quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah
"The Kearl oil sands project is being developed by ExxonMobil, a US company, so Americans are profiting from the project also.. its not simply $$$ for Canada." I seriously doubt that too many people outside of the stockholders of Exxon believe this. Exxon might make lots of money...or not, but they pay so little in taxes it has almost no effect on ordinary Americans. They probably would keep the money outside of the US anyway, to they'd be able to pay NO TAXES, just like GE, who made billions last year, but managed to hide it all in Europe and paid ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in US taxes on billions in profits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

To know why the Republicans want this completely unneeded pipeline, a pipeline that can handle more than will ever be pumped out of the tar sands already exists, it is only necessary to see what companies stand to profit from building it.

Haliburton and Koch Pipeline

On the other hand, Warren Buffet would profit from Keystone cancellation (owns railroad business). Buffet, of course is top Obama supporter and Obama has made it into the list of top ten most corrupt politicians. When searching logic and justifications of the government actions simple corruption is the first thing to look at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah
"The Kearl oil sands project is being developed by ExxonMobil, a US company, so Americans are profiting from the project also.. its not simply $$$ for Canada." I seriously doubt that too many people outside of the stockholders of Exxon believe this. Exxon might make lots of money...or not, but they pay so little in taxes it has almost no effect on ordinary Americans. They probably would keep the money outside of the US anyway, to they'd be able to pay NO TAXES, just like GE, who made billions last year, but managed to hide it all in Europe and paid ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in US taxes on billions in profits.

Right?

And it is interesting that Canadians don't like the idea of the pipeline in their own country, but want to put it in ours. =p Pfft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Of course that extra capacity is completely unneeded. As a matter of fact the only way to make this amzing boondoggle even remotely cost effective is to assume massive oil deposits in the Bakken formation will be pumped at rates unheard of in any other oil field will be pumped into the pipeline when it enter Montana.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Of course that extra capacity is completely unneeded. As a matter of fact the only way to make this amzing boondoggle even remotely cost effective is to assume massive oil deposits in the Bakken formation will be pumped at rates unheard of in any other oil field will be pumped into the pipeline when it enter Montana.

except for this recession/depression the US has been in, US oil consumption has tended to increase year after year.. once the economy does get back on track, and heats up.. oil consumption will again rise.. it may not be needed right now,.. but imo people do tend to underestimate how things will change in the future..

and does the US really want to pay for oil it imports from places like Saudi Arabia, dictatorships like Equatorial Guinea and various others where the money is stolen by those in power, and by extention supporting dictators that violate human rights?..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

To know why the Republicans want this completely unneeded pipeline, a pipeline that can handle more than will ever be pumped out of the tar sands already exists, it is only necessary to see what companies stand to profit from building it.

Haliburton and Koch Pipeline

On the other hand, Warren Buffet would profit from Keystone cancellation (owns railroad business). Buffet, of course is top Obama supporter and Obama has made it into the list of top ten most corrupt politicians. When searching logic and justifications of the government actions simple corruption is the first thing to look at.

quote:

Yeah, I am sure that is it, no other explanation possible, which of the 10 republicans did he knock off that list to make 10?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
How is that corrupt?  A president meeting with the leader of another country, (which we have sorta had a diplomatic relationship with during several presidencies) hint hint.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

The Kearl oil sands havent been developed yet, that is the oil that will supply the pipeline, be it the one in the US or the one in Canada..

Imo, Obama is a puppet, he is being influenced by people/interests that are motivated by their own greed only.. but then i thought Bush was a puppet also..

But I also tend to think corruption rubs off and taints those around it.. Speaking about corruption, nice photo op with Obama..
Obiang has shown himself to be a brutal and corrupt dictator (Equatorial Guinea) and he has christened himself a “god.” Obiang and his wife appear in an official White House photo alongside President Obama and the First Lady taken at a reception at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, as part of the 2009 United Nations General Assembly.


