Obama Throws America Under The Bus: Kills Pipeline

[Baldy]

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spil ... ort-2013-7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would like to see the numbers when adjusted for ton/gallon miles of travel. It is my understanding that oil tends to travel farther by pipeline than by train and most pipeline spills occur at the entry or exit points where containment is easier than by train, which tends to occur enroute and is less easily contained.

It would also be more helpful to work off statistics that aren't over a decade old.

[Cap'n Cat]

Read some estimates of 42,000 potential jobs related to Keystone. YAY!!!!

Bad news: They're only temporary.

Estimated permanent jobs: 50

[GannonFan]

If you're against the pipeline, you obviously are under the incorrect assumption that shipping oil by rail or truck is safer, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly than it is by pipeline. Why???

This is the part that makes no sense in being against the pipeline. The oil is going to be moved no matter what. Having the pipeline or not having the pipeline is not going to change the fact that the oil is going to be taken out of the ground. Considering that's where the majority of the environmental argument lies (most of the environmental damage happens at the extraction), then it's a moot point. Now we're just talking about delivery, and we just spent most of last year lamenting the amount of oil being shipped via rail and by road and how much of a danger that is and now, when presented with a way to avoid that, we scream holy hell and say that a pipeline will befoul most of the midwest. This is reminiscent of the anti-nuclear movement in the late 70's. We piss and moan about the potential dangers of it, and then we turn around and piss and moan about the negative effects of going with the other energy we had to go to because we weren't using nuclear.

[LeadBolt]

Read some estimates of 42,000 potential jobs related to Keystone. YAY!!!!

Bad news: They're only temporary.

Estimated permanent jobs: 50

When you're out of work a temporary job (1-2 years) is not a problem, is it? That would give your hero Obama more time to improve the economy and create new permanent jobs, would it not?

[GannonFan]

Read some estimates of 42,000 potential jobs related to Keystone. YAY!!!!

Bad news: They're only temporary.

Estimated permanent jobs: 50

Then we shouldn't construct anything - bridges, roads, buildings, etc, because all construction jobs are basically temporary. All infrastructure spending, if we just measure by permanent jobs, is money down the drain.

Of course, it's not just jobs per se we get out of this - if that oil is being shipped from our ports (and in this case it would be) then we get to tax it as well - so we get tax revenue from the business going through our ports, as well as the temporary tax revenue that comes with all those temporary jobs.

[Cap'n Cat]

Read some estimates of 42,000 potential jobs related to Keystone. YAY!!!!

Bad news: They're only temporary.

Estimated permanent jobs: 50

Then we shouldn't construct anything - bridges, roads, buildings, etc, because all construction jobs are basically temporary. All infrastructure spending, if we just measure by permanent jobs, is money down the drain.

Of course, it's not just jobs per se we get out of this - if that oil is being shipped from our ports (and in this case it would be) then we get to tax it as well - so we get tax revenue from the business going through our ports, as well as the temporary tax revenue that comes with all those temporary jobs.

Hey, just saying', Negro. Your boys are calling this the Second Coming of economic impact! It ain't, sistah!

[GannonFan]

Then we shouldn't construct anything - bridges, roads, buildings, etc, because all construction jobs are basically temporary. All infrastructure spending, if we just measure by permanent jobs, is money down the drain.

Of course, it's not just jobs per se we get out of this - if that oil is being shipped from our ports (and in this case it would be) then we get to tax it as well - so we get tax revenue from the business going through our ports, as well as the temporary tax revenue that comes with all those temporary jobs.

Hey, just saying', Negro. Your boys are calling this the Second Coming of economic impact! It ain't, sistah!

If people are saying it's a huge economic impact long term then yes, they are incorrect. However, long term economic success is the culmination of a large number of short term economic successes. The rationale to say no to this pipeline is pretty faulty, that doesn't change because the GOP has some whacko ideas of their own about it.

[Cap'n Cat]

Hey, just saying', Negro. Your boys are calling this the Second Coming of economic impact! It ain't, sistah!

If people are saying it's a huge economic impact long term then yes, they are incorrect. However, long term economic success is the culmination of a large number of short term economic successes. The rationale to say no to this pipeline is pretty faulty, that doesn't change because the GOP has some whacko ideas of their own about it.

And, that's alls what's I's sayin', brother.

[GannonFan]

If people are saying it's a huge economic impact long term then yes, they are incorrect. However, long term economic success is the culmination of a large number of short term economic successes. The rationale to say no to this pipeline is pretty faulty, that doesn't change because the GOP has some whacko ideas of their own about it.

And, that's alls what's I's sayin', brother.

I didn't think it was news that both parties have their whacko elements to them. I try to ignore both of those groups as they tend not to be very useful.

