a river crossing. They made it by a very narrow margin. If you think that kind of thing hasn’t crossed that slimey mind your missing something. What realy gets you to wondering about some of these geniouses and algie burners is what they will never know about such trivial matters as building a pipeline. Then advertise thier ignorance to the rest of the world. They try to sell themselves as some kind of expert on what will destroy the land and polute the water etc. and have probably driven over many pipelines and never saw one or saw any damage that they continually spout off about. That alone is a clue to who to ignore.

You are right Doc, this administration does worry about the cost fossil fuel. Steven Chu, in 2007 ” We havwe lots of fossil fuel… That’s really bad news!” ” Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”
Steven Chu Secretary of Department of Energy 2012 When asked by Alan Nunnelee If the DOE’s overall goal was to lower gasoline prices his answer was ” NO “, he went on to say ” As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we are trying to do is divirsify”! It’s working!

My reation above is to Ken, immediately above mine.

Sarvis, for the first time we have at least partial agreement. I’m still laughing over the weird claim that ‘:yes we can” pronounced backward is “thank you Satan.” Try to say “nac ew sey” with the long “e” in “ew” as it should be, and see how close that comes to what they claim. Absolute and utter provocateurship.

Now, I don’t agree with your stereotype about the Right. I thought you lefties were so supersensitive about eschewing stereotypes, but that’s just what you’ve done. Taking one posting and extrapolating that into a whole category of people is something we Conservatives are told cannot be done. What’s not good for the goose is not good for the gander either, Sarvis.

Vigilant,

“Right” or Wrong – I used the broader brush in this case because I know, at least that first video (in the linked article/site), has been referenced multiple times on this site.

You got that right Doc more under handed propaganda in the video.

Take a look at all the mountain tops in W Virginia that haven’t been reclaimed and pour toxic sludge into the river systems. Take a look at all the Super Fund sites that have not been cleaned up. Some companies are responsible to the community and some are no more than scavengers that take and run.

Also, this Administration is drilling more oil in the US than during the last decade, our overall demand and consumption of foreign is down, and the price of gasoline is rising. In Norway, where they produce a great deal of oil, the price of gasoline is over $9.00 and it isn’t much better in Europe. By comparison, we still have cheap gas. Just like it wasn’t the fault of W. Bush when gas prices spiked to over $4.00, it isn’t this President’s fault either. Speculators anyone?

DavidL, Existing oil ang gas pipelines go through that “sensitive” area already. No problems.
The water table is just fine and will remain that wat with one more line going through with all the others.

DavidL says, “Also, this Administration is drilling more oil in the US than during the last decade…”,

Now how many times do I need to tell you to stop misrepresenting the truth? You made the same bogus claim on March 9th.

I repeat my answer:

“DavidL, put your brain in operation before you engage your mouth.

You say, “By the way, Conservatives, this administration is drilling more domestic oil than in the last ten years. Prices are still going up?”

(1) Administrations don’t drill for oil, corporations do.

(2) Oil production is up on private and leased lands. It has decreased thanks to Obama and his cronies on lands owned by the Federal governemt, and due to the restrictions put on deep water drilling in the Gulf, as well as boneheaded attempts to block the XL pipeline. The PRIVATE sector has made up for the reductions IN SPITE OF government interference.

(3) We have limited control over world instabilities, and in the areas where we might make a difference in the world’s oil supply, we have acted contrarily and helped foment, not quell, trouble.

(4) Devaluation of the dollar through fiscally and financially irresponsible Federal Reserve policies has caused the per bbl price to increase beyond reason.

(5) Wipe out all Federal Excise, state and local taxes on a gallon of gasoline and you save 30-50 cents a gallon IMMEDIATELY.

(6) If, as you say, production increases don’t contribute to bring the prices down, then why is the administration floating the possibility of tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserves?

A little logic goes a long way. Try it.”

And DavidL proclalims his ignorance of gasoline pricing when he says, “and the price of gasoline is rising. In Norway, where they produce a great deal of oil, the price of gasoline is over $9.00 and it isn’t much better in Europe. By comparison, we still have cheap gas.”

DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE WHATSOEVER WHY GASOLINE PRICES ARE SO HIGH IN EUROPE?

It’s one thing and one thing only: TAXES to support social welfare states. In the US, Federal, state and local taxes take 30-50 cents out of your pocket for every gallon of gasoline you purchase, which, BTW, is a Hell of a lot more than the oil companies get for it. It’s MUCH MUCH higher in Europe.

P.S. Norway is in Europe. Geography-challenged, are we?

Does the DOS Environmental Impact Statement Dismantle Obama’s Reason for Rejecting Keystone?

The President referred to a five-page Department of State (DOS) report that echoed why he decided in November 2011 to postpone the decision until after the 2012 election. Despite a rigorous, three-year environmental review with multiple comment periods, DOS recommended that the current route was not satisfactory and additional review was necessary to study and reroute the pipeline around Nebraska’s Sand Hills region.

Land owners in Nebraska voiced their concerns, DOS listened, and TransCanada volunteered to reroute the pipeline. None of this should lead to a denial of the permit application or force TransCanada to resubmit its permit application.

The DOS acknowledged minor realignments and route variations can be made if needed without changing environmental risk. Since Nebraska and the company already agreed to reroute the pipeline in a way that would satisfy Nebraskans’ concerns, President Obama could have easily granted conditional approval to commence construction.

DOS acted as though Nebraskans’ concerns about the Ogallala aquifer and Sand Hills region were a new development causing the agency to pull back on the project. In fact, DOS analyzed the pipeline’s impact and the possibility of the spill, the effects on soil and possible alternative routes to avoid the Sand Hills, along with countless other potential environmental risks. With respect to the Sand Hills region and potential oil spills, the DOS Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), released in August of 2011, reads:

An example of a crude oil release from a pipeline system into an environment similar to the Northern High Plains Aquifer system occurred in 1979 near Bemidji, Minnesota. While the conditions at Bemidji are not fully analogous to the Sand Hills region, extensive studies of the Bemidji spill suggest that impacts to shallow groundwater from a spill of a similar volume in the Sand Hills region would affect a limited area of the aquifer around the spill site. In no spill incident scenario would the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer system be adversely affected.

DOS studied a number of alternative routes to minimize or completely avoid the pipeline crossing over Sand Hills. The department worked with the Bureau of Land Management and state agencies where the pipeline passes through and made more than 340 minor realignments to the pipeline route.

There is absolutely no reason to delay the entire project when DOS explicitly signed off on additional route variations that could occur throughout the construction process.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/20/does-the-dos-environmental-impact-statement-dismantle-obama%e2%80%99s-reason-for-rejecting-keystone/

There’s nothing prudent about the delay unless you count Obama’s re-election strategy as prudence. He’s stopping the creation of badly needed jobs in order to secure the votes from the environmental crowd. After the election, if he wins, he’ll lie to that crowd like he lies to everyone else, and the pipeline will commence anyway. He only opposes it now because the Republicans support it.

JeffH, excellent posting. Don’t hold your breath expecting any lefties to acknowledge the facts. They’re pathologically incapable of being swayed by the truth.

Vigilant, …this is for those others the ask the question of “why they can’t refine the oil up north”, there is a simple answer to that. I posted this on another thread last week.

The Other Keystone debate
Oct 1st 2011, 18:00 by M.D. | OTTAWA

At the moment, the heavy, black, viscous oil known as bitumen extracted from the tar sands undergoes a preliminary processing in Alberta known as upgrading, so that it is liquid enough to be shipped through a pipe to an oil refinery. Most of those refineries are in the United States, which imports about 1.1m barrels per day (b/d) of tar-sands oil (and another 900,000 b/d of Canadian conventional oil). Canada had plans to expand its refineries and build new ones before the global financial crisis, but most have now been put on hold. The Alberta government is planning to build a refinery in partnership with an oil company capable of processing 50,000 b/d of tar-sands crude.

