Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit onevoiceamongmany's column >>

ONEVOICEAMONGMANY

Articles Posted: 60  Links Seeded: 776
Member Since: 2/2010  Last Seen: 4/30/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Why the Obama Administration Nixed the Keystone XL Pipeline

Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:48 PM EST
politics, obama, economy, china, jobs, canada, deepwater-horizon, nebraska, infrastructure, midwest, keystone-xl-pipeline, enviro, transcanda
By onevoiceamongmany
Advertise | AdChoices

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a project to bring oil from the tar sands of Alberta Canada through the middle of America's heartland to the gulf of Mexico. There are presently two other pipelines that are smaller in size that do the exact same thing. There is a lot of misinformation that has been brought about due to this project. This article will present a rebut to the common wisdom that has been brought as of late.

The amount of jobs that this project will bring to the United States has been drastically overstated. TransCanada uses projection models that include gas stations and hotels around the pipeline due to the increase of people in the areas where the pipeline was being built. There is no way to tell if this would be correct and can not be counted on as jobs. Many claim that this will create 20,000 jobs. According to the State Departments report, "The construction work force would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers, including Keystone employees, contractor employees, and construction and environmental inspection staff. That would generate from $349 million to $419 in total wages. An estimated $6.58 to $6.65 billion would be spent on materials and supplies, easements, engineering, permitting, and other costs." How many of these Keystone employees would be new hires in the US? How many in the other categories are going to be American workers? Both lower these numbers even further for America. In fact the oil industry cited reports in which a job that lasted two years was counted twice. This inflated the numbers drastically.

Oil prices is another key issue that has been fought over. Some claim that this would lower oil prices globally as well as here in the United States. However this is not the case. The oil industry with this pipeline would increase the price of oil in the midwest anywhere from 10 to 20 cents a gallon. This pipeline would bypass the midwest refineries going straight to the gulf and causing oil prices to increase. Also the type of oil that is being transported is called Bitumen, a product that takes more money to refine and is used in very few products, not cars or trucks where most oil is used.

There is great concern that due to the fact that this pipeline goes across the middle of America that if there were an oil spill water supplies as well as food would be greatly impacted if there were to be a spill. Of course this is purely speculation and is a what if scenario. However with the recent gulf oil spill and the history of the oil industry of causing massive damage due to their negligence in safety for profit margins. The concern for safe air and drinking water is key to the economy. Without clean air and water the consumers will be absent. We need clean air and water to live. If there  is no clean air or water there will be no humans to keep the economy going. If you clear out the middle of the country due to an environmental disaster like an oil spill it will devastate the entire economy, look at the gulf.

There are many environmental concerns that include climate change that claim this will be a game changer. Yet TransCanada is going to sell this oil either way for it to be refined, to the US or the Chinese. Therefore I personally believe either way we are in trouble in regards of Climate Change and thus why I am not touching it in this article.

In summation, the claims of this pipeline are highly over exaggerated by lobbyists for the oil industry and those who curry their favor in DC. The truth is this, if someone came to you with a business proposal that had massive holes in their studies, who outright lied about their numbers based upon projections that counted 2 year jobs as two jobs, that did not account for environmental concerns that impact the economy, that raise the cost of doing business in certain parts of the country, would you accept this proposal and give it a green light just for a few thousand jobs? There are many ways to create jobs here in the US. Look at the manufacturing industry which has actually increased jobs in the recent quarter. Look at the infrastructure that is dilapidated and falling apart and would create far more jobs than this pipeline. There are numerous ways you can create jobs here in the US to help the economy. However accepting a job from an oil company that lied in it's proposal is not in our national interests. If you had governed under an oil spill from an oil company who lied in their reports to the US government such as happened in the gulf with the Deepwater Horizon incident, it is hard to accept that deal.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • onevoiceamongmany's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (47)
onevoiceamongmany

CoH Pls...

  • 6 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:48 PM EST
northtosouth

The only thing you might have missed the fact that states like Nebraska don't want it running through their borders. All for some sub-standard "oil" that won't see US markets anyway.

