Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Controversial Oil Pipeline Plan to Be Rerouted After Threat of Delayed U.S. Approval
Fox News ^ | 11/14/11 | Fox News

Posted on 11/14/2011 4:31:24 PM PST by Ron C.

Edited on 11/14/2011 4:36:08 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

LINCOLN, Neb. – Days after the Obama administration threatened to delay approval of a planned oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico -- angering unions while appeasing environmentalists -- the company seeking to build the pipeline says it's willing to reroute the project to get it back on track.

TransCanada said Monday evening it will move the planned pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, and is confident the project will still win approval.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; deadnimby; defaultnimbys; economy; effeminatenimbys; energy; environmental; goodnimby; nebraska; oil; pipeline; politics; transcanada
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last
This is such a leftist political football, but I've heard self proclaimed conservatives that are dead-set against this pipeline!
1 posted on 11/14/2011 4:31:27 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
I think this is just playing Obama’s game. This project will never be approved under an Obama Administration IMO.
2 posted on 11/14/2011 4:35:19 PM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All




Please support Free Republic.

Donate soon, Monthly, if you can.

FReepathon Day 45 ...

3 posted on 11/14/2011 4:37:04 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC BY DONATING NOW! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Yeah there are a few greentards who lurk at FR.

The reality is that the pipeline will face the exact same opposition no matter what route it takes. The farmers of the plains won’t want it because they want to sell ethanol and the greenies don’t want it because they hate humanity and capitalism.


4 posted on 11/14/2011 4:37:55 PM PST by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

It will be approved right after they approve more coal fired power plants.

Pray for America


5 posted on 11/14/2011 4:38:01 PM PST by bray (Take the Cain Train off the Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
Sandhill and Nebraska.
Is that an oxymoron?
6 posted on 11/14/2011 4:40:24 PM PST by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.; All
I haven't followed this much,so I have a question.

Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

7 posted on 11/14/2011 4:44:12 PM PST by mdittmar (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
No where could I find how much this pipeline could handle.

Keystone’s stagnation, though, is good news for Houston-based Enterprise Product Partners, which has teamed with Canada’s Enbridge to build its own Alberta-to-the-Gulf network.

Enbridge already has lines to move oil from Alberta to Chicago – avoiding the need for State Department approval – and from there to Cushing, Okla.

Enterprise’s proposed Wrangler line would transport the oil from Cushing to the Houston area.

“Wrangler becomes the only game in town if Keystone’s going to be pushed back a year,” said Jeff Dietert, an analyst with Houston-based Simmons & Company International. “Producers and shippers are going to be interested in moving crude sooner than that.”

8 posted on 11/14/2011 4:53:19 PM PST by Recon Dad ("The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if necessary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Why don't we just run it to Sweet Grass, Montana?

For some weird reason, the shippers, the producers of the oil, want it shipped to a customer. The customers are, or were, refineries on the gulf coast.

But, hey, that's ok. PM Harper is discussing oil sales with the Chinese PM as we speak. They will just build an All-Canadian pipeline to Prince Rupert, B.C., and then on to tankers bound for Dalian, China.

All that oil and jobs that would have gone to the US is going to go to China because that's the way the President of the United States wants it. Can anyone make any sense of this?

9 posted on 11/14/2011 5:04:15 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

800,000 barrels a day.


10 posted on 11/14/2011 5:05:35 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Sandhill and Nebraska. Is that an oxymoron?

???

The Sandhills make up a very large portion of Nebraska.

11 posted on 11/14/2011 5:11:40 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I guess oil can’t be put in a ship at a port and moved somewhere.


12 posted on 11/14/2011 5:11:52 PM PST by mdittmar (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
But but but - the poor caribou and grizzly bears!

Oh wait. that was the awful alaska pipeline...the one the grizzes use for a highway - cause it's warm on their toes - and the momma caribous choose to have their calves under because of the warmth and green ribbons of grass - and the improved survial of their new-borns.


13 posted on 11/14/2011 5:12:27 PM PST by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

the refineries are in Texas

14 posted on 11/14/2011 5:15:07 PM PST by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Sandhill [sic] and Nebraska. Is that an oxymoron?

??? No, they really are hills with a lot of sand.

I've been in the Sandhills a number of times, and it's no more environmentally sensitive than any other place. Yes, it's a wetland (what isn't?), and it has a variety of uninteresting flora and fauna. I also don't think it's a very attractive place, but that's a matter of opinion as I know some people love the area. I think we need to ask the environmentalists where it's OK to drill or lay down a pipeline. I think the answer is that anywhere is fine as long as the capitalist US isn't benefiting.

