what is the official stand of the republican party on the keystone pipeline?
The more sources of energy the better. The project, called the "Keystone XL Pipeline," envisions a pipeline from Alberta, Canada all the way down to Texas (where many of our refineries are). It would have connections to other pipelines to other refineries in the U.S. along the way. The Keystone Pipeline would have the capacity to give us yet another 1.1 million barrels a day from our kindly cousins in the Great White North. Our Canadian kin are moderately well-disposed towards us, unlike the Arabs and the Persians. I mean, when was the last time you saw some wild-eyed Canadian kid detonate an explosive belt to kill Americans while screaming, "The Maple Leaf is great!"?
So letting this project proceed would seem like an economic and national security no-brainer. Alas, the pipeline has been stalled by the no-brainers in Washington since 2008. Environmentalists have been in heavy opposition to the pipeline, and despite favorable reviews by both the State and Energy Departments, Obama -- the biggest no-brainer in Washington -- has ordered yet more environmental studies.
The environmentalist beef with the project is that the oil the Canadians will ship through the pipeline is be extracted from the reserves in their vast ranges of tar sands. These reserves are huge -- on the order of 175 billion barrels of oil, which makes for more than two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's proven reserves. But the environmentalists fear that the after-products of the tar sand oil extraction will harm the environment.
However, it is both presumptuous and silly for American environmentalists to oppose this joint project to ship Canadian oil. First, it is not as if Canada were a corrupt, third-world dictatorship where the leaders are willing to despoil their own country for some low-end cash. The Canadians have a fine record on environmental protection (as good as our own, in fact). And they have gotten the extraction process for tar-sand oil very ecologically safe. Over 80% of the water used in the extraction process is recycled, and the "trailing ponds" (which contain the remains of the extraction process) are being planted over with trees and shrubbery. And remember: these tar sands are already laden with petrochemicals to begin with!
So a project that would bring an estimated 20,000 new construction jobs and 250,000 long-term jobs overall to a country with an unemployment rate still up around 9%, not to mention bring about $585 million in corporate and other taxes -- and $5 billion in property taxes -- to states most of whom are experiencing financial crises, is being held up by the usual green dreamers. You know the green dreamers: they oppose all sources of energy known to work, and they support only sources of energy proven to be inefficient. o_O
" " " " "
Wouldn't there be more jobs if Mr.Pass My Bill Now wasn't obstructing the Keystone pipeline?
the number of jobs is highly inflated by the companies wanting to profit. An independent analysis has far fewer long term jobs- maybe even less than a thousand.
Of course, more jobs will be created during spills and cleaning up the aquifer.
None of this addresses America's deficit- it's still foreign oil. About $500 million every day is spent on oil the US does not have: how long can that go on?
After the Ogallala Aquifer has been poisoned by the Keystone XL pipeline?
It doesn't matter R. They aren't paying attention. They don't really think there is going to be a water Shortage out west. You see, Al Gore made all that Global Warming up just to Get Rich and the reason the Hedge Funders are investing heavily in water companies and bottlers isn't because what he said is true. they know people just like the plastic bottles better. When everything drys up within the next 15 years out there and it will, they will have another convenient excuse. "It's just the Weather, It's just the Planet Changing it does that all the time."
This is all dripping sarcasm because I really don't know how else to address this since it has gone to the point of ridiculous in ignoring
Why is the thin walled pipe of the Trans-Canada Keystone XL Pipeline allowed to be routed over an aquifer?
High pressure is not an issue, just large volumes. Because the pipe walls are not under a lot of stress they do not need to be very thick. Also there are pump and valve stations along the line. If there is any loss of pressure due to a leak in a section of pipe the pumps will shut down and the valves at each end of that section will slam shut. The volume of oil that would leak out is not as large as you would expect; the volume that would leak out IS known and every drop must be accounted for if there is a leak.
I do not know if there are any other measures used along the line where it specifically passes over an aquifer. It is quite possible that the gravel trench the pipe is laid in is lined with rubber to contain any leaks from flowing into the aquifer underneath. You should find out for sure what measures are used to protect sensitive environmental areas and if not adequate it is an issue you should bring up with local politicians, Trans Canada Pipelines and environmental lobby groups.
Why do right wingers keep claiming the Keystone Pipeline isn't going to be built? It is.?
Obama postponed the decision until AFTER the 2012 election. The rerouting has already been accepted by the pipe builders, I saw it on TV.
Obama is playing hot potato between his union friends and his environmental friends. One or the other will get the shaft,and he wants BOTH on his side come election 2012. I wonder when people will ever wake up to this lying two faced Obama
Why is the Keystone oil pipeline such a big deal that the president has to make it political?
For the present he must satisfy the environmentalists. He knows at this point he can count on the vote of the Unions but be assured: If he is re-elected he will approve the pipe line. It will create jobs, not for the average citizen but for the Unions.
Why is Obama killing 20,000 jobs by rejecting the Keystone Pipeline?
G'day Becca the Tea Lady.
Thank you for your question.
Because at the moment, he does not want to have to choose between 20000 proper jobs and alienating the environmentalists who are part of his base. Shame when he has spent billions of taxpayer dollars for so little in terms of real jobs or economic benefit.
What makes the Keystone pipeline any different from the tens of thousands of miles of petroleum pipelines?
It is an expansion of the existing Keystone pipeline that would allow for a larger volume of crude oil to be shipped to the Gulf coast refineries. People protested because the expansion would pass over a major aquifer and risk possible contamination of the water table. The Canadian oil company who would own the pipeline offered to change the proposed route of the expansion, so now the Obama administration needs to make sure the new route will be environmentally safe. Conservatives are trying to criticize Obama for delaying temporary construction jobs for the pipeline out of concern for environmental safety, nevermind that conservative politicians are blocking hundreds of times as many infrastructure construction jobs out of concern for rich people's taxes.
why exactly are the Marxist Democrats against the Keystone pipeline that will create over 100k permanent jobs?
yeah, Im seriously googling fer an answer to "why are democrats against the pipeline" and cant find an actual answer other then "environmentalists oppose it", guess I'll have to google why environmentalists oppose it cuz democrats dunno why they are against it.
Dems, should 0bama build the Keystone pipeline to create union jobs or cancel it to save the planet?
Rock and a hard place on that one. My guess is that jobs will win the day. People need jobs in this country.
That may be why Republicans are filibustering every jobs bill. They want to force his hand on that pipeline.