  • 17 votes
#1.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:29 PM EST
follow the money

About the Keystone XL Pipeline:

http://sanders.senate.gov/search/?q=keystone+xl&go=Search&access=p&as_dt=i&as_epq=&as_eq=&as_lq=&as_occt=any&as_oq=&as_q=&as_sitesearch=&client=sanders&sntsp=0&filter=0&getfields=title&lr=&num=15&numgm=3&oe=UTF8&output=xml&partialfields=&proxycustom=&proxyreload=0&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&requiredfields=&site=sanders&sitesearch=&sort=date%3AD%3AS%3Ad1&start=0&ud=1

From Senator Bernie Sander's Website.

Read on everybody....Peace to all*

  • 12 votes
#1.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:30 PM EST
onevoiceamongmany

north to south... yeah i saw that after the fact. Thanks for filling in the gaps!

  • 10 votes
#1.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:37 PM EST
SuperSaiyan

states like Nebraska don't want it running through their borders.

That is true...

On Nov. 15, Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (a Republican) praised the State Department’s action and called the re-routing a “common sense solution.”

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/pre-thanksgiving-leftovers/

  • 9 votes
#1.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:07 PM EST
Reply
rick-673281Expand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

"The left has two primary complaints about the pipeline, neither of which stands up to scrutiny. First, they are trying to paint the project as an unprecedented danger to the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. The aquifer is not particularly vulnerable to any sort of spill, even in the most outlandish scenarios. There are already oil pipelines over the aquifer, including a fully functioning section of the existing Keystone project which delivers oil all the way to Cushing, Oklahoma. Apart from the pipelines, vast amounts of oil are being stored or transported over this sensitive aquifer while you read this article.

Trucks, rail cars, storage facilities, even the notoriously leaky buried gas tanks at convenience stores are sitting on top of the aquifer. The concern over one additional pipeline with its accompanying bonds, safety features, and political attention is meaningless beside the activities which have proceeded there up to now with only minimal celebrity outrage.

The other concern is the project's carbon impact. As an example of the hyperbole driving this debate, NASA scientist James Hansen said the pipeline would be "game over" for controlling climate change and signed a letter referred to the project as a "carbon bomb."

According to the State Department's report, the highest estimates for the carbon output from this project would be equal to the development of 2-4 more coal-fired power plants. That's it. Hansen's overblown analysis assumes that the pipeline would lead to the exploitation of every molecule of tar sands, something that we could potentially do at full production by about the year 3316."

Leave it up to liberals to lie lie lie and lie but they dont give a @!$%# about Americans only their own agenda

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:39 PM EST
northtosouth

Leave it up to liberals to lie lie lie and lie but they dont give a @!$%# about Americans only their own agenda

Thanks! I love being called a liar, makes me feel good. Never mind that pesky CoH thing.

  • 12 votes
#2.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:44 PM EST
rick-673281

You must have a guilty conscience or something since I didnt mention you and was talking about those in Washington shutting this down and actually shutting down all refinery building also but so be it. But I am sure here on the vine conservatives have never been called liars, yea right in just about every article there is conservatives have been called liars, un american and many more names but I suppose you didnt read those articles lol but like i said I dont see your name mentioned and I am sure you are not Obama or one of his lying cronies that works for his lying ass.

  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:07 PM EST
John Bayner

Thanks for confirming for me why most Republicans are corporate whores, and their sheeple eat up their lies.

Oil industry lobbyists should be oil boarded.

  • 10 votes
#2.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:15 PM EST
onevoiceamongmany

Rick - Can you please address why you didnt address the discrepancies with the jobs numbers? You went off solely on environmental issues and I made them the minority of my article. I tried to focus on the economy and jobs. This project would create anywhere from 5-6k jobs at most according to the state dept. This is not an article that is based on climate change or carbon emissions but economics; something I thought was thought fondly of by most Republicans...

  • 11 votes
#2.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:22 PM EST
ChrisRonk

Leave it up to liberals to lie lie lie and lie but they dont give a @!$%# about Americans only their own agenda.

Aren't Liberals Americans or is this another scenario where someone who doesn't agree with your ideology isn't a "real American"?

  • 8 votes
#2.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:30 PM EST
thisbusymonster

Aren't Liberals Americans or is this another scenario where someone who doesn't agree with your ideology isn't a "real American"?