15 posted on 11/14/2011 5:16:01 PM PST by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Why don't we just run it to Sweet Grass, Montana? For some weird reason, the shippers, the producers of the oil, want it shipped to a customer. The customers are, or were, refineries on the gulf coast.

Why don't we run it to Montana, Wyoming and now Colorado?

Montana and Wyoming have existing refineries, and Colorado just announced a huge oil discovery.

It's a lot closer to Canada than the Gulf.

16 posted on 11/14/2011 5:16:04 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Sandhill and Nebraska. Is that an oxymoron?

Obviously, you're not familiar with the area.

The entire western half of Nebraska, north of the Platte, is composed mostly of sandhills.

Not dunes. Sandhills. They're covered with grass and, thus, stabilized.

17 posted on 11/14/2011 5:26:17 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

i grew up in the sandhills of nebraska

and i can tell you emphatically:

they suck.


18 posted on 11/14/2011 5:26:55 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

The source of the oil is Northern Alberta.

There is not enough refinery capacity in Washington State to absorb the Athabascan oil. There is in Texas.

Moreover, most of the system has already been built. Phases 1 and 2 built from Manitoba to Steele City, NE then branches to the Wood River, IL refinery complex and the pipeline terminal at Cushing, OK. Phase 3 will be from Cushing to Texas. Phase 4 is the environmentally "sensitive" project -- a cut-off directly from Alberta to Steele City, NE.

This cut-off would not only increase capacity, it would also serve the Bakken field with a terminal in Baker, MT.

This project has been in the works for a long time. It's only at the last moment the enviros and the Obama administration have seen fit to blow the whistle.

19 posted on 11/14/2011 5:33:47 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
I guess oil can’t be put in a ship at a port and moved somewhere.

Sure it can.

And if the Keystone XL isn't built, the Canadians will build a pipeline to the West Coast -- not to Washington State, but to Prince Rupert, BC -- and sell the oil to the Chinese.

20 posted on 11/14/2011 5:36:24 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.; thackney
To have routed this pipeline across the Niobrara River was guaranteed to raise a storm, and routing a pipeline loaded with viscosity modifiers (surfactants?) over sand atop the Ogalalla Aquifer might not be an intelligent liability to assume. Somehow, I doubt that the pipeline company has sufficient assets to mitigate such a hazard in the event a major spill should occur (for example, due to terrorism). I don't know a lot about the region, but my guess is that Thunder Basin might have been a smarter route albeit more expensive because of the terrain.

Thackney, do you have a comment on that?

21 posted on 11/14/2011 5:43:30 PM PST by Carry_Okie (Grovelnator Schwarzenkaiser: Fashionable fascism one charade at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Why don't we run it to Montana, Wyoming and now Colorado?

Two reasons:

1. There isn't enough refinery capacity in Montana, Wyoming and Colorado to handle the quantity (7-800,000 bpd, around 8% of our total consumption). There is in Texas.

2. Even if there were, there is no existing distribution network of refined product pipelines emanating from these areas. There is in Texas. After you refine the crude, you've got to have a way to get the refined product to market. The fuel oil fraction, e.g., will largely end up in the Northeast.

22 posted on 11/14/2011 5:49:01 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Hmmm, what if several states simply said we are building it, privately and state financed, we are building it?


23 posted on 11/14/2011 5:54:26 PM PST by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
The fact is, The pipeline will not be an environmental threat regardless of where it is sited. The aquafer in question is 400 feet below the surface and overlain by an impermeable layer of calcifed clay soil(caliche). The issue is entirely political and so the Pipeline company is making a political response.

You can't fault them for that. they are there to pump oil and make a profit, not hurt their shareholders to make a statement.

PS: there is already a Keystone pipeline through Nebraska. It came on line over a year ago. This XL line is an expansion of an existing system.

24 posted on 11/14/2011 5:57:36 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Hey, whatever happened to the Alaska to CONUS Trans-Canada NG pipeline?


25 posted on 11/14/2011 5:57:55 PM PST by cookcounty (2012 choice: It's the Tea Party or the Slumber Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
The Sandhill region of Nebraska is a well-known ecological wonder, which gave the "Sandhill cranes" their name. It will not be hurt in the slightest by running (another) pipeline through the region.
26 posted on 11/14/2011 5:59:41 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken21

You forgot to look up. My neighbor’s family had a vacation cabin in the Sandhills and the big draw was the night sky. The stars were awesome.


