Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Environmentalists Push Obama To Kill Job Creator

November 8, 2011 by  

Environmentalists Push Obama To Kill Job Creator

Heading into an election season, President Barack Obama is looking at some tough choices regarding the Keystone pipeline that TransCanada Corp. wants to construct from Alberta to Texas.

The $13 billion Keystone pipeline system will link a secure and growing supply of Canadian crude oil with the largest refining markets in the United States, and experts say it will significantly improve North American security supply. The 1,661-mile, 36-inch diameter proposed pipeline has angered environmentalists, a key portion of the Obama electorate.

The Obama Administration is facing criticism from two sections of its base as the decision looms. Union supporters say that the pipeline project will be a definite job creator during a time at which increasing the number of jobs is a key issue for all elected officials. Environmentalists, however, say that the practices involved in building the pipeline and extracting the oil will impact global warming.

A protest against the pipeline took place at the White House on Sunday, with environmental activists forming a human chain around the Presidential home, according to the Los Angeles Times. The activists have promised to cut Obama campaign contributions if he allows the project to begin.

The most recent reports indicate that the President’s State Department may try to postpone the decision until after elections, an idea that TransCanada dislikes.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Environmentalists Push Obama To Kill Job Creator”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • s c

    Hmmmm. It seems that The Anointed Shill has a decision to make. Does he offend the environmental mental defectives, or does he offend his union oil worker bunkies? Either way, it would seem that being so extremely far to the left has its problems.
    I’m betting on the oil workers, as they are UNION members, while environmental space cadets are mere riff raff. Besides, union members have been around longer than the kookoids (if you get my drift).
    While I usually don’t much use for either group, a JOB is a JOB. And a JOB helps pay the BILLS. That settles it for me. The environmental wackos can go
    and SCREW themselves into a mind-boggling frenzy.
    It’s your ‘choice,’ Obummer. One way, you’re a
    miserable loser, and the other way you’re a miserable loser. It depends on where you stand. So, just WHERE DO YOU STAND, Mr. Prez?

    • rosina

      Easy sc.
      he stands for himself!
      The more he can fool the people or sheeple, the better he likes it.
      The more he can send his wife on expensive vacations, THE BETTER SHE LIKES IT.
      tHE LONGER he can hide his real birth place and school grades, the better the witch pelousy and that wonky reid like it.
      How to get rid of them all is a serious question~

      • DENNIS

        HE WILL KILL THE JOBS,OF COURSE,, DOESN’T MATTER WHO THE BASE SUPPORT IS,,, WE ALL KNOW THIS MAN IS AN ILLEGAL MUSLIM THAT HATES THE GREAT SATAN,, HE WILL SAY WE CAN JUST SHIP THE OIL, USING FOREIGN SHIPS OF COURSE, FROM CANADA TO THE TEXAS REFINERIES,, KILLING THE GREAT SATAN UNDER THE GUISE OF SAVING THE PLANET, IS HIS ONLY CONCERN,,,

      • JUKEBOX

        The more he tries to straddle this fence, the more likely he is to castrate himself politically.

    • RivahMitch

      I think you’re overlooking that one of the mulatto Mussolini’s major goals is to totally destroy the American economy in order to make the government mare powerful. In that context, the tree-huggers will win.

    • eddie47d

      SC seems to be a daily wacko and I see she has sheep following her. Jobs can be created without the pipeline if any of you would kindly pay attention. The environmental damages could be tremendous and water resources permanently ruined if the pipeline is built. Does SC ever think of the consequences in her attacks.Is it just to easy for her to libel the environmentalists (and unions) without producing an once of evidence. I produced my evidence blow SC so stop taking cheap shots and come up with anything that has even a little bit of intelligence in it.

      • Opal the Gem

        Evidence eddie? I see no evidence just your opinion.

        • eddie47d

          It should have said below instead of “blow” but that would be beside the point with Opal because like SC Opal never offers anything substantial either.

          • Opal the Gem

            I learned what to post by reading your posts and copying you.

          • eddie47d

            That’s all you can say Opal. How about what is your opinion on the environmental impact with Keystone? Is being condescending all you have to offer?

      • Dale on the left coast

        eddie – there are 10′s of thousands of miles of pipelines in North America . . . so, why is this 1700 miles a problem??? Me thinks you speak from a position of ZERO KNOWLEDGE!!!

        • kirk

          This one pipeline is different because they want to build it over the marshlands of the ogallala aquifer in nebraska, and take that land through imminent domain. I don’t understand why they don’t leave that productive land alone and build the pipeline near the existing transcontinental pipelines already in place through nebraska. It might cost a bit more to build, but it would prevent all this disagreement, create jobs, not be as environmentally risky, and most importantly respect the civil liberties of the current landowners.

          • Dennis48e

            From what I have read about the ogallala it is an underground water source not surface water.

          • eddie47d

            …and it’s running out of water from over usage. Will the Keystone project drive a stake through it’s heart.

          • LowlyWise

            At last, a sane comment on this discussion. The directions plainly ask that nothing slanderous be posted, yet this particular discussion is full of slanderous epithets, all delivered in an irrational tone. I can’t say this without sounding like a goody-goody stuffed shirt, but I say it anyway: don’t air your frustrations under the guise of expressing opinion. I oppose the Keystone XL project for environmental reasons. To pollute the Ogalalla aquifer is to jeopardize many watersheds, much soil and therefore many needed crops, vast flocks of birds and other animals with whom we share the planet, and ultimately the quality of life. Add to this that soon oil production in North Dakota and south of there will soon be in full force, to judge from investor intelligence I receive, and the heartland of the North American continent will be trashed. Add to that the proposed drilling of the Arctic, which I picture as being like the Sherwin-Williams paint can tipped out and dripping down the rest of the earth, and you have an ineradicable monument to pelf and greed at worst, to shortsightedness at least. If Obama does give Keystone XL the green light, I would hope against hope that he requires for this and all new oil projects a hefty chunk of the profits be devoted to researching and implementing alternative energy.

        • eddie47d

          Thank you kirk.

      • Tim

        @eddie. Oil and water DON’T mix dumba$$.

        • eddie47d

          More childish wisdom from Tim.

  • Anne Swasey

    The XL Pipeline is about as safe a venture as BP Drilling in the Gulf was. How many lives and businesses were crushed by that spill !!!
    If it were safe, the impact statement would have been done by an independent entity. It was not.
    You want to have the ground water contaminated by oil like the Gulf?
    I believe in freedom for alternative medicine and freedom to drink clean water and breath clean air.

    • http://deleted Claire

      Regardless of who is POTUS, any decision that is made will not be the “right” one. I believe the environment should be taken care of, no more disasters like the BP shenangians. As a kid, we had well water, we never had to worry about contamination. Nowadays, with all the chemicals in the ground a person wouldn’t dare drink well water without testing it first. If they go with the pipeline, I hope that it is installed safely, properly and correctly but this will never happen. In this day and age the “quality” of workmanship is lousy. The oil companies “cut corners” just to make a few bucks. I do not trust oil companies. “Money talks and common sense walks.”