He just can't believe we're Americans. Just like most conservatives can't believe that we work for a living, and actually understand business and economics.

  • 5 votes
#2.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:16 PM EST
Gilf Hunter

Well said, Rick. I'll stand with you on this.

    #2.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:39 PM EST
    Randy McMurphy

    "already pipelines over the aquifer"

    Yeah...OIL pipelines which is bad and risky enough, and tar sands makes that crude as clean as ivory liquid in comparison.thats like saying you smoke pot but why not try 100 pure heroin...

    • 6 votes
    #2.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:11 PM EST
    Reply
    itsnotademocracyDeleted
    Lebowsky

    Good article OneVoice and I think it is worth mentioning Sunoco closing refineries in PA due to a lack of demand for motor fuels causing lower profit margins. Most importantly the demand for motor fuels is declining in this country and will continue to do so.

    Obama stated early on that he was in favor of moving the US towards greener fuels, this pipeline promotes the oil industry contrary to his earlier views. It is time to move on.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:46 PM EST
    rick-673281

    Yea lets have some more Sol wasted 500 billion tax payers money lets cut off America from oil and jobs and force them to ride bikes, walk or drive total failures like the volt. I guess Obama figures if he cuts off the oil to us and gas prices go up enough we wont buy it.

    • 1 vote
    #4.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:12 PM EST
    onevoiceamongmany

    The oil that comes from tar sands mainly Bitumen, isn't used in cars. It is used in less than 15% of products that use oil. Your argument is not based in fact.

    • 8 votes
    #4.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:27 PM EST
    thisbusymonster

    Yea lets have some more Sol wasted 500 billion tax payers money lets cut off America from oil and jobs and force them to ride bikes,

    Let's add some Ranch dressing to your word salad!

    Yum!

    • 4 votes
    #4.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:17 PM EST
    Reply
    follow the money

    Keystone XL Pipeline Jobs Claims:

    http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9c843621-3a05-4289-80bb-7b2ed66df598

    • 2 votes
    Reply#5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:52 PM EST
    bob-1478320

    Obama nixed the pipeline to appease the left fringe of his party, He knows he can't win the independents or the right or most of the center so he had to make a play for some constituency. His problem is he has now probably really pissed off the unions and if they retaliate by closing their purse strings not only Obama but a large number of dems will be hurting in November----HOORAY!

    • 1 vote
    Reply#6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:11 PM EST
    John Bayner

    Hey Foxified nimrod, the project isn't dead, Obama had no recourse but to deny the application at the present time because the GOP whores who are pimped by the oil industry don't give a @!$%# about the environment.

    • 5 votes
    #6.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:18 PM EST
    Shelby Davenport

    Dream on, bob. Obama has so much more going for him, I'm sure the Unions will find something else to rally behind him with. The prospective jobs numbers have been dwindling, anyway.

    • 6 votes
    #6.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:20 PM EST
    SuperSaiyan

    Obama nixed the pipeline to appease the left fringe of his party,

    Really, bob-1478320?

    I can't say that I'm surprised that you're ignoring what Nebraskans actually think...

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/19/us-keystone-opponents-idUSTRE80I05S20120119 (Nebraska ranchers see victory in Keystone rejection)

    • 6 votes
    #6.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:27 PM EST
    Reply
    onevoiceamongmany

    This is my final warning FYI.

    If there is any name calling libel slander whatever I will delete your comment. Whether you are a liberal or a conservative it matters not. If you break the CoH and start using ridiculous terms to describe someone and engage in mudslinging you are GONE!

    thanks all and have a good one... lets keep up the debate :o)

    • 4 votes
    Reply#7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:29 PM EST
    follow the money

    be careful of what you say, and type,

    everybody,

    definition of libel, slander, and defamation...the laws:

    http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

    peace to all*

    • 2 votes
    #7.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:01 PM EST
    Gilf Hunter

    @ follow the money-

    What are you, the internet police? People are entitled to their opinion.