[image]local://upfiles/965197/6600C31482E5462F8D001F34FDDA7717.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Yea, let's do just that even though for Obama to make the top 10 in corruption leaves me...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

Yeah, I am sure that is it, no other explanation possible, which of the 10 republicans did he knock off that list to make 10?

https://www.judicialwatch.org/corrupt-politicians-lists/washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-for-2011/

Here is the list. It includes detailed explanations why certain individual is included. Democrat or Republican, who cares what color they paint themselves. They surely are not representing people who voted them into office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Oh I don't know anymore about this as that was 2009. Obama might have told him that his and his son's party was over.

Yesterday, (yes, kinda late 10/11) the US Justice Department reached its own conclusions about Obiang's wealth. The Malibu home, a half-hour's drive from Hollywood, was among $70m-worth of assets seized by prosecutors – who say he plundered more than $100m from his homeland through "extortion, misappropriation, embezzlement, or theft of public funds".

This week's legal action comes shortly after the Obama White House announced that its Justice Department was establishing a "Kleptocracy Asset Recovery Initiative", to recover the proceeds of foreign corruption laundered through the United States.

Yes, most of the world's nomads desire to come to the states for the economic possibilities...not our hypocritical political values. We have for over a century...supported the kleptocrats for capitalism and 'Standard Oil.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
How is that corrupt?  A president meeting with the leader of another country, (which we have sorta had a diplomatic relationship with during several presidencies) hint hint.

To do a photo op with a big smile with a corrupt dictator of a country with one of the worst human rights is to condone the dictator's corruption.. it legitimizes the dictator which of course is the reason for the photo op.. That goes for previous presidents, not just Obama of course.. Its sleazy, it tells the world that even the President of the US is for sale.. [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

I have to disagree.
I have been told in the past that I am not an environmentalist, I'm a humanist. I tend to try to protect the environment to protect the place we live, and to provide a better life for humans, not because of the poor animals...


There is a thing called a food chain...you cannot be in favor of a better life for humans if you are not for a better life for all the links in the food chain.

I also try to look at issues from a "what is the alternative," standpoint, instead of from a "do I support," standpoint.
So, assume the US does not allow this pipeline, will the oil sands be converted into Oil? Yes.
Will a pipeline be built? Of course.

There is already a pipeline with more than enough capacity.

Where will the pipeline go if not through the US? To British Columbia and the Ocean.

Is west the only direction?
Would not it be easier to go east to the great lakes and out the st. lawrence seaway?

Now certainly running a longer pipeline through more difficult terrain will create more jobs, but it will also increase the risk of spills. Also, much of the area the alternative pipeline would run through is extremely rural or wild. Spills would be difficult to locate and fix.

Modern technology allows the railroad to tell if a track has been breached and where...same same with pipelines.

So by opposing the US pipeline you support a pipeline more likely to cause oil spills, on what is more likely to be pristine wilderness.


Faulty premis = faulty outcome.

OK, well, you doubted the oil would leave North America even then, lets talk about refineries. There are West Coast refineries and East Coast/Gulf refineries. Guess which set is larger and has more open capacity? Guess which set imports more oil from the middle east?

The gulf coast has the largest refinery in the u.s.

So the question becomes, is it cheaper to put oil in British Columbia on a tanker to China or to put it on a tanker and ship it either through the Panama canal or around the tip of South America to reach the Gulf of Mexico?

There is the st.lawrence seaway and the mississippi river and of course there are the existing pipelines...all will allow you access to the refieneries on the east coast and the gulf.

quote:

and does the US really want to pay for oil it imports from places like Saudi Arabia, dictatorships like Equatorial Guinea and various others where the money is stolen by those in power, and by extention supporting dictators that violate human rights?..

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

and does the US really want to pay for oil it imports from places like Saudi Arabia, dictatorships like Equatorial Guinea and various others where the money is stolen by those in power, and by extention supporting dictators that violate human rights?..

Since when has the u.s. had any qualms about whom it buys oil from?