      • http://deleted Claire

        TransCanada has a poor track record–14 oil spills in their first year of operation.

        • Dale on the left coast

          TC Pipelines has been in business for over 50 years . . . you just have to stop reading Enviro-Loon Stuff.

          • eddie47d

            What are you snorting Dale you nasty boy? Trans Canada is the one lobbying for the pipeline and Paul Elliot one of their lead spokesman and been doing it for two years. He has also been doing it illegally because entities(agents) for foreign corporations are not allowed to lobby in Washington.There is also other undisclosed lobbying going on too if that matters to you. When the environmental impact statement was written two Trans Canadian employees and one Trans Canadian consultant put in written comments. Yet the independent report by John Stansbury was left out. Which means the oil companies are writing the rules to get the pipeline built. Americans should insist on seeing that independent review before anything is decided.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Try “List of oil spills” on the Internet.

      • Joyce from Loris

        Claire, we still use well water, but we are way out in the country, and few chemicals are used on our farm. Our water is the best, tests pure constantly, and taste better than bottled water. Our place is not a rarity. There are many of us who live “in the woods” that have excellent water to drink. The problem is now, the counties are trying to put water lines in our area, and FORCE us to drink their chemical laden “city” water. I can’t believe, in America, that we can be forced to drink poison. I am a retired chemist, and I know what is put in the water. That crap will kill you. Our well is 278 feet deep, and if all people could drink deep well water instead of the chemicals that cities SELL to residents, everyone would be healthier. I will fight to keep my well water! It’s all about money anyway.

        • carlos

          Joyce, Checkout Cape Coral Florida (lee County) the city also put in lines for “Free” recycled sewer water, as a sop to the destroyed septictanks and plugged wells $27000 mandatory connect charges, a lien on your home, then they GOT THE PIPES CROSSED one section of the city was watering with flouridated water and DRINKING the sewer water!!! Isn’t government wonderful??

          • Joyce from Loris

            Yeah, I want to trust them, alright!

        • http://deleted Claire

          Joyce from Loris— My point was that we NEVER checked our well water. We NEVER became ill from drinking this water. Now it has to be tested.

      • Karolyn

        I agree, Claire. What good are jobs when the land and people are destroyed to make them. It’s like the coal business in West Virginia. People are dying (and have been dying for many years)because of the coal industry, and the beautiful mountains of W. Virginia are being destroyed. When the job you have causes you to die earlier than you might have, what good is it?

        • Dale on the left coast

          Building a pipeline is like Mining Coal????
          THAT IS JUST FRIGGIN DUMB . . .
          The land is not destroyed, the pipe is burried under the ground . . . there are shutoffs valves, pipeline problems are rare and small . . . compared to say a Super Tanker in the Gulf with millions of barrels of oil in the water.
          Of course Karolyn . . . you could choose to live like the Engels Family . . . remember Little House on the Prairie . . . that’s what the Enviro-Loons want.

          • http://deleted Claire

            Little House on the Prairie reminds me of how I grew up.

      • Dale on the left coast

        You don’t trust oil companies . . . but you trust Govt???
        You and eddie got to stop drinking the kool-aide.
        There are 10′s of thousands of miles of pipelines in North America . . . another 1500 miles is insignificant . . . especially if you want to drive to work in the future. Of course, if you stay home and ride a bicycle . . . good luck with that!!!

        • eddie47d

          Why should anyone trust oil companies anymore than government so you point is absurd. Who says the pipeline has to go to Port Arthur when there are refineries in Oklahoma.There is already a pipeline going to that state and it mostly avoids the Ogallala Aquifer. Either way there is the earthquake problem that has increased in Oklahoma. That area is also part of the new Keystone pipeline route. Oklahoma use to get 50 minor earthquakes a year and now(2010) they had 1,047. So no matter if the pipeline is built above or below the damage would be immense. Maybe even more so if it’s underground because it wouldn’t be detected as fast. That could indeed finish off the Ogallala Aquifer.

    • Bryll Schultz

      Anne, if you would have looked at the data, (and not the stories told,) you would have realized that the damage to the wildlife and the loss of jobs were caused by Obama’s inept handling of it and HIS shutting down the oil industry. The was that the rig was there, instead of in safer shallow waters was due to the actions of environmentalists.
      Of course, you believe that it would be far more dangerous to get oil from an ally than our enemies!

      • KHM

        @ Bryll,,
        You are correct in the points you made.
        As to this article, with two of O’s base groups in opposition on this he’ll dither, but go with the bigger contributor group. Which, my guess, is unions.

    • http://searchforbiblicaltruth.com opigg

      I don’t see how you can say that a pipeline is about as safe as deep well drilling. The technology is much safer. I would add that the number of people effected by Obama killing drilling is much more severe than the effect of the oil spill you refer to just due to jobs lost, and especially when you consider the additional cost of fuel and the impact thereof caused by our lack of oil self sufficiency. We should be drilling wherever there is a potential source. I believe in protecting our environment but I believe people in the environmental lobby do not make good value judgments for our country. They justify it by making statements like you made about safety.

    • http://aol.com sean murrey ILLIniois

      it will creat jobs you shrill.

      • Karolyn

        Does it balance out? Destroy the land and wildlife, pollute the atmosphere, but make money. What is left in the end is a big fat zero.

        • G Elliott

          Karolyn,

          You’re right, it doesn’t balance out. The net benefit to the economy is greater than the net harm to the environment. Keep in mind that the dirtiest countries in the world are also generally the poorest. Therefore, countries with vibrant economies have the money to maintain clean environments. Shutting down our industries in the name of ecological stewardship, is just another way of actually making the environment dirtier. (Law of unintended consequence.)

    • http://yahoo olerocker

      And I beleive that the pipeline beats thousands of tanker trucks, on the highways sprewing fumes on a daily basis….if you want to give up everything you own made of plasic, clothes, shoes, cars, boats, socks, suits, furniture, food wrappings, computers, solar panels, windmills, ect.that’s up to you..oil is here to stay at least for the next 100 years.

      • patrick H.T. paine

        “To conquer, first divide!”

        A pipeline doesn’t prevent what you describe since it only eliminates those emissions to the refinery….it still has to be shipped to it’s
        point of sale. Since the infrastructure HERE (oil refineries) are as
        bad or worse than everything else that has been allowed to depreciate,
        new refineries with improved technologies would be better solutions
        and since it appears that new (oil) discoveries will be located farther north, Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, etc. new refineries closer to
        these sources would make more sense.

        Water is also going to be a problem in the future, an since the aquifer involved is critical the risk far outweighs any benefits.

        Fortunately, the area’s concerned in these new finds, are located in
        under populated and underdeveloped area’s……which permits a bit of
        forward thinking regarding rebuilding infrastructure in anticipation of the industries you mention, which rely on petroleum, which is useful for other things besides a fuel source.