      #7.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:08 PM EST
      onevoiceamongmany

      Yes everyone is entitled to their opinion. However you are also required to follow the Code of Honor here on Newsvine. I am a very large advocate of civil discourse and therefore adhere to a strict policy of following the CoH and do not stand for anyone engaging in name calling or anything of the sort. We can do without it; we all want to see the country succeed.

      • 4 votes
      #7.3 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:33 PM EST
      Reply
      TheyreAllCrooks

      Maybe we should build a pipeline from Texas to Canada and them OUR oil!

      • 1 vote
      Reply#8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:34 PM EST
      sandra-359026

      those of you that are interested you should just google tar sand oil, there is a lot of information up there, and not much of it says anything good about tar sand oil, it contains a lot of bad stuff. you know heavy metals, mercury, (can't eat the fish in our lakes if your PG because of the mercury and don't eat many if you are not PG) sulfer, Carbon, all this stuff doesn't get scrubbed out even in new refineries, not that we have many new ones. Tar sand oil is the most expensive to refine so what makes any of you naysayers believe that it will make cheaper oil. It isn't used in cars. Onevoice is right the pipeline is not worth it. Not for a few temp jobs. question for you naysayers, who pays for the mess if the pipeline leaks???? The state it is in? The feds (both of which means you the tax payer) who paid for the clean up in Michigan, or all the dead fish and birds, and who paid for the leak in the yellowstone river in Montana, Where does all the waste products go from refining this toxic oil? where does all the water come from to refine it? It takes a lot of water and Texas has been on water restrictions last year. HMMMM they can drink toxic water or oil. Texas parts of Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska are under exceptional drought right now. so why wouldn't you want the water protected. Your asking if it is economically feasible for the United States to take those risks, store the waste,(where ever it goes) add more pollution to our cities and lakes and rivers, while the oil that is refined is sold to China or elsewhere. Who gains not the people in the U.S. Just the Trans-Canada people and those who have invested their money in it. Those investors must be protected you know, so they can pay little taxes (and if they get their way on capital gains none). Onvoice is correct This pipeline is not feasiable, econmical, or in the best interest of the United States. The people who are promoting it are using fear and inflated job numbers to push through what only they will get gain from. Not in my back yard.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:20 PM EST
      oldfogey

      Illuminating Bitumenating!

      • 3 votes
      Reply#10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:58 PM EST
      Gaileoin

      There is one true statement in this article. There is a lot of misinformation out there about this project. Both sides claim to be quoting facts when in fact both are painting their position on the project in the best possible light. Each points out the positives of his stance for or against the project and presents nothing that would even remotely suggest that there were flaws in his or her position. So what we have here are two opposing opinions about the same project and both appear to be correct. Each side is firmly convinced that its position is the only sensible one to promote concerning the pipeline project. So, anyone looking for information that he or she can use to decide which side of the argument to come down on soon realizes they can choose either side and still be on the right side. That being the case, I am in favor of the project and hope it gets approval before it is too late.

        Reply#11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:31 PM EST
        Gilf Hunter

        He just can't believe we're Americans. Just like most conservatives can't believe that we work for a living, and actually understand business and economics.

        @thisbusymonster: Most Republicans, like me, do believe liberals work for a living. It's hard work standing in those long lines to sign up for all those welfare programs and benefits. Not to say that Republicans don't collect welfare, but I'd be willing to bet that nationally, more libs collect welfare than Republicans. A lot more.

        • 1 vote
        Reply#12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:02 PM EST
        Randy McMurphy

        bull@!$%# gilf. Most welfare is geared to working families, cons talk a good game, that because it is when someone applies for social services it is private, and cons have such an exaggerated notion of what they do they feel they "earned " it...Case in point, David Adkisson, the right wing fox fan that went to a church on a murder spree when couldn't get anymore food stamps, Joe the plumber being a tax scofflaw after his family was on welfare
        or these teabagger leaders screaming about "socialism";

        "I don't want to see this country turn into a welfare, nanny state," said tax-protest organizer Joanne Wilder, of Cicero. Wilder said she did not have to pay federal income tax last year because her income was too low.

        She said she retired on disability from M&T Bank three years ago after undergoing knee replacement and back surgeries. She lives on her Social Security and disability benefits. Last year, she petitioned the bankruptcy court for protection from creditors.