Meanwhile, the Keystone XL pipeline will have the capacity to carry 830,000 b/d to refineries in Texas that are either already processing similarly heavy oil from Mexico and Venezuela or expanding their ability to do so. This makes sense from the perspective of the North American oil industry, which is integrated on a continental basis. And it makes sense for the tar-sands producers, who expect to get a better price from the Texas refineries than they currently do in the Midwest, where recent increases in American production have produced a glut at the refineries.

Only if it goes through.

Rob

Here you go Warrier: “2. Valero, the top beneficiary of the Keystone XL pipeline, has recently explicitly detailed an export strategy to its investors. The nation’s top refiner has locked in at least 20 percent of the pipeline’s capacity, and, because its refinery in Port Arthur is within a Foreign Trade Zone, the company will accomplish its export strategy tax free. ”

There will be little, if any, benefit to Americans if Keystone goes through.

That’s from: http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01614

It’s just another scam by the 1% to take more out of us.

We need to REDUCE our consumption of oil. Nuclear is the quickest and most reliable. Wind will help a lot.

Rob

Oh, I get it now. We shouldn’t sell scrap metal to china because they may create something of it and sell it back to us.

One issue not considered here is that while oil speculators are a factor in the rising price of oil. The interesting thing is who are the speculators? They are mostly the Middle East Sovereign Funds who are re-investing their higher oil profits back into the speculative part of the global oil market. More profits from oil = more invested in speculation market = higher prices = more profits from oil.

We are the ones caught in the middle of their “profit circle”. Meanwhile, our “Dear Leader” is realizing his socialist dream of raising prices to the point where “sustainable energy’ sources will be competitive with fossil fuels, as he promised to do in 2008.

From Vigilant: “Mr. Smith, what would be your position if the pipeline was to be used exclusively for US domestic consumption? ”

I would first ask: Why can’t it be refined up north? Why does it need to be transported to a free port.

IF it is refined in a better market location in America and it benefits Americans I’m all for it.

But thanks for demonstrating your willingness to express the opinions of others. It shows just how much the right wing is willing to lie.

Rob

RS, I stand corrected and apologize for assuming something that wasn’t true.

Now, will you address the IMPORTANT issues I raised in my posting?

I agree 100%. My thoughts are that consumption is down due to the truth that 50% more Amercicans are out of work than they are reporting. So many are not leaving their home or have lost their vehicle due to not working that consumption is down. Put people back to work and the American people back to work and that figure will go up. just pain and simple.

The price of fuel consumtion is higher because it takes more of the US Dollar to pay for the same market value of raw product

Sorry. I earlier wrote: Put people back to work and the American people back to work and that figure will go up. just pain and simple.

Correction: Put American people back to work and the American people the ability to begin moving again and that figure will go up. just plain and simple.

Presumed: “and it produces profits on which taxes are paid to the US government, ”

No it won’t if it goes to a free port and away from America without paying any taxes as has been shown is the plan by Volaro.

Rob

I don’t know what Volaro is but it is not a major oil company.

WHAT?

Given some of the decisions by this administration, is it any wonder many of us question, with civility, the intent of Obama? Is it not self-evident that our bumptious, self-centered president has focused on verbal malarkey to bamboozle the public? Moreover, is it not obvious that Obama’s self-righteous rhetoric is designed to mislead us with empty platitudes without substance? In short, may I suggest Obama is fixated on re-election and self while pretending to care about you and I?

I have said the same before on this site.

This is more of a commie theft job than we all realize. At the top of the page is a picture of a real pipeline. That section is just a short distance from Glennallen Alaska. I happened to be on the crew that installed the insulation on that very piece of pipe in the picture.and many more miles of it. This enviromental impact study is stalling for time to squeeze the pipeline co. into nationalizing the whole catoot. Govt owned. Commie strategy. That happened on that pipeline, But Alyeska pipeline co. held out on that one. . We’ll see how this one does..