        The oil industry has escaped any responsibility for the damage the industry has caused which keeps the price low, and defers the cost
        to the taxpayer in any number of ways……were these calculations included in the actual price, the cost of oil as fuel would be prohibitive.

        But the reality here will become clear over time…..

        “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls………”

        • Buster the Anatolian

          “new refineries with improved technologies would be better solutions”

          Agreed however you have to get the EPA and the other federal alphabet agencies to sign off on the building of new refineries.
          As it stands now the feds will not approve the building any new refineries.

          • patrick H.T. paine

            “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

            Which is wierd because most of the existing refineries are both dangerous and extremly toxic to everything in the immediate vicinity.
            They would all qualify to be “super fund” sites, although that would take a bit of a memory stretch for most people.

    • G Elliott

      Anne,

      While you’re recalling the BP disaster in the Gulf, please also recall the safe record of the Trans Alaska Pipeline over the past few decades, as well as the thousands of other pipelines that create jobs and deliver critical products to our markets every day. Technologies, standards, laws and regulations are in place to give us very high confidence that new projects like this will be reasonably safe and clean. However, there is NO way of ensuring that there won’t ever be another spill (hopefully, not as large as the BP spill) without completely shutting down the entire industry. That’s a formula for immediate disaster (economic instead of environmental) as well, so those of us who depend on a growing economy to fund our livelihoods, don’t much like that prospect either.

      • eddie47d

        There have been spills on the Alaska pipeline route mostly due to rusting joints. So pipelines do leak. We just had the pipeline spill on the Yellowstone River and another major one on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. The Keystone project is much bigger than any of these other projects and traverses the Ogallala Aquifer. How much more damage to the environment are we willing to endure? What will it take to make these energy companies more responsible? How much collateral damage bond will these oil companies be putting up to protect those 8 states. Yes blame the environmentalist even though they aren’t the ones doing the damage and are only protecting our nations drinking water.

        • Buster the Anatolian

          eddie………how many hundreds of thousands of pipelines are there in the US that have had NO leaks?

        • eddie47d

          Probably most leak considering they all rust or crack over time.

          • Buster the Anatolian

            Ah, but you have no evidence just an opinion based on your opposition to pipelines.

          • eddie47d

            Looks like I posted more proof than you have.(Yellowstone River break) so take a hike and come back when you can be wiser instead of a wise azz.

          • Buster the Anatolian

            But we are not discussing the Yellowstone river break we are discussing the hundreds of thousands miles of other pipelines in the US.

          • eddie47d

            You don’t know where they all are either. I’m judging from what has to be replaced in Colorado. Pipes don’t rust as fast out here (dryer) than much of the East and South where they do corrode faster. .

    • Art Newpher

      Anne, There are millions of miles of pipe in this country carrying all kinds of substances… To stop this one just doesn’t make sense. The oil is going to be used…you would rather the oil be transported via truck and rail car as it is now? I would suggest that there would be FAR less oil spilled with a pipeline then with all the car/truck accidents. And while I don’t want to go back to the days when they use to spray oil on the dirt roads outside of town to keep the dust down…I don’t think an oil (natural product – not man made) spill is a huge deal. When its as big as the BP then ok…that is a problem and needs to be looked into to prevent from happening again but lets not cut off our nose to spite our face.

      • Karolyn

        What about the destruction of the land and displacement of wildlife?

        • Dale on the left coast

          Dumb . . . dumb . . . dumb . . .
          The pipeline will be burried below the ground, the animals will walk by without ever knowing its there, the farmers will till their fields . . . life will go on . . . just like the other 70 odd thousand miles of pipelines in North America.

    • JC

      Anne, I’m not sure how it is that you see the ground water becoming contaminated by a pipeline other than the possibilty of a breach in the line. Do you live at the source of the pipeline? If not, I would syuggest that any spills will very like not effect your water. Also, if the source is the Oil Sands of northern Alberta, then the oil sands are there and oil naturally leeches into the local water system with or without mechanical intervention. It’s actually a natural phenomenon.

      And do you give any consideration to the idea that we need to be self sufficient? Or shall we just keep buying “bloody” oil from people in the Middle East who are our friends only as long as they are paid to be…our friends.

      • eddie47d

        It’s the chemicals mixed in with the tar sands that are the greater threat to ground water.

        • JC

          Natural Oil flows into the rivers there daily.
          The only way to tell if it’s “processed” oil is by checking for the presence of Naptha. If found operations are stopped immediately and an investigation commenced. Albertans are greatly aware of this and take all possible precautions.

        • Dale on the left coast

          Eddie . . . its “OIL SANDS” . . . the tar pits are in California.
          The oil recovered from the sand is actually lighter than some of the oil recovered in the Western US . . . hate to confuse you with FACTS!!!

          • JeffH

            Dale, FYI…Bituminous sands, colloquially known as “oil sands or tar sands”, are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit. The sands contain naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, water, and a dense and extremely viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen (or colloquially “tar” due to its similar appearance, odour, and colour). Oil sands are found in large amounts in many countries throughout the world, but are found in extremely large quantities in Canada and Venezuela.

            The crude bitumen contained in the Canadian oil sands is described by Canadian authorities as “petroleum that exists in the semi-solid or solid phase in natural deposits. Bitumen is a thick, sticky form of crude oil, so heavy and viscous (thick) that it will not flow unless heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. At room temperature, it is much like cold molasses”.

          • eddie47d

            Are you drunk on stupid today Dale. Who said anything about tar pits?

    • ChristyK

      All oil pipelines are safer and cleaner than shipping the oil around by ship. It isn’t fair to look at it as pipeline or no pipeline. We need oil. We will either get oil by the pipeline from Canada or we will get it by ship (probably from countries in the mid-east that hate us and don’t care about the environment). Which is cleaner? Which is safer? Which will keep our country more secure? Approve the pipeline.

    • Tim

      The gulf spill is history. The only problem is the moratoriam on drilling causing us to lose more jobs, which is killing the economy in the region. Gas is supposed to go to 4.50 a gal next summer, and thanks to this administration it will probably go to five. And like I said before: Oil and water DON’T mix so whats the problem?

  • Robin from Arcadia, IN

    What will he do, what will he do? Who does he piss off? The fanatics, or the working man? No doubt he will decide to ‘kick this can down the road’ for a decision later, when the elections are not so close….

  • http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/lies-our-leaders-tell-us/#comment-504618 conservative independent

    Well it is safer above ground people wherE it can be seen and inspected without the problems of being a mile under water then underground use your heads. what we should do is like we done with the last one let japan or china pay for it then canada can send the oil there after all they need oil too not to mention jobs besides they can sell it back to us and make a profit just make sense to me why should we build it to help ourselves and our country. I think that all these enviromental terrorists should find someplace else to go live like siberia so they can create jobs and control their own enviroment or better yet build a sphere to live in. lets ship their butts to another planet it would be cheaper on TRUE AMERICANS.