        Americans need safety nets, but Obama and Congress are pushing programs that foster dependency and weaken capitalism, said Smith, who acknowledged he collected food stamp benefits for a few months last year.
        "Obama is horribly divisive," Smith said.

        http://www.theyoungturks.com/story/2009/4/16/105718/843/Diary/Tea-Party-Organizer-On-Social-Security-Disability-Food-Stamps-and-Paying-No-Income-Taxes

        • 5 votes
        #12.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:24 PM EST
        Gilf Hunter

        Randy, I agree that most welfare is geared towards the working family. What you forgot to mention was that it was also geared to be a temporary tool to help people get back on their feet, not as a permanent source of income. As usual, people such as yourself use these very obscure examples to justify your opinion. Randy, look at all the welfare fraud and abuse out there today. As I stated earlier, I would be willing to bet that most welfare fraud and abuse is at the hands of Obama supporters. Under the current administration, less people are paying federal taxes than people who are and our spending is now equal to our GDP. That's what is bull@$#&!!!

          #12.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:57 PM EST
          Randy McMurphy

          Randy, I agree that most welfare is geared towards the working family. What you forgot to mention was that it was also geared to be a temporary tool to help people get back on their feet, not as a permanent source of income.

          But you said most were liberals , an unfounded assetion. Yes I know it is temporary , Clinton and the republican congress reform Welfare into TANF, which grants a maximum 5 year lifetime benefit window,Credit to them both. 12 million were on welfare in 1996, today even in the downturn, that stands at about 4.5 million. This meme righties throw around , like Gingrich, Asserting that Obama is the Foodstamp president is ridiculous, as under Bush grew foodstamp participation by 16.1 million, versus 11 million under Obama, after inheriting the worst economic disaster since 1929. Bush inherited a surplus food stamps are meant to be temporary Bush expanded it when the economy was in mostly relative growth albeight meager. I could technically go on foodstamps on account of taking a big hit last year and the economy being slow, but I'm not, nor ever had, nor ever want to.

          As usual, people such as yourself use these very obscure examples to justify your opinion. Randy, look at all the welfare fraud and abuse out there today.

          As I stated, this information is private, and righties have no problem dipping in the well while complaing about spending. All the fraud today...that Obama is attacking directly...Prosecutions of medicare/Medicaid is the highest its ever been thanks to ACA.

          As I stated earlier, I would be willing to bet that most welfare fraud and abuse is at the hands of Obama supporters. Under the current administration, less people are paying federal taxes than people who are and our spending is now equal to our GDP. That's what is bull@$#&!!!

          And I'd take that bet, say $10,000 ,like Mitt Romney, and ask you to prove, and pay in full when you can't. Criminals are not big on the whole civic participation and voting thing. Federal income tax, 1/6th of tax liability WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE TAKEN FROM LOWER INCOME WAGE EARNERS. The exemption is equivalent to those making over $65,000 .Currently 90% of those paying no taxes make $20,000 a year or under.

          Again more BS.

          • 3 votes
          #12.3 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:13 AM EST
          Gilf Hunter

          Randy, maybe you missed it. It was all over the news a couple weeks ago how government spending was equal to that of our GDP and how more Americans were not paying taxes then those who are. Look it up for yourself. It is not BS. Maybe you would be in favor of a flat tax? I'm confused by your numbers. You say,

          12 million were on welfare in 1996, today even in the downturn, that stands at about 4.5 million

          Then you say,

          as under Bush grew foodstamp participation by 16.1 million, versus 11 million under Obama

          So is it 4.5 million or is it 11 million? Plus, Bush was in office for 8 years with Obama only 3 years. According to your own numbers, that what put Obama at about 29 million after 8 years in comparison to your Bush numbers after 8 years. Also, I make less than $65,000 and I pay taxes. Where are you coming up with your stats? Why would you even throw in a quote from Newt? He's king of throwing rocks in a glass house and lacks any credibility.