27 posted on 11/14/2011 6:06:05 PM PST by All Blue State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Ogalalla Aquifer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ogallala_Aquifer_map.png

Crude oil trunkline network in US: http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/crude-pl.html
and http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2011/11/03/how-keystone-xl-will-fit-into-the-vast-u-s-pipeline-network/


28 posted on 11/14/2011 6:06:47 PM PST by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All Blue State

yeah, right. stars very bright.

but they’re brighter in the rocky mountains, camping out at 10,000 ft.


29 posted on 11/14/2011 6:10:40 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Rich NIMBYs of both political parties are using their influences to keep it from going through or near their properties. They should give it up. I’m very happy to say that property values will be going down for decades, and there’s nothing that those corrupt people can do about it. We Baby Boomers will be croaking in great numbers for the next 20 years or so.

Many anti-American regulations against productivity in rural areas need to be abolished and buried forever.


30 posted on 11/14/2011 6:11:08 PM PST by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
The EIS already evaluated FOURTEEN routes! These "sandhills" are a barren wasteland that only grows scrub good for open range grazing. They cover 1/4 of the state. And 20,000 miles of pipeline already criss-cross Nebraska. They should indeed reroute the pipeline -- send it straight west to ports on the Pacific.
31 posted on 11/14/2011 6:12:57 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken21; All Blue State

Both good places for many more rendering plants, incinerators, salvage yards, and generally, men doing industrial work. The other end of the default process is going to be a pleasure.


32 posted on 11/14/2011 6:14:49 PM PST by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ken21

A year ago October, my wife and I drove over the Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park just before it closed for the winter. We were at the top at 12,183 ft. around 9 PM. They sky was incredible! But my wife was petrified when I stepped out of the car to watch and listen. It was a bit unnerving when we drove around one bend near the top and a huge bull elk was standing calmly in the middle of the road.


33 posted on 11/14/2011 6:19:30 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Look, TransCanada needs an outlet for A LOT of oil. 800,000 barrels a day.

Have you checked the capacity of the refineries in Montana and Wyoming? I did. About 350,000 barrels a day. Now, I don't know for sure, but I bet they are running over 300,000 barrels/day throughput. What do you want to do with the extra 750,000 barrels?

I know, let's build a giant refinery in Montana to soak up the difference. Now you have another 700,000 plus barrels a day of refined product in Montana. GREAT, THERE IS NO MARKET IN MONTANA OR SURROUNDING STATES FOR THIS PRODUCT. There is also no way to transport this product from Montana to the markets where it is in demand.

The refinery capacity to handle this oil is on the gulf coast. The storage facilities for crude oil and refined product are there or in Oklahoma, which is serviced by pipelines. From there is goes to market VIA EXISITNG PIPELINES to the east coast, the south, and the midwest.

Don't you think the shippers and TransCanada already figured this out?

34 posted on 11/14/2011 6:21:45 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Yes it can, and it will be.


35 posted on 11/14/2011 6:22:31 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

Calm down will ya.

Why wouldn’t you want to hook oil producers Canada, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas all together via a pipeline route since they plan on building one anyway?

There’s also a pretty serious east-west rail corridor going through CO, NE, IA etc.


36 posted on 11/14/2011 6:35:49 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

There isn’t enough refineries in CA/WA/OR combined to handle the load - only TX can, and get it back out-of-state to consumers with the best established rail system that exists for that very purpose.


37 posted on 11/14/2011 6:38:05 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Ok. Here's the deal. TransCanada builds pipelines and moves oil. There is A LOT of oil being produced in Northern Alberta. The producers of that oil lined up customers in the gulf region, a large refinery complex. The existing infrastructure in the gulf was a perfect fit to the grade of oil to be delivered. Plus, there is an existing network of product pipelines and storage facilities to store and move the refined products to market.

The Keystone XL would simply move raw materials to the processing plants in Texas which would refine it and ship it to market.

Obama made a purely political decision that will cost America thousands of jobs, a secure supply of oil and, as a bonus, send those jobs and that oil to America's avowed enemy, China.

I don't know what else to say. I don't know how else to explain it. I don't understand your post.

38 posted on 11/14/2011 6:43:18 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Warren Buffett has the President’s ear and his railroad is ready to carry the oil in tank cars. There are currently over 56,000 railroad cars on order. Some will carry frack sand and about 20,000 of them are tank cars for oil.

Here’s the current backlog:
Trinity Industries: 27,885
Greenbriar Cos: 15,400
American Railcar Industries: 7,100
FreightCar America: 6,311

At an average shipping cost of $6 per barrel, Mr. Buffett’s BNSF railroad stands to get about $3 million per day to carry half a million barrels of oil each and every day that this pipeline is delayed.