[Cap'n Cat]

And, that's alls what's I's sayin', brother.

I didn't think it was news that both parties have their whacko elements to them. I try to ignore both of those groups as they tend not to be very useful.

And you still manage to lean headlong to da right, Fanny!

[LeadBolt]

Why wouldn't jobs constructing the pipeline qualify as the type of shovel ready jobs that Obama was pushing sometime back?

[Cap'n Cat]

Why wouldn't jobs constructing the pipeline qualify as the type of shovel ready jobs that Obama was pushing sometime back?

Duh. The Keystone wasn't one of HIS shovel-ready projects, you dork.

[SDHornet]

Why wouldn't jobs constructing the pipeline qualify as the type of shovel ready jobs that Obama was pushing sometime back?

Duh. The Keystone wasn't one of HIS shovel-ready projects, you dork.

So only HIS shovel ready projects should be approved?

LOL at you being against this just because its not a Dem idea. How tolerant of you. LOL at Dems claiming they are for job creation but then poo poo this common sense project. LeadBolt just destroyed the leftist stance on this. Game.Set.Match.

[DSUrocks07]

Then we shouldn't construct anything - bridges, roads, buildings, etc, because all construction jobs are basically temporary. All infrastructure spending, if we just measure by permanent jobs, is money down the drain.

Of course, it's not just jobs per se we get out of this - if that oil is being shipped from our ports (and in this case it would be) then we get to tax it as well - so we get tax revenue from the business going through our ports, as well as the temporary tax revenue that comes with all those temporary jobs.

Hey, just saying', Negro. Your boys are calling this the Second Coming of economic impact! It ain't, sistah!

[Cap'n Cat]

Duh. The Keystone wasn't one of HIS shovel-ready projects, you dork.

So only HIS shovel ready projects should be approved?

LOL at you being against this just because its not a Dem idea. How tolerant of you. LOL at Dems claiming they are for job creation but then poo poo this common sense project. LeadBolt just destroyed the leftist stance on this. Game.Set.Match.

Um, a-hole, nowhere did The Cap'n say others' s-r projects shouldn't be approved. Because you're a dumbass Conk, you extrapolate (look it up) and you do it very badly.

LeadDolt said Obama was talking about s-r projects "some time back". He ain't talking' about this one cuz it weren't gonna happen during his term!

Get it, now, Sac State sac? Proving daily you're the dumbest motherfucker on the Board.......

[SDHornet]

So only HIS shovel ready projects should be approved?

LOL at you being against this just because its not a Dem idea. How tolerant of you. LOL at Dems claiming they are for job creation but then poo poo this common sense project. LeadBolt just destroyed the leftist stance on this. Game.Set.Match.

Um, a-hole, nowhere did The Cap'n say others' s-r projects shouldn't be approved. Because you're a dumbass Conk, you extrapolate (look it up) and you do it very badly.

LeadDolt said Obama was talking about s-r projects "some time back". He ain't talking' about this one cuz it weren't gonna happen during his term!

Get it, now, Sac State sac? Proving daily you're the dumbest motherfucker on the Board.......

So a project that was talked about since around the time the Great One came into office can't get done?

Sounds about right when you sit back and think about it.

[LeadBolt]

So only HIS shovel ready projects should be approved?

LOL at you being against this just because its not a Dem idea. How tolerant of you. LOL at Dems claiming they are for job creation but then poo poo this common sense project. LeadBolt just destroyed the leftist stance on this. Game.Set.Match.

Um, a-hole, nowhere did The Cap'n say others' s-r projects shouldn't be approved. Because you're a dumbass Conk, you extrapolate (look it up) and you do it very badly.

LeadDolt said Obama was talking about s-r projects "some time back". He ain't talking' about this one cuz it weren't gonna happen during his term!

Get it, now, Sac State sac? Proving daily you're the dumbest motherfucker on the Board.......

Cap'n, I believe you missed my point. I didn't say this was one of the big 0's projects, but that the jobs created by it, would be the same type of shovel ready jobs that he was pushing.

The difference is that these would be privately funded and create an overall tax benefit without a government expenditure and just not be a publically funded transfer of funds.

[kalm]

The pipeline is a more environmentally friendly, safer way to transport oil than by train.

We all would approve of economically viable alternative energy sources. Raising the price of oil to achieve this is a liberal/progressive cop-out, as is the subsidies of oil argument. Take away subsidies of oil and alternative energy and the equation does not change.

Lowering the disposable income of ordinary Americans and thus their quality of life by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels to achieve the economical viability of alternative energy this is not the answer. How many of you feel better off with gasoline down $1.50/gal?

Not mentioned here is the geopolitical argument that by opening the pipeline Venezuelan oil will be frozen out of the US market in favor of Canadian oil. Obama's agenda is to keep US buyers funding our traditional political opponents in Venezuela vs. funding our traditional allies in Canada.