            #12.4 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:11 AM EST
            Reply
            ashliegh

            Obama can make excuses to pander to the left, yet not building this pipeline is not responsible and not looking out for the nations energy future. America WILL have an interruption of oil from the middle east and where is that going to leave us. Everything that modern man uses is associated with oil and its by products. Look around your home and find anything that didn't have to do with oil. I'll make a list of my surroundings: Paint, Tiles, 2x4's, sheets, blankets, TV, Computer, electrical outlet, electricity, door knob, coke bottle, water bottle, wallet, end table, ceiling fan, car, tires, rubber bands, paper clips, paper, steel beam, bbq pitt, bicycle, lawn mower, weed eater, leaf blower, band aids, every plastic container in the house, glass jars,......... Folks I could go on yet you get the idea. There hundreds of thousands of products made from oil, lubricated from oil, or delivered by oil. Please give us an option of something else that gives us as much diversity as oil.

            Pipelines are safe, yes there are accidents from time to time, yet there is no danger at all of a BP type of incidents anyone that says there is the same danger is outright stupid or lying. Deep Sea Horizon was at extreme depths, the pipeline will be at around 30ft deep. The flow would be turned off at the source as soon as an accident happened. The modern pipelines have better technology and should be good for at least 50 to 75 years with no problems.

            The article states that the nations infrastructure needs repair as a reason for not building the pipline. Well the pipline will be built with corporate money and has nothing to do with infrastructures in the US.

            A veto on this pipeline is not in the interest of the country. If the environmentalists are adamant about global warming put your transportation where your butt is and stop using petroleum products and thing made from it.

              Reply#13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:57 PM EST
              onevoiceamongmany

              ashliegh -

              1) The type of oil we would be getting from the tar sands is mainly bitumen which takes more money to refine into a useable product and even that is not used in that many products. This is not your cheap easy oil that is used in some of the products you listed. This is oil that is not used very often and would cost more money to refine actually increasing prices.

              2) Pipelines are not safe. There were 9 oil pipeline spills across the globe in 2011 alone. In the last 10 years there were 60 oil pipeline spills across the world. They can be due to either natural disasters such as tornadoes hurricanes earthquakes etc. They can also be caused due to negligence, poor maintenance, and shotty work constructing the pipeline. The oil industry is the most notorious in safety and faulty work due to profit over quality/safety. After lying to the US government about the amount of jobs the environmental hazards and quite a few other aspects of their report on this very pipeline, I wouldn't trust this company either to build a pipeline, especially after dealing with the Deep Water Horizon incident. Are they the same... no. But are they from the same industry that has a very bad track record... yes.

              3) The article does not state that infrastructure needs repair as a reason for not building the pipeline. I was simply stating that if we want jobs, we can focus on infrastructure create hundreds of thousands of jobs instantaneously. I was not stating that in order to do the pipeline we need to work on infrastructure.

              4) I believe that a veto on this pipeline is in our national interest due to the return of the investment is so low. The oil type we would be getting is used minimally. The gas prices would not go down due to this pipeline, they would actually increase do to the refining process being done in Texas and Louisiana bypassing midwestern refineries causing increase in gas prices. There are real environmental concerns with building this pipeline, but in regards to global warming the Canadians have already said they will sell this oil for refining elsewhere if we don't do this deal so we are SOL either way on that one. However there are also concerns that there could be environmental hazards in the states that this pipeline would cross, some very Red states as well including Nebraska who are against this pipeline being built. Therefore if the states don't want it, if the company who wants to build the pipeline lied to the US government about the project, if the oil prices will not be reduced and the oil we get is very rarely used in conventional products I do not find this to be in the national interest and thus a smart move.

              • 4 votes
              #13.1 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:51 PM EST
              Reply
              tyler-1708225

              You might try reading the article here on MSNBC that the pipeline has not been nixed, at least not permanently. Obama tried to side step any decision until after the election and now he says it needs "review."

              • 1 vote
              Reply#14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:00 PM EST
              Here. Can you speak this?

              I wonder how many jobs would be lost? The pipeline is to replace other methods of transporting the same oil. The refineries want cheaper oil, and bigger profits, and eliminating the costs, and jobs, associated with the current methods of transporting the oil is one way to do that. After it's built, those temporary jobs will be gone and possibly take thousands of jobs with them.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#15 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:13 AM EST
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse |
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com