39 posted on 11/14/2011 8:00:29 PM PST by Qout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
I don't understand your post.

OK, let me boil it down.

Why not build the pipeline from Canada to TX through oil friendly states instead of just defaulting to China?

40 posted on 11/14/2011 8:10:51 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
This "news" while not unexpected given the muzzie in the white hut, it STILL gives me a case of the RED A$$! I also note with an ongoing and uneasy sense of foreboding the choice of headline by FoxNews. What could POSSIBLY be "controversial" about ANOTHER pipeline routed through the apparent wasteland that is western Nebraska??? More and more lately it seems FoxNews is consistently parroting libtard talking points.

It does however raise an interesting point; that is, I assume envirotard issues trump union support. Or maybe pipeliners are the red-headed stepchildren of unions. Of course envirotard faux heartburn can be selectively applied to just about ANY capitalist endeavor. Thereby being an ace in the hole when nothing else can put roadblocks in front of the free market system. A$$HOLES!!!

41 posted on 11/14/2011 8:16:49 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have only two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

“...that’s the way the President of the United States wants it. Can anyone make any sense of this?”

Yes, the evil POS POTUS is anti-American...he wants America to go down the tubes...get rid of this evil POS...


42 posted on 11/14/2011 8:26:00 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I was talking about sending the crude to China.


43 posted on 11/14/2011 9:11:30 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Qout

Excellent...cui bono? The only question worth asking in politics.


44 posted on 11/14/2011 9:11:36 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
Why not build the pipeline from Canada to TX through oil friendly states instead of just defaulting to China?

Nebraska is not the culprit here. The state already has over 20,000 miles of pipelines. It's the federal government that's the problem.

Moreover, the XL pipeline is Phase 4 of a 4-phase project. The XL line is being built to a junction with two other Keystone pipelines at Steele City, NE. From there, the oil will move to the Wood River, IL refinery complex (across the river from St. Louis) over a line that was completed a year ago. And it will also move south to Cushing, OK -- the major pipeline junction point in the USA -- from whence it can be sent on to the Texas Gulf Coast...or diverted just about anywhere else in the country.

In other words, Keystone doesn't have the option of re-routing the whole thing. They've already built a system to accept the oil -- and to use it, they've got to get to Steele City, NE.

45 posted on 11/14/2011 9:34:43 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

Sandhill and Nebraska.

No, there actually are sandhills in Nebraska, but it is the Ogalalla aqafer that is the argument in this case, but there already are some twentythree tousand miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, oil and gas, and this one would only add a couple of hundred more, and it would be state of the art with safety eqipment , this is madness, the primeminister of Canada said this pipeline is a no brainer, so he must have been talking about Obama lol


46 posted on 11/14/2011 11:30:21 PM PST by munin (Live free or die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken21

[stars very bright. . .but they’re brighter in the rocky mountains, camping out at 10,000 ft.]

I lived in Colorado, off and on, for seven years. Your imagery makes my heart pant for those awesome vistas.


47 posted on 11/15/2011 12:13:33 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Exactly, the pipeline isn’t ‘controversial’ because there’s some pristine ecological reason. It’s controversial for purely political/financial reasons. Cui bono?


48 posted on 11/15/2011 4:34:24 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
There are more forces in play than just whether or not and when the US will allow the pipeline to be built. If the Keystone is delayed, shippers who have committed to use the pipeline will look for alternatives because they want to ship their oil. They are not on Obama's political schedule. If someone develops an alternative route to terminals in Prince Rupert and then to China, that's where the oil will go. Economic forces are not going to wait for Obama.

TransCanada worked on this route for years. All the approvals up to this level have been made. They have purchased most of the land. Pipe is actually in place in warehouses along the route, ready to go. This is truly a "shovel ready" project, except no government money is involved. It would take two years to build the pipeline.

It will now be delayed at least a year, and several years if they have to re-route it. The oil has to flow. It is apparent that it is going to flow west to Asia, not south to the US.

49 posted on 11/15/2011 4:34:28 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Look at the code word - environmentally sensitive - like somehow it is so fragile that it won’t ever recover. Have liberals ever heard of fire, ice, wind, or storms? How did nature get so far without us to protect it?

Haven’t pipelines been a net, net benefit to wildlife? We’ve become inured to the belief that every act mankind takes is fundamentally harmful to the environment.

If a worm encounters a balled up plastic bag how is that different then a chunk of granite? Nature adapts. Extinction is normal. The earth is very, very old. That’s the fundamental science behind it.

The attempt to preserve the world as it is, now that’s unnatural.


50 posted on 11/15/2011 4:40:01 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson