Obama to return USA to Stone age : Keystone Edition+

[Menelik_I]

For all his claim about technology and future, Obama is working hard to return the USA to the Glory of the stone Age.

First there is every body favorite : Keystone Pipeline. A project fully financed by private capital, able to provide cheap energy and Jobs, but not good enough for Obama, who instead is pushing the California Highrail train, who nobody want to invest a single penny in and have wasted Billions.

If Obama is so smart overrule people's projects, how are we sure the dumb electorate didn't make a mistake by electing him ? just asking.

But it doesn't end there :

New leases on federal lands were down 44% in 2009/2010 compared to 2007/2008.
Permits and new wells drilled were both down 39% for the same time frame.

The economic downturn in 2007 was a factor in this decline, but leasing, permitting and drilling have rebounded on private lands; the decline in new permits in the West is significantly greater on federal lands (-39%) than non-federal, private lands (-20%) over the last two years.

Returning permitting, leasing and drilling to 2007/2008 levels would create 30,000 jobs over the next four years and increase federal royalties by $2 billion.

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/A..._2012_v2-1.pdf

And all of this is coming from the dude who lost 500+ Millions, of other people's money, in a failed solar company.

Exit question : Is Obama taking the USA back to the stone age.

PS: I am sure the ChiComs are not scratching their heads at the same time that they are rubbing their hands ... they gonna in Canadians oil

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

That's like saying Obama is going to relocate the government to Washington D.C.. It was already there when he took office.

[glitch]

First there is every body favorite : Keystone Pipeline. A project fully financed by private capital, able to provide cheap energy and Jobs, but not good enough for

the keystone pipeline is a idea. The idea that it will create massive amount of employment is ridiculous, and the only ones lobbying this are the oil industries, to win contracts and become richer than they already are.

Yet exactly how much work Keystone, a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline that would transport oil from Alberta, Canada, to the Texas Gulf Coast, would generate remains in dispute. Transcanada (TRP), the energy giant bidding to build the pipeline, projects the undertaking would create 20,000 jobs in the U.S., including 13,000 positions in construction and 7,000 in manufacturing.....The U.S. State Department calculated last year that the underground pipeline would add 5,000 to 6,000 U.S. jobs. One independent review of Keystone puts that number even lower, with the Cornell University Global Labor Institute finding that the pipeline would add only 500 to 1,400 temporary....Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57361212/keystone-pipeline-how-many-jobs-really-at-stake/

[Menelik_I]

the keystone pipeline is a idea. The idea that it will create massive amount of employment is ridiculous, and the only ones lobbying this are the oil industries, to win contracts and become richer than they already are.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57361212/keystone-pipeline-how-many-jobs-really-at-stake/

Even if it created just 5 Jobs, it would still be a good Idea. Plus what is wrong with the oil industry wanting to make money ?

[Markas]

The USA was never in the Stone Age, unless you think we were still in the Paleolithic in 1776.

[Menelik_I]

The USA was never in the Stone Age, unless you think we were still in the Paleolithic in 1776.

So Obama is actually taking the USA to a new Age ! Progress indeed.

PS: If I remember correctly there the Stone Age is divided in 3 : Paleolithic (Old Stone Age), Mesolithic (Median Stone Age), and Neolithic (New Stone Age).

So the OP is still right

[Kitsunegari]

I think parts of the US should start seceding, the future is looking a lot like 1920s Germany once countries start dumping the dollar as reserve currency.

[DarthShizNit]

I think parts of the US should start seceding, the future is looking a lot like 1920s Germany once countries start dumping the dollar as reserve currency.

That would be against the constitution they claim is under attack and wish to save, hence they would creat a paradox and self implode.


Kanaric...your sig is the single greatest painting I have ever had the pleasure of owning.

[Kitsunegari]

That would be against the constitution they claim is under attack and wish to save, hence they would creat a paradox and self implode.

No, and anyway issue is securing a decent future and not constitutional interpretations.

[glitch]

Even if it created just 5 Jobs

They're easier and less costly ways of creating 5 jobs.

Plus what is wrong with the oil industry wanting to make money

Nothing necessarily, but in this case, they're trying to decieve the public in order to make that money.

[Menelik_I]

They're easier and less costly ways of creating 5 jobs.

Nothing necessarily, but in this case, they're trying to decieve the public in order to make that money.

We are not talking about Solindre here, where Obama wasted Tax payers money into a solar company.

The Keystone Pipeline is being built entirely with private money, so if you now better ways to create jobs and money, I advise you to call the TransCanada Executives.

[Heinz Guderian]

But whats the alternative to Obama and such policies come November?

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

But whats the alternative to Obama and such policies come November?

Theocracy - run by people who apparently understand their professed religions less than they do the Constitution - which normally might not be a bad thing but in this case we are talking about shades of non-existant.

[Kanaric]

Isn't this pipeline going to be sending oil to other countrys that is not the US? Or was that some other project?