    • eddie47d

      You seem to be wanting an environmental gulag where anything goes and to heck with the damages that occur. Where the taxpayer always has to come in and clean up after these companies do their damages. That happens in all states so think about all those Superfund Sites that are out there. We have a few in Colorado where the owners just walked away and left contaminated drinking water. If Conservatives want to be in charge of America’s business and take credit for everything then they better man up and take responsibility (upfront) for soiling our environment. Making money is nice but when you leave problems for someone else to clean up then you are not a responsible business Conservative.

      • Dale on the left coast

        eddie . . . you are a “Mental Gulag” . . . no facts, just enviro-nonsense. The choice is yours . . . Oil Tankers from the ME Despots – Conflict Oil . . . OR . . . oil from Canada. But if the US prefers Tankers in the Gulf . . . thats OK . . . cause Canada will just sell their excess oil to the Chinese, they are building a LNG Port now . . . be real easy to add a crude oil dock.

      • Dale on the left coast

        eddie . . . no one has “Soiled” the environment more than the left . . . the socialists/progressives/communists all preside over the most POLLUTED Countries On The PLANET!!! FACT!!!
        Go to Russia, China, North Korea . . . even here in the US I would submit that the most polluted states are run by dimmicraps!!!

      • eddie47d

        I don’t live by the standards of those countries Dale. As a US citizen I don’t have much control over their environmental laws(do you).Living in a great country like America doesn’t mean you have to settle for mediocre like you apparently want. I’ll take clean air and water over whatever you desire. I’m fully aware of the environmental disasters in Russia (Lake Baikal) and those in coastal Nigeria.

    • JC

      CI, You do understand that the pipeline would supply the US “from” Canada…not the other way around right?

  • Joyce from Loris

    There are so many other decisions that can be made to open the markets for jobs. How about deciding to abolish the EPA, USDA, etc. that make the outrageous laws that we, the American people, must live by? How about cutting the deficit by about 4 trillion dollars? How about releasing a few of those drilling permits, where we can drill our OWN OIL, instead of using Canada’s oil? There are many alternatives, but unfortunately, none of them are included in the socialist handbook. Government just needs to get out of our way, step aside, go back to doing what it is SUPPOSE to do, and leave the business of job creation to the business owners.

    • http://searchforbiblicaltruth.com opigg

      Right on!!!!

    • carlos

      Go Girl, try to get out the truth, Also…the Chinese are bidding to buy all of Canada’s export oil. If this pipeline is stopped…the next one will go west to fill Chinese tankers….lost to US forever. After we failed in Afganastan, Russia contracted to sell ALL of their natural gas and whatever surplus oil to China.

    • eddie47d

      The pros and cons are much bigger than that Joyce. We are drilling in the USA and right here in Colorado. More than 15,000 well heads are in Weld County and more are in Douglas,Arapahoe,El Paso and Laramie counties. We are drill crazy here. What about the Williston Basin in North Dakota which has hundreds of wells and more coming up. They can’t build homes fast enough to house workers. Abolishing the EPA would do more harm than good unless we can afford to have even more contaminated landscapes (farmland and ground water). Your comment about socialists not endorsing Alternatives was overboard and rather confusing. Was that a misstatement you made since Liberals widely support Alternatives? We all know how those on this site like to libel Liberals as socialists.

      • RONALD TRAINOR

        Somebody told me that the oil from ND is to be sent south with the new to be built Transcanda pipeline.

    • dave fon

      anyone who does not want the pipeline must already be rich, otherwise they would not want to let china and india pass us in industrial might(worse than they already have) i have a hard time finding products that are made in america att all that are not pre packacaged snacks, if we are stupid enough as a nation to destroy our own destiny by handing the key to world power(oil) to other nations we deserve what we get

  • http://aol.com sean murrey ILLIniois

    it will creat jobs these dumb kids say it will poison the water it wont you dumb ass kids.

    • bob wire

      well dumb ass or not 1660 miles is a long ways and we seen last week Oklahoma experienced earth quakes of 4.5 and felt all the way to Dallas.

      So serious concerns are warranted. Such a 36 inch line would be slow to shut down if necessary.

      All the fracking that going on these days, such matters are unclear.

      There no need to acting stupid about such matters. You and me will both be long dead and future Americans left to deal with it.

  • carlos

    Interesting how the media and the eco-wackos have made the gulf leakage into “The Greatest Disaster in American History” “The millions of lives lost and The thousands of businesses destroyed” Again communist propaganda! Get on the “Sierra Club, INSIDER” They brag how many coal-fired power plants they have shut down (104) and nuclear plants they have prevented from “Starting” (5) and now they are promising to shut down oil and gas fired plants. Not to mention 5 dams removed under Klinton. Al Gore bragged that they had destroyed 5 power generating dams in Maine When asked what those people would do without power? He said: ” now they will have to move, and sell their land to the government”. I’m still waiting for these eco-freaks to set an example and quit using electricity, completely, that means blackberrys too. No flying to meetings, no limos to protests. Obviously THEY don’t believe what THEY preach.

    • Joyce from Loris

      You sure have them pegged correctly, Carlos. My family is trying to switch to alternative forms of electricity and it is HARD, but something we feel we are going to have to do anyway. You don’t realize just how much of your life depends on electricity until you have to learn how to live without it. If our elected officials in D.C. ever learn how to DO THE WORK EXPECTED OF THEM I would feel easier about things to come in the future, but right now, I am concentrating on learning to make solar panels to run my frig, LOL!

      • carlos

        Joyce, I have my refrigerator working right now on 6, 15 watt panels, two golf cart batteries, but it took a 2000 watt inverter to give the neccessary 500 watts 2 second starting boost, running current is 124 watts, cut the thermostat wires and use them to switch the inverter,(low amps at that point) then use a AC delay contactor in the 110v line to allow the inverter to start before the sudden starting load. that allows the inverter to shutoff between refer running cycles.

        • Joyce from Loris

          Wow, Carlos, thanks so much! I really needed this info, it will be a great help!

    • eddie47d

      “millions of lives lost” Carlos? No I think that is only Carlos propaganda. So many lies and so little time to refute them.

  • Patriotic nut

    Yes, it is a problem for the current occupier of the white house, either way he loses a group, unless he can say the republicans forced him to do it. There Obama, problem solved, blame the nasty republicans in public and tell your union buddies the truth, they won’t tell. As for the environmentalist, shut up, we have allowed you to bring our country to the brink of ruin, along with the PC policies. No longer your turn, sit down shut up and do what you can on your own to prevent the problems you invent for the rest of us to suffer for.