It is my understanding that while there is a slight difference in the emissions of tar sand oil vs. light crude, most of the impurities come out in the refining process and go into asphalt products. This would tend to lower the price of infrastructure projects in the areas where the product is refined. Given the state of the US's declining road infrastructure, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. In the Atlanta area where I live 20+% of carbon emissions come from traffic delays. Increasing infrastructure replacement/upgrades would lower pollution.

Denying the pipeline does not reduce emissions globally, as the oil will still be consumed or not based upon market economics, not pipeline location. Does it matter to global climate change whether it is burned in the US with the world's best technology in reducing emissions or in China that is well behind the curve in emissions control technology?

Of they government is subsidizing oil it should be subsidizing alternatives to the same degree at this point...or subsidizing neither.

[Baldy]

The pipeline is a more environmentally friendly, safer way to transport oil than by train.

We all would approve of economically viable alternative energy sources. Raising the price of oil to achieve this is a liberal/progressive cop-out, as is the subsidies of oil argument. Take away subsidies of oil and alternative energy and the equation does not change.

Lowering the disposable income of ordinary Americans and thus their quality of life by artificially raising the price of fossil fuels to achieve the economical viability of alternative energy this is not the answer. How many of you feel better off with gasoline down $1.50/gal?

Not mentioned here is the geopolitical argument that by opening the pipeline Venezuelan oil will be frozen out of the US market in favor of Canadian oil. Obama's agenda is to keep US buyers funding our traditional political opponents in Venezuela vs. funding our traditional allies in Canada.

It is my understanding that while there is a slight difference in the emissions of tar sand oil vs. light crude, most of the impurities come out in the refining process and go into asphalt products. This would tend to lower the price of infrastructure projects in the areas where the product is refined. Given the state of the US's declining road infrastructure, that doesn't seem like a bad thing. In the Atlanta area where I live 20+% of carbon emissions come from traffic delays. Increasing infrastructure replacement/upgrades would lower pollution.

Denying the pipeline does not reduce emissions globally, as the oil will still be consumed or not based upon market economics, not pipeline location. Does it matter to global climate change whether it is burned in the US with the world's best technology in reducing emissions or in China that is well behind the curve in emissions control technology?

Of they government is subsidizing oil it should be subsidizing alternatives to the same degree at this point...or subsidizing neither.

How much cash are the oil companies receiving from the government?

[kalm]

Of they government is subsidizing oil it should be subsidizing alternatives to the same degree at this point...or subsidizing neither.

How much cash are the oil companies receiving from the government?

You don't think the government has made a huge investment in oil production, infrastructure, and security?

Government picking winners and losers: Bad, except when it comes to oil. Commies...

[travelinman67]

Hot air.

The "jobs" debate was another straw issue solely for the purpose of muddying the waters and obstructing the project.

Destroy America 101 Liberalism

Shame on you, Cap'n.

[kalm]

Hot air.

The "jobs" debate was another straw issue solely for the purpose of muddying the waters and obstructing the project.

Destroy America 101 Liberalism

Shame on you, Cap'n.

Pretty sure jobs were a selling point.

[GannonFan]

I didn't think it was news that both parties have their whacko elements to them. I try to ignore both of those groups as they tend not to be very useful.

And you still manage to lean headlong to da right, Fanny!

Economically I probably do lean to the right, especially in light of weird economic arguments like the Keystone Pipeline doesn't help America. Socially, I probably lean to the left more as the right tends to have weird arguments in that realm.

[travelinman67]

Hot air.

The "jobs" debate was another straw issue solely for the purpose of muddying the waters and obstructing the project.

Destroy America 101 Liberalism

Shame on you, Cap'n.

Pretty sure jobs were a selling point.

Only after Capitol Senate envirowhackos began attacking the project. Predicting the nunber of permanent jobs created is akin to guessing the number of Tootsie rolls your kid will receive on Halloween.

There has been NO INCLUSION of the refinery construction, maintenance, operational, or post terminal transportation as well as support/ancillary jobs created.

The numbers being thrown around are absolutely nonsense.

You, of all people, KNOW THE ART OF OBFUSCATION AND OBSTRUCTION.

Stop wasting everyone's time.

[Baldy]

How much cash are the oil companies receiving from the government?

You don't think the government has made a huge investment in oil production, infrastructure, and security?

Government picking winners and losers: Bad, except when it comes to oil. Commies...

Hell, everyone receives those things from the government. I just didn't know they were now called subsidies.

However, I would like to know how much the government invests in oil production. All this time I thought the oil companies paid for the leases, the equipment, labor, land, R&D, compliance costs, shipping, supplies, etc.

Silly me...