Theocracy - run by people who apparently understand their professed religions less than they do the Constitution - which normally might not be a bad thing but in this case we are talking about shades of non-existant.

I wouldn't call Romney or Newt theocratic. They are just not good, lol.

[justicar5]

I wouldn't call Romney or Newt theocratic. They are just not good, lol.

They rely on the Evangelical vote: You know those lovely people who want the world to end in fire and blood.

[Kanaric]

Yes but because they rely on them doesn't mean they are going to base their policy on them. Neither of those people are evangelical.

Also who are those evangelicals going to vote for? Once they can get into office they can do whatever they want and ignore any promises to him like Obama did to his base.

[justicar5]

Yes but because they rely on them doesn't mean they are going to base their policy on them. Neither of those people are evangelical.

Also who are those evangelicals going to vote for? Once they can get into office they can do whatever they want and ignore any promises to him like Obama did to his base.

It is far more dangerous to ignore evangelicals than leftists..you just have to look at the terror campaigns against family planning clinics.

[Kanaric]

I agree but the think is I dont think they have any real sway over those two candidates. I mean if it was Santorum it would be a different story.

[justicar5]

I agree but the think is I dont think they have any real sway over those two candidates. I mean if it was Santorum it would be a different story.

Agreed on that, it is my honest belief that if Santorum got in he would start a huge war. To whit attacking Iran, which would most likely set off the entire middle east and maybe pull in Russia.

[Oswald von Wolkenstein]

And just back to O.P. -- it seems like you have over simplified the KeystonePipeline issue:

from Wikipedia (with links to external citations): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline
Political issues

In February 2011, environmental journalist David Sassoon of Inside Climate News reported that Koch Industries were poised to be "big winners" from the pipeline.[60] In May 2011, Congressmen Waxman and Rush wrote a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee which cited the Reuters story, and which urged the Committee to request documents from Koch Industries which relate to the Keystone XL pipeline.[61][62]
Landowners in the path of the pipeline have complained about threats by TransCanada to confiscate private land and lawsuits to allow the "pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval."[citation needed] As of 17 October 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota." Some of those landowners gave testimony for a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing in May 2011.[63]
Commentator Bill Mann has linked the Keystone postponement to the Michigan Senate's rejection of Canadian funding for the proposed Detroit River International Crossing and to other recent instances of "U.S. government actions (and inactions) that show little concern about Canadian concerns". Mann drew attention to a Macleans' article sub-titled "we used to be friends"[64] about U.S./Canada relations after President Obama had "insulted Canada (yet again)" over the pipeline.[65]
[edit] Geopolitical issues

Proponents for the Keystone XL pipeline argue that it would allow the U.S. to increase its energy security and reduce its dependence on foreign oil.[66][67] TransCanada CEO Russ Girling have argued that "the U.S. needs 10 million barrels a day of imported oil" and the debate over the proposed pipeline "is not a debate of oil versus alternative energy. This is a debate about whether you want to get your oil from Canada or Venezuela or Nigeria."[68] Girling has also argued that if Canadian oil doesn't reach the Gulf through an environmentally friendly buried pipeline, that the alternative is oil that will be brought in by tanker, a mode of transportation that produces higher greenhouse-gas emissions and that puts the environment at greater risk.[53] Diane Francis has argued that much of the opposition to the oil sands actually comes from foreign countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia, all of whom supply oil to the United States and who could be affected if the price of oil drops due to the new availability of oil from the pipeline. She cited as an example a recent effort by Saudi Arabia to stop television commercials by a pro-oil sands NGO called EthicalOil.org.[58][69]
However, in 2011 it was reported that the U.S., for the first time since 1949, had become a net fuel exporter, and fuels (including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) were the top export. This leads many to question the validity of the energy security argument, since it seems that additional Alberta tar sands oil processed in the Gulf region is likely to be exported to foreign nations with ease through the Gulf of Mexico. As stated in a USA Today article, "...analysts say those [overseas fuel] sales are likely generating higher profits per gallon than they would have generated in the U.S. Otherwise, they wouldn't occur."[70]
[edit] Economic issues

In response to negative publicity, president and CEO of TransCanada Russ Girling touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy."[71] This has been disputed by an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute which found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.[72]
Analysts[who?] believe that including the Alberta Clipper pipeline owned by TransCanada's competitor Enbridge, there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada and after completion of the Keystone XL line oil pipelines to the U.S. will run nearly half-empty.[43]
Due to an exemption the state gave TransCanada, the local authorities would lose $50 million public revenue from property taxes for a decade.[22]

So the Freedom loving Koch brothers are trying to take people's land and sell a project in the U.S. that will primarily benefit them and their Canadian partners with little chance of creating jobs in the U.S. or oil for the U.S. and may indeed end up costing local municipalities in the U.S. billions in losses. -- Why would anyone be against that?