    • eddie47d

      The anti-Environmentalists are the one who tried to bring this country to the brink of ruin Patriot. You endorse the companies that have and will do tremendous damages to this nation. We have suffered enough in their contaminating America.Funny how all these gas wells in Colorado are now opening up under the Obama Administration when those permits were slowed down under the Bush Administration. Yes we can all play hardball in politics and since the Republicans have done precious little in spurring the economy and sabotaging any jobs deal then let’s lay the problem squarely where it belongs.

      • Tim

        @ eddie. There are 15 different jobs bills that the Republican house has sent to the Senate. However Harry Reid won’t bring any of them to the floor even for discussion.We have a Democratic “do nothing” Senate thats holding up the works. With the left leaning laberal news media, you won’t hear about this unless you watch Fox news. And before you say it; if Fox news lied constantly, they wouldn’t be the number one rated news channel.

  • http://liberyalearts john p.

    I THINK IT IS GREAT YOUR PUTTING PEOPLE TO WORK.

  • http://www.gillysrooms.blogspot.com Gilly

    The Environmentalists are just REDS using a green name. The only way to reduce emissions in North America is to move your entire population to China or India, but what is really going on is pretty obvious…manufacturing is moving to China or India where the pollution rules are non existent. In Australia I have noticed that the green voters seem to be the wealthy family descendants and executives in an attempt in self absolution for their sin of living and breathing out carbon dioxide? I cant understand the logic of these bohemian do gooders destroying jobs in the free world.

    • eddie47d

      Who voted against the Kyoto Treaty? Not China but the USA. Since we don’t favor protecting the air we breath why should they. Shouldn’t it be by example yet the Republicans are now diluting the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act as we speak.

      • Dale on the left coast

        eddie . . . the Koyota Treaty was based on nonsense science . . . neither China or India were included in the treaty . . . go get some facts.
        After the Klinton regeme with krazy Al nogotiating CO2 reductions . . . the Senate voted 95 to 0 to not sign the dumb treaty.
        No countries that signed the treaty reduced their CO2 output . . . no countries came anywhere near their reduction targets.
        Today . . . we know that CO2 does not control the termperature of the globe . . . it is a benign, colorless, ododless gas the enables plants to grow.

      • eddie47d

        I didn’t mention India and although China was not on board in 1997 they did endorse the treaty in 2001 but wouldn’t sign it unless the USA did. So go ahead and play loose with the facts.

      • Tim

        @ eddie. Do you know who is one of the founders of and stands to make a lot of money from the Chicago carbon exchange? (Cap & trade)
        None other than Barak Obama.

  • Skyraider6

    Bring on the pipeline, bring back America’s industrial power where it belongs , not in China or some shet 3rd world country.

  • Tony N
  • Patrick Healy

    America, wake up. We need to get real and stop having the tail wag the dog. The Environmentalists are crushing our chance to compete on the world stage and have economic security. We need to get Obama out of office and replace him with a Republican – Free Enterprise Capitalist along with getting Reid and the crackpot Pelosi out of office. Then when California needs a bailout becuase of their Socialist Policies we have the balls to say no and let them go Bankrupt.

  • jim capy

    What a mess America has become. Nothing ever seems to be going in the right direction. The leftist media has brainwashed the country. The voter majority are entitlement seekers who want more and more but are out of work or never worked at all.

  • wasadoc

    Of course, we all know that the eco’s don’t use gas or oil——-do they?

  • carlos

    One more thing, if anyone is interested, FEMA contracted the U of Alabama to design a Producer Gas Generator That means burning wood products to make a gas to run engines. Done during the gas rationing of both world wars, NOT HI TECH, It is a free download, with plans, an operating manuel, and even a video of a john deere tractor disking on only wood chips. I don’t know how to give out the site without “Spaming” but try GENDASSIAN MAYBE YOU CAN FIND IT

    • libertytrain

      carlos. One link is not a problem. Multiple links gets you put in needs moderation kind of limbo.

    • independant thinker

      Mother Earth News has plans available for a wood gas generator and if I remember correctly has had for many years.

  • Michael O’Hara

    The actual (temporary) jobs involved with the pipeline construction have been estimated by independent sources at about 2,000.

    If any of you think that having a pipeline from Canada to the US somehow improves our energy security, think again. The new pipeline would go from Alberta to OK, sure enough. There it connects to already existing pipelines that carry oil products to Gulf ports and from there to ships. The ships carry the oil to where there’s a market for that load – could be Baltimore or it could also be Beijing.

    • carlos

      Michael, Your figure of 2000 jobs temp. only? Does that include the machinery and their manufacturers and parts suppliers, local labor to prepare the right-of-way, lawyers and local government workers inspecting and issueing permits, Remember it crosses lots of bridges, the steel industry making thousands of miles of pipe, the pump building companies, all of the builders and suppliers of accessorys, and of course the housing and food industry for those 2000 ? temp workers as they move with the pipeline. Remember Alyeska lots of jobs created, and consider ALL of those workers then have money to spend! NO, I THINK A LOT MORE JOBS WILL BE CREATED.

    • eddie47d

      Yes lots of temporary jobs will be created and that is a good thing but there will be environmental damages for there always has been. That is not a good thing. Someone said it will keep trucks off the road (coming from Canada)so less polluting vehicles. Okay I’ll buy that but it will also put trucks back on the road taking that oil from Port Arthur and sending it by truck back to North Dakota and the rest of the nation. That equation becomes a wash and yes that refined oil could end up in other countries no matter which way it goes. As a side note Iran has lots of oil yet they have to import refined oil so there could be a demand from other countries. Gas prices in the USA will probably not go down if anyone thinks that with the XL Pipeline.

      • independant thinker

        The refined product swould be distributed just like it is now. Most would go to terminal points by existing pipelines then be distributed by tanker from the terminal points to the local distribution centers so no significant if any increase on trucks carrying the refined product.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Michael . . . the reason the pipeline goes to the Gulf is simple . . . that’s where the friggin refineries are!!!
      Since the Enviro-whacks have all but made it impossible to build refineries in the US that last 30 odd years . . . you take the oil to existing refineries. This oil will displace oil coming now by Tanker from the ME Despots . . . hard to understand I know . . . but them’s the facts!!!

      • eddie47d

        There are 142 refineries in the US and Texas has the most capacity and then Louisiana. California has several also.

  • simian pete

    Canada has oil. The USA wants oil. So let’s make a deal !

    Burning OIL is better than burning COAL !! ?? So I’m wondering why President Obama hasn’t “spinned” this one. It seems President Obama wants to get rid of the coal industry … What a indecisive knothead !!!!

    President Obama – build the pipeline ! Sell it to the enviromental activist as better than coal !!!

  • carlos

    Pete, the lobbiests for the pipeline company have donated big bucks to The Obamanation’s campaign fund! He isn’t an environmentalist, just a greedy oppertunist.

    • simian pete

      Yep ! He sure is ! What’s the fund raising goal for President Obama’s re-election ? I heard this political genius will raise 1 BILLION DOLLARS ! !!!

      You sure got to admire President Obama on this one ! HA HA !! The Republicans will probably be to stingy to match ….

