Senate rejects effort to ban Keystone XL-pipeline exports

Absolutely.

Why are we in debt to China. They send us stuff, we send them dollars, they don't spend the dollar so they buy American bonds. Someone is out of work here because of the trade deficit. In a practical sense we don't owe China money, we owe them stuff. The balance of payments is the mismatch between what they send up and we send them. That gets translated into the trade deficit which helps increase our liability to China.

this isn't enough, the risk vs reward isn't there. lol, like this will solve our trade deficit with china.
 
my point was it's word for word out of the state department, you think there's some big play on words to fit transcanadas agenda, well all the other quotes were out of there as well. how they are predicting less oil from Mexico and Venezuela to be made up by Canada
It was word for word ABOUT CRUDE.
 
Interesting, I don't doubt you has a leak but one has never occured here.

Even if it does not employ many it reduces out Chinese debt that is killing us.

if the oil belongs to canadian oil corps, how does them selling it to canada reduce our overall trade deficit? doesn't it just send the money to canada? it isn't america selling the product. so sure it may send american dollars back to canada lol, but i think the best way to deal with that trade deficit would be to sell american products to china right?
 
The US is the #1 consumer of hydrocarbons from ft Mac already so that is kinda moot.

The US already has pipelines criss crossing the nation so aside from the media buzz I do not understand the hate on for this one.

As for the news story it makes sense to export, but to be against using US steel? That is just stupid. Use American labour and products so as many people as possible benefit.


People are so ignorant about this topic like this guy.

It's makes no sense to have shitty tar sand oil in the pipeline when it goes right by the Bakken.

As is fact already. The shitty tar sands oil is already coming to the refineries in Texas and will continue to do so. this issue is solely about how much cost and more pollution you want to get it there. Because it will get there.

This pipeline represents less then 1% of existing pipelines across the US carrying oil.
 
The Keystone XL pipeline is scheduled to go through two of my fields. None of the land owners I know in my home state (Nebraska) are happy about this tar sand oil potentially ruining the life blood of our livelihoods, the Ogallala Aquifer. None of the land owners I know want to sell our land either, it will likely all be eminent domained.
 
The funny thing about this thread, is that not a single damned one of you doesn't seem to know that the Keystone pipeline already exists, and that the thing being debated in washington is whether or not to build a shorter leg on one portion of it.

You guys are all fucking idiots.

i knew this, which is why we all know the job creation is going to be really small, but the issue is why would we allow a foreign country to use it? i don't mind it, i just want something for it, that's what obama has said as well, why would we allow this for free? it's just bad business.

btw calling people fucking idiots will get you dub'd in here. so cool it down.
 
The Keystone XL pipeline is scheduled to go through two of my fields. None of the land owners I know in my home state (Nebraska) are happy about this tar sand oil potentially ruining the life blood of our livelihoods, the Ogallala Aquifer. None of the land owners I know want to sell our land either, it will likely all be eminent domained.

but but but... china!
 
The Keystone XL pipeline is scheduled to go through two of my fields. None of the land owners I know in my home state (Nebraska) are happy about this tar sand oil potentially ruining the life blood of our livelihoods, the Ogallala Aquifer. None of the land owners I know want to sell our land either, it will likely all be eminent domained.

pretty sure there's already one or two going over it, how wide is the area they need?

AC1008.png


I've been involved in pipelines here and all they do is pay the land owner a fee to bury the pipe, they still keep the land. Is this being handled like an road easement where they actually buy your property from you?
No way will it be eminent domain
 
Last edited:
What's the fuss about this? There are already existing pipelines, this is just an additional one with greater capacity.
 
thats what I thought
 
GOP is against it now because Obama/Dems are for it because such spending would be a huge boost to the economy and Obama/Dems would get credit for it. You can be damn sure if Jeb Bush is elected in Nov 2016 that the GOP will all of a sudden be all for massive infrastructure spending and deficits/debt won't matter a lick again.

I'm still waiting to see what the huge reason we need to go into more debt will be. Usually it's for war. I bet Bush would do a full scale attack on ISIS. Then again, I think Hilary would too.
 
thats what I thought
You wouldn't know a thought if it smacked you in the face.
Seriously, how do you not understand that Transcanda is being dishonest in only emphasizing that no crude will be exported in this discussion?
 
Stopping it isn't really that important, either. At this point, it's purely symbolic (I don't even think the ty****s are that important).

I hear ya, I have a general disdain for people's refusal to acknowledge that climate change as a problem.

This is kind of like seeing a someone throwing trash out of their car window. I know it's not going to cause the end of the world but it still pisses me off.
 
I hear ya, I have a general disdain for people's refusal to acknowledge that climate change as a problem.

This is kind of like seeing a someone throwing trash out of their car window. I know it's not going to cause the end of the world but it still pisses me off.

Yeah, that's the symbolism. And on the other side, Republicans who resent having egghead scientists think they know more than they do are just hoping to pass it to stick it to them.
 
Back
Top