Posted on 03/01/2013 9:18:16 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Take that you Ecoidiots....
Thanks Ernest.
California needs more pipelines.
Keystone, or any other oil pipeline, will never be built as long as Obama is President.
********************************EXCERPT**************************************
**************************************EXCERPT***************************
GlynnMhor says:
Indeed, Alvin, the oil sands operations are cleaning up one of the world’s biggest oil spills. The stuff has been oozing into the Athabaska River for millenia before even the indians immigrated to the area.
The Unions want the Jobs....and they are bigger funders of the Democratic party than the Enviros....I think.
**********************************EXCERPT***********************************
This is going to be fun to watch go down. The enviro crusaders, zealots and imbibers are piling it up, building a hill to defend and likely die on. Obama desperately needs to throw these voting allies under his bus now that he no longer needs them because five years of his disasterous economic policies need to be turned around fast, fast, fast if he wants to leave a real legacy instead of a crater where the US economy used to be.
Let the sinning and spinning begin.
***************************************EXCERPT***********************************
Doug Proctor says:
“Without access to major U.S. export terminals from Keystone XL and other routes, tar sands production will be substantially slowed.””
So says the National Wildlife fella. “Slowed”, does not mean stopped.
The “line in the sand” is symbolic, not real. North Dakota is railcaring 53% of its 803,000 bopd already, but expects/hopes to have another 200,000 bopd on top of that in two years, and 400,000 more within 7. Even if those numbers are aggressive, within the next few years another 250,000 bopd will probably be producing and needing a market. This oil, not just the Canadian sourced (owned by Exxon-Mobil et al) is being moved one way or another to refineries, whether on the Gulf Coast or in New England. And if in New England, the lack of adequate capacity may mean that a lot is then transshipped down the American coastline to Texas.
Railroads are expensive on an operating basis, but since they exist already, cheap on a new capital project basis. Still, the price differential and the long-term amortization of a pipeline makes economic sense to have the pipeline, period, and so the sooner the better: you don’t want to pay for two system, in effect, if you first pay a railroad premium and discount, and then pay for a pipeline transport fee but no discount.
For some reason 650,000 or more bopd by train through the populated areas of the northern United States, and likely along the New England coastline,does not disturb the eco-green: perhaps they WANT an oil disaster in their own backyard.
Strong, Hansen and others have waxed about the need for a real disaster to motivate the American people. Is this what the WWF and the Sierra Club and McKibben, Suzuki and Gore and all the others really want, an environmental disaster that they can use to decarbonize/deindustrialize all those parts of society that do not serve their personal interests (since they are not giving up their SUVs, their air travel or their fancy houses by the sea)?
I wouldn’t be surprised: their words are out there already. Maybe this is just part of the set-up.
Obama never intended to stop the pipeline. The idea was to mollify the enviros until Canada could get the oil flowing from the west coast to China, through Vancouver, BC. It’s happening now and is planned to increase exponentially in the next few years, with the aid of Warren Buffett’s rail roads.
Right now, there is already oil flowing from the Bakken field in the Dakotas to the Gulf, but Obama stopped the 12 inches or so that would have allowed the oil to flow from Canada. It doesn’t matter so much to Canada because they already had the trains and the port in Vancouver. Canada is happy. They could even send the oil across the border to WA if the Obama administration is successful pushing through the port in Whatcom county. The only problem is that they cannot ship oil and coal from the same port. The pipeline is already there.
********************************************EXCERPT***********************************
Jimbo says:
Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune just released the following reaction in a press release just sent out:
“The Sierra Club is outraged by the State Department’s deeply flawed analysis today and what can only be interpreted as lip service to one of the greatest threats to our children’s future: climate disruption…”
Would this threat include GAS? Bloody hypocrites.
“Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry”
http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
$25 million, if I recall rightly. Or was that $26 million. Hey, what’s 1 million between friends?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/04/sierra-club-took-26-million-from-natural-gas-lobby-to-battle-coal-industry/
******************************************EXCERPT********************************
Some commenters here that are supportive of the oil sands are using the term tar sands. Tar sands is the term used by those wanting to shut the operations down. There is no ‘Tar’ in the oil sands. The term ‘Tar Sands’ started being used in Canada to equate them with the Sydney tar pits in Nova Scotia which are a legacy of industrial pollution to give people a bad impression by association with the oil sands. Those that support the oil sands should use the term oil sands….just sayn’
And chance to get more detail ...talking about State of Washington.
Do I see the next EcoWacko catch phrase there?
Global Cooling
Global Warming
Climate Change
Climate Disruption
You know they're lying when they have to change the name every few years.
Secretary of Defense Hagel says that domestic oil production improves U.S. security.
The fix is in: Keystone will be approved.
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.
That oil is going to get used no matter what.
Won’t there actually be less of an environmental impact if the pipeline is built and the oil is refined and the products primarily used in the US, with our tight emissions standards,
As opposed to shipping the oil off to China where they’ll use it according to their “emissions standards”?