      The price tag for the Presidency is now 1 billion dollars ! WOW !! Do people have any idea how much money that is ? Even with the inflation. But it’s 2011 and hyperinflation hasn’t hit us YET !!!

      When OPPORTUNITY KNOCKS, you got to open the door right away and pull the old man in by his beard…

  • bob wire

    1660 miles? That’s sure long extension cord.

    We could use the jobs but wouldn’t creating a refinery a little closer be a better solution? Say ~ like Kansas?

    Our refinery’s are in the far south and Texas is a rather large state.

    unless they wanting to reach southern ports which is not mentions , why?

    • eddie47d

      Excellent point Bob Wire. Could be so they can export this newly refined oil to let’s say India. I’ve always said we should build a refinery on the North Dakota/Canadian border where this heavy tar sands can be broken down before it goes south. Instead the oil companies are now wanting to ship it all the way to the Gulf. The problem is that the tar sands oil(very heavy) has to have massive amounts of chemicals mixed into the tar oil to keep it moving along within the pipeline. Once it reaches Port Arthur they have to spend millions to take those chemicals back out before it can be refined.That process will keep this oil very expensive and those chemicals they use are dangerous and will poison ground water if there is leakage. Those chemicals are far worse than the oil itself so the tar sands should be contained in North Dakota so the damages would be limited.

      • Tim

        @ eddie, We havn’t built a refinery in the past thirty years because of the envirenmentalists.

        • eddie47d

          Could be that those refineries caused so much damage to the surrounding areas that someone had to put a moratorium on building new ones. I say build new ones and close the dysfunctional ones.

        • bob wire

          “We havn’t built a refinery in the past thirty years because of the environmentalists.”

          Well, I hear you but I very much question just how true it might be. A little true, or a lot true.

          and then too, ~I have a lot of family that lives and works the gulf coast bayou areas. Freeport, Klute, Brazoria, Lake Jackson ( Ron Paul’s area home)

          Few men live to get really old down in this part of Texas anymore. Both men and women senior years is fraught with strange medical problems. I did have a uncle Jeff Davis that made it to 99, he died 15 years ago. These later generations or not being as lucky. From 55 on, life get rather tricky and lot depending where you have work at the plant.

          I have a close cousin Bell, we were always tight, at 63 her days at filled with carrying all the older ones to the doctor, She has nine sisters and was next to the youngest. Between tending to stock and getting everyone to the doctor, Bell is a very busy woman these days.

          If you figure 8 sister with eight husbands, plus all the aunts and uncles make a lot of people. ~ of course that number is being whittled down.

          Like myself, Bell has accepted the family role of overseer and get it done, early responder person.

          Not to get distracted here,~~~

          ~ But living in the shadows of Dow Chemical company has some serious “down sides” and of course they like to keep that fact low and hidden as much as possible. Dow is a major employer of a large region of South Texas.

          So I;m asking you ~ how much do you really know about Chemical refineries and what issues the industry and the people who work them must contend with?

          Do you have any experience with living within 10 miles of a concrete plant, or a slaughter house? a major train switching yard?
          They all come with up and down sides.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Talk to your EPA buddies Bob . . . if you start today they might let you build one in maybe FIFTY YEARS!!!
      The EPA, destroyed the Steel Industry in the US in the 70′s . . . and since then have made it extremely difficult to build refineries anywhere in the USA . . . the EPA has destroyed more jobs in America than even the O’bamby loon!!

      • eddie47d

        Can I send you a box of pads Dale for you are sure on the rag.

        • libertytrain

          your sad intellectual level never ceases to amaze me. Good grief.

          • eddie47d

            You mean smart azz Dale? Yes he has been an intellectual midget today.

          • Opal the Gem

            “You mean smart azz Dale? Yes he has been an intellectual midget today.”

            If Dale is an intellectual midget you are a speck of intellectual dust.

          • libertytrain

            Eddie is great at dishing out nastiness but then denies his infantile statements.

  • CP

    I don’t know for sure about now, but Kansas used to have nearly as many refineries as Texas. I do know several of them have been bought out and closed down as being “too much excess capacity.” Take a look at what happened to the Skelly refinery after Texaco took over the company, or what has happened to other refineries in that area. I do know that, thanks to the EPA and other environmental groups, we have not built a NEW refinery in a good number of years. Why, do you think, that is? Could it be the major oil companies would just as soon buy their gasoline from Venezuela and haul it back to the states? Doubtful, but something to think about.

    • s c

      Where is your head, CP? There haven’t been any new refineries built in America because the scheme was designed to guarantee that we’d be forever dependent on foreign oil sources, gasoline prices would always go UP and our worthless, treasonous, criminal SOBs in Washington would be able to count on easy votes via ‘environmental issues’ and retarded voters.
      Just WHERE is your head, Bubba?

  • daniel

    I think that the pipeline is a good idea to proceed with. The green energy industry has at best a dubious record and results. When you have hypocrites like Al Gore promoting it you have to ask yourself why. I mean look at that man’s carbon footprint alone and ask if he is a true believer or a huckster. Sorry got off track there.
    The possibility of this country generating enough energy to fuel our economy is nil. That is according to research from both liberal and conservative think tanks. Those figures also included conservation to the point of what some would call “draconian” measures. We can however become even more efficient in our use of energy as we have in the past.
    Probably the most tragic of all the green fuels would be the bio-fuels. Congress wastes our tax money to subsidize the industry from start to finish. Does anyone really think that Congress will cut the subsidies to the factory farms in Iowa and cost himself votes? The amount of land that is used to grow the crops for bio-fuels has been taken from land used to grow corn and wheat. These crops are essential to feeding poorer countries and because of bio-fuels there is a shortage and higher prices they can’t afford. In other words people are starving. Starving people fight just look at the Arab Spring. See how far the price of food had risen compared to the average person’s salary.
    Yes from a practicality point the pipeline is a good thing and will create jobs. More than just the construction portion too. Unfortunately it seems an agenda is more important than even peoples lives.

    • eddie47d

      CP; It’s also true that oil companies have refused to build new refineries for about 40 years now and have no intentions of doing so. Refineries were built in Texas because that is were most of the oil was and now that dimension has shifted to the north where they should invest in a new refinery. They are putting all their eggs in one basket and making our country vulnerable to an attack. Daniel; The oil industry receives millions in subsidies also so that point becomes mote in the pipeline debate.

      • Jeep

        eddie, after reading your posts today, I have to say that you are half right. The oil and gas saga that has been going on in America for decades is a sordid tale of greed, mistrust and misguided effort. As an example, take refineries, oil companies know that it is expensive in the short term to build a new structure and to develop an increase in capacity will ultimately lower oil and gas prices. Politicians in proposed localities want the jobs a new refinery will bring, but not the headaches. Environmentalists are opposed to any possibility of damage. The point is that no one wants new refineries, albiet for their own reasons. And, now everyone can blame the other side. We have plenty of oil, natural gas and coal in these United States, but because the status quo is so comfortable, politicians and developers are not going to really put forth the effort to really become energy independant. Environmentalists will claim victory and the blame game goes on. And, as far as subsidies to oil companies are concerned, the fed does not send a check for a billion dollars to BP or anyone else. The subsidies are in the form of tax benefits, oil companies simply get tax write off’s, and they are called subsidies. Many other industries have similar write off’s. I would institute tax reform to reflect collection at the tip of the spear and eliminate taxes paid by consumers at the pump. But, either way any taxes are always paid by the consumer. In the end, this is just to say that all these issues are easily twisted by all sides to reflect their point of view. It is truly a complex issue.

      • Dale on the left coast

        eddie . . . the EPA is the reason No New Refineries have been built in over 30 years . . .
        One more thinkg eddie . . . its Oil Sands, the Tar Pits are in California. And, oil sands oil is LIGHTER than much of the Western US oil.

        • eddie47d

          Get off the kool aid Dale in bringing up tar pits. Tar sands are much heavier than most oils so the only one you are fooling is yourself.

      • daniel

        eddie the word is moot. The point is that the oil industry will survive without subsidies wich as you can guess I am against. As it is the bio-fuels are subsidized to the point of the vehicles that burn them. We would be better off using fossil fuels such as with our coal powered cars. And you did miss the point of the acreage that could be turned into food production not fuel production.

  • Nancy from Nebraska

    The people from Nebraska, for the most part don’t object to the pipeline itself. They object to the pipeline running through The Ogalala Aquifer. This aquifer provides the drinking water for most of the state. It provides water to irrigate the crops grown in the state. The aquifer feeds rivers and streams that provide water downstream to Kansas. If the aquifer is contaminated it will affect the crops grown in both states. This is not a regular oil pipeline. It is not oil that they are sending through these pipelines. It is a very thick sludge, tar sands oil also called bitumen. This product is too thick to flow so they have to dilute it with toxic chemicals to make it “flow”. The EPA asked for a list of the chemicals that would be added and Trans Canada denied them citing “industrial trade secrets”. The real question isn’t whether we can clean up after an oil spill it is whether these toxic chemicals can ever be removed from the water. This affects every person in this country. If the water becomes contaminated, not only would the country have to figure out how to get water to all of these people, but what would happen to our food supply? The majority of food produced in Nebraska and Kansas would either be eliminated or contaminated. Think of the massive food shortages this would cause. There is currently one of these pipelines running through the eastern part of the state. This does not affect the aquifer! This pipeline has already had several spills. It is not a question of “if” it will spill, only “when”. The new pipeline should run parallel with the old one. The leaks and spills would not contaminate the aquifer. Trans Canada wants the new, more direct route because they can save a few million. I’m all FOR access to oil and jobs but not at the expense of food and water. We HAVE to protect our natural resources. Some things are more important than money. We cannot live without food and water.

    • http://deleted Claire

      Nancy from Nebraska–Good post. I have a dear friend in Nebraska and she says the same as you.

    • Dale on the left coast

      Nonsense Nancy . . . the oil from the Oil Sands is lighter than some of the crude sourced in the Western US.
      Pipeline spills, though rare, are usually very small and easily cleaned up . . . unlike Oil Tankers in the Gulf that are very messy, and usually involve millions of barrels.

  • Harold

    Why the xxxx don’t we develop our own oil resources? It is because of the same well meaning people who are against the pipeline.

    • eddie47d

      We are developing our own resources so where have you been? We are also protecting our environment and water resources. Both can be achieved.

  • HCubed

    I’m showing my age, but I remember the environmentalist stopping the original Alaska pipeline. They were proud of their accomplishment. But then the gas crisis hit,and low and behold Congress overturned everything and the pipeline was built. The world did not self destruct after the pipeline went operational.

  • Freedom

    Someone needs put these Enviro Wachos to in their place, so that common sense proposals to get this nation back on track can take place. These Enviro TERRORISTS, MUST GO NOW!!!!

  • John

    Why are the environmentalists attacking the country that has put more laws on the books to protect the environment? It does seem strange China is the leading polluter but these people are afraid to address this Communist country. Is it because they themselves belong to the same political leadership? Our country will not be the land of opportunity if we can not have a source of energy we can count on.

  • Sirian

    What we’re seeing here is what is commonly called an over reaction to something that probably won’t occur. I mean all of the terrible, horrendous things that will happen to our water supplies, food supplies, natural supplies of naturals. Just as it most certainly DID NOT happen in Alaska even though the same arguments both were and are used over and over and over. That pipeline specifically both has and had a tremendous number of environmental factors to be factored into its design and construction. Yet low and behold it has withstood the environmental effects that are gnawing at its surface and joints and supports 24/7 for over thirty years. Isn’t it nice that you have had plenty of gasoline and engine oil and all of the other various products derived from oil itself while your were growing up? This even includes what you are wearing. Now then, if oil spills are happening all the time then why isn’t everyone raising cain about the design of the pipeline and demanding that it be built as good if not better than the Alaskan pipeline? Can’t do that? WHY NOT? Because oil spills aren’t happening all the time. Besides, once a spill occurs it’s cleaned up due to the EPA and its regulations that stand. Being that as it may I seriously doubt that there would be any major seepage into the aquifer which in turn would destroy all possible food supplies, water supplies etc. Keep in mind – just where does the oil come from to begin with?? Uh, it’s home of resident is much deeper than the water tables – aquifers included. Where this oil originates from is not being held up by the Canadian Government for its production and transport – why not? If it is such an unruly product then why are we using it to begin with? Please, I agree with Harold and HCubed, we could develop our own resources, which we have more than enough to supply us for decades and decades to come, and no, the world didn’t self destruct after the Alaskan Pipeline was built and put into use. Tree huggers, calm down, push our wondrous government to allow us to become totally energy independent within ten years max – easily reached in that amount of time. Protest that for a while, get your lobbyists to push it, have all of your special interest groups back energy independence with an overwhelming force. Can you do that? From the mindset of tree huggers I seriously doubt it.

  • Julia

    Proposed pipeline will go through Oklahoma where earthquakes happened this past week. I want to know status of pipeline during earthquake?

    • libertytrain

      There are earthquakes all over this country at any given time…

    • Sirian

      It just so happens that I’m from Oklahoma too and yes, I experienced the earthquake we had too. Insofar as to what extent earthquakes may damage oil pipelines – gas pipelines, water pipelines, sewage pipelines etc. etc. etc., well, think about it for a second. The answer lies right smack dab in front of you – it all depends upon what level of earthquake occurs. Now the one we had here in Oklahoma topped out at 5.6 with another one the next night at 4.7. Being that as it may, doesn’t it seem logical to design safety measures into the pipeline that both could and would withstand a possible earthquake of at least 7 if not possibly 8? The Alaskan pipeline had that designed into it due to the possibilities of major earthquakes and volcanic activity too. The EPA plays a major role in this via regulations and inspections etc. Remember, when major projects of this size are designed all of these factors are involved and therefore designed to withstand accordingly. If they may have been overly foolish and were left out and an accident/spill takes place then they would in the end be reinforced to compensate for any further incidents that may take place. Keep something more in mind also – the longer their pipeline is down the more money they lose. All in all, with that being one of the prime driving objectives of the pipeline, then why would they build a cheaply constructed pipeline that could be shook loose and spill millions of barrels of oil all over the place? In turn, wouldn’t that in the end cost them millions upon millions to correct? How often do you hear of any section, segment of the Williams Pipelines suffering a major rupture that inflicts horrendous levels of death and destruction? Haven’t heard of any? Thought so. Oh yes, you forgot something else that they have to design for and into surface pipeline junction points as well as other areas too – TORNADOS!! Now then, kick back and calm down. Hope we never ever have a level 8 quake here but there’s no way of knowing for sure.

  • http://google.com Rob

    I’m afraid Obama will stick with the Enviros. The Unions will stay democrat regardless. Obama will do whatever will hurt America the most. Obama hates America. The enviros are idiots, they don’t care about the environment, all they want is to stop advancement of society. They want to stop fracturing of wells and stop this pipeline. The Alaska pipeline from Prudhoe Bay has been virtually free of problems since being built and hasn’t had any negative effect on the environment at all.

  • http://none RPaul or same ol’

    There is a refinery trying to get passed to build in SE. South Dakota but locals are saying NIMBY. There are gas and diesel shortages right now in North Dakota where the shale gas fields are because of all the construction. Farmers are having to wait to harvest. We need oil and everything that goes with it. Demand the companies be liable for pollution,air etc. Isn’t that what lawyers are for? The dreaded Alaska pipeline was a complete mess like the enviro’s said it would be? I don’t think so. Alaska’s wildlife and residents are just fine 30 years later, ever went and taken a look at it? We need all the close to home energy we can get, got it? Nebraska native here. I guess I just can’t grasp where opponents of this, think the power for farming, heating, cooling, gasoline, industry, is supposed to come from thin air like our Federal Reserve Notes? Alt. energy is a great idea but a VERY LONG way out. I’d like to be warm tonite.

    • Dale on the left coast

      You are absolutely right RPaul . . . there is NOTHING to replace Oil and Gas tomorrow!!! But, the enviro-loons keep spewing their nonsense.
      4 more years of the EPA and O’bammy and the USA will be a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY . . . them’s the FACTS folks . . . your last chance is coming in 2012 . . . vote dimmicrap and the game is OVER, we become Greece!!!

      • eddie47d

        I have never heard an environmentalist say that oil will no longer be used. I read several environmental magazines so I’m sure I would have caught a line like that. Besides the time to move forward is now and as I say it should have started 50 years ago.

  • Raggs

    To tell the truth… oblama does not have to capibility to even decide what color socks to wear.

  • Art Chandler

    These extreme environmentalists are beyond reason; they’d have us return to the Stone Age. We shoud send them to the moon where they won’t have any air or animal life to worry about.
    The only loon we have to worry about is flying high in the White House. Who knows which way he will decide but either way he will consider what may hurt him politically or whether he can further damage our country.
    We have thousands of pipelines crisscrossing the hemisphere with little damage to anything or anybody.
    Build it.

    • eddie47d

      Funny that you are concerned about air and then attack environmentalists who fight for clean air. Maybe you are the extreme one.

  • Bert

    As there is no “creditable experiment that proves the “greenhouse gas effect” reducing the CO2 content in the atmosphere will not change global temperatures of climate. Therefore build the pipeline and create more jobs and reduce the cost of energy.

    • eddie47d

      The cost of energy will not be reduced by this pipeline and may even go up. Ground water contamination is the main issue here not global temperatures. Although we could make that a part of the equation.

  • Donald

    Reading these comments reminds one of the story about the five blindfolded wise men asked to describe an elephant. One had a trunk, one had a side, one had a leg, etc. No one properly described the whole beast. Same with these comments, everyone has apparently read and digested part of the story and no one has shown that they fully understand the whole problem.

  • Don C.

    Why are we so concerned about the pipe line when we should be building refineries in the Dakotas. The Baken oil fields in the Dakotas have enough sweet oil to last 2000 years. Send the environmentalist to middle east since most of their funding is coming from them anyway! They are already pumping this oil from the Baken with no problems!

  • CanCan

    The funny thing about these environmentalists, is that not a one of them puts their money where their mouth is. That is, any self-purporting environmentalists should automatically be forced to walk or pedal bike to work. For it takes gasoline to run a car or SUV, you see. No heating fuel for you, either, nor are you allowed to have a wood burning stove. For it took the chopping down of a tree, or the drilling into the ground to glean such heat sources. Al Gore, and so many others like him, would rather tell the rest of us what to do, and how to live, while they have the worst, gas guzzling SUV’s out there. They show, by example, what they do not want the rest of us doing. And well, until these environmentalists put up or shut up, I do not feel the need to take a one of them seriously where their “global warming” mantra is concerned.

  • Ridge Runner

    Eddy boy i think you and most of these twisted tree huggers should go to california find one of those huge red woods climb to the top jump out and see if you can fly.If you survive then i will concede that you are qualified to tell every body how they should live.

  • http://personallibertydigest Lyle McDaniel

    I actually saw these enviromental wackos parents and grandparents complaining at the onset of the Grand daddy of all pipelines in the U.S. , The Alaska pipe from Prudoe Bay to Valdeze Alaska. They could be heard around the world , how destructive, global warming, nesting falcons , eagles , carabou destroyed, and all kinds of pure lying crap,all proved to be just that. The biggest secure economy in the country even to this day. And even those whineing lying bastards that said that pipe would wreck the enviroment all ran to Alaska to get in on the freebies that it brought to the state, After the pipe produced big money,the permanent fund came to be. every one got lots of money and the great scar left on the earth healed up. The eagles had a better view , They nested right along the rightofway falcons too. the carabou flock all along the right of way , the grass stays green year around because of the warmth given from the pipe. Every thing the wackoes said would be so bad turned out to be good.But they stayed right there, telling all their deadbeat freinds to come there to enjoy the benifits of the pipeline. I no longer live there because of the trash it created there. The oil industery brought prosperity to the state.Much of it. The deadbeats consume much of it. Let the pipeline go thru the U.S. and we will all prosper as long as we can keep the sticky fingered parasites out of it. Just look at past history of any enviromental protection and see complete failure..

  • Charles Myhre

    Environmentalists runed Montana, no more mining, no more logging. Montana used to be number seven in the nation for wages now it is fiftyth, behind Mississippi. Thank you environmentalists!!!!!!

    • Charles Myhre

      I misspelled fifyth, it should have been FIFTIETH!!!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.