[sparkscoffee] Re: Keystone Pipeline, was Re: How much does it cos t to buy the U.S. Senate?
- From: "schalestock@xxxxxxxx" <schalestock@xxxxxxxx>
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 10:51:22 GMT
RG Some of these "facts" are dubious at best, and downright political posturing
at worst. 2. Price increase. The real fact is that oil is a fungible commodity
on the world market in which we all participate. How more oil on the market
would increase costs flies in the face of the supply and demand principle. 3.
Job creation. All the numbers are pure speculation. One thing that is beyond
dispute is that the pipeline WOULD create jobs. 4 Leaks: give me a break. Your
own car "leaks". It doesn't constitute a world calamity. The safety and
maintenance protocols in place in the petroleum industry are massive. Surely
you remember this if you ever sailed on tankers. 5. Environmental concerns.
This is pure ideological bullshit - much like "global warming" , a massive scam
that enriched Al Gore and his ilk to the tune of billions of dollars in "carbon
credits". And by the way, there is no "massive majority" of scientists who buy
into this bullshit. In FACT, quite the contrary. JS
---------- Original Message ----------
From: R George <xgeorge@xxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Keystone Pipeline, was Re: How much does it cost to
buy the U.S. Senate?
Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 13:52:16 -0700
Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the
pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected:
1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency
The oil to be sent through Keystone XL pipeline was never destined for US
markets. In its own presentation to investors about the proposed pipeline
extension, TransCanada (the company behind Keystone XL) boasted that most if
not all of the extracted and refined oil would be exported --- sold in oversees
markets where oil fetches a higher price (and thus turns a higher profit for
the company).
2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices
Currently, Canadian oil reserves stored in the Midwest help suppress gas prices
in the United States, particularly for farmers in our nation’s heartland.
In its permit application for the pipeline, TransCanada noted that the Keystone
XL pipeline would allow the company to drain these reserves and export that
fuel as well. According to TransCanada’s own statements, this would raise
gas prices in the United States, especially in the Midwest.
3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created
In 2008, TransCanada’s original permit application to the State
Department said the Keystone XL pipeline would create “a peak workforce
of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” in temporary jobs
building the pipeline.
By 2011, now facing growing opposition to the pipeline, TransCanada had
inflated these numbers (using undisclosed formulas) to 20,000. Supporters of
the proposal, backed by big oil, have since trumpeted these trumped up numbers.
4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year
The pipeline that the Obama administration has rejected the permit for would be
an extension of a pipeline that has already leaked -- not just once, but 12
times in the last year.
While TransCanada tried to dismiss these leaks as “minor” averaging
“just five to 10 gallons of oil” each, the leak on May 7, 2011 near
Millner, N.D., spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil in total.
5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified
Nebraska’s Republican Governor Dave Heineman strongly opposed the
Keystone XL project because the pipeline would run through a massive and vital
aquifer in his state the supplies clean drinking water to over 2 million
Americans plus water that fuels the region’s agriculture industry.
Building the pipeline might have created a few thousand temporary jobs but even
a minor oil spill in or near the aquifer would have jeopardized hundreds of
thousands of jobs, not to mention the health and safety of millions.
Meanwhile, in Michigan where a similar tar sands pipeline spilled over 840,000
gallons of crude oil into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, residents are still
complaining of headaches, dizziness and nausea while studies continue to look
at the long-term effects of just being near such an oil spill when it happens.
6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming
Assuming you believe, like the vast majority of the world’s scientists,
that climate change is both real and of concern, the Canadian tar sands are the
second largest carbon reserve in the world.
Mining these reserves would release all of that carbon into the atmosphere, to
detrimental effect on our environment. Sure, Canada might go ahead and mine the
tar sands anyway, but the United States doesn’t have to help pollute the
planet and our own states in the process.
No matter how you look at it, the Keystone XL proposal was a slimy, scam of a
deal. America is better than that.
We can create good-paying jobs that build our families and our economy for the
future without hurting our environment today.
We can invest in innovative energy technology that not only reduces our
dependence on dirty fuel but also puts us in the lead in critical, emerging
markets.
We can prioritize good jobs and a competitive economy of the future, with all
the upsides of American energy production and innovation and far, far fewer of
the downsides that Keystone carried.
Let’s focus on more of those deals going forward.
Sally Kohn is a Fox News Contributor and grassroots strategist. You can find
her online at http://sallykohn.com.
On 5/8/2014 1:23 PM, Ron Ristad wrote:Kelly,
The Keystone pipeline that Obama is blocking would transport oil from the
Canadian Oil Sands to the U.S.. The reason why it is being blocked is because
Warren Buffet, one of Obama's biggest contributors, owns the rail cars that are
currently being used to transport this oil to the U.S. at a considerably higher
cost the pipeline would be. The "environmentalists" that are supposedly
blocking it claim that it could harm the environment when the fact is that
there are already millions of miles of oil pipelines in the U.S. and none that
have caused any environmental damage. At the same time there have been
catastrophic rail car accidents that have caused considerable damage to both
people and the environment.
The part of the southern part of the Keystone pipeline that delivers oil to the
Gulf was completed last year and began shipping oil on Jan 21st. Obama had no
issues with that.
-RR
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelly <kellyutah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: May 8, 2014 2:02 PM
To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: How much does it cost to buy the U.S. Senate?
I think it's funny how the pipeline issue is being cast as an environmental
issue. This completely masks the real economic issue here. A massive source
of cheap fossil fuel energy that could power a resurgence of the American
economy has been discovered right here on our own continent. Refining and
selling locally to Americans would result in dramatic price reductions in
gasoline and other petroleum distillates. But there's more money in selling it
overseas, so the big oil companies need to build a pipeline to get the oil to a
seaport where it can be put on ships and sold for a higher profit. Oil
companies will get their cake and eat it too. They'll sell local oil overseas
wherever they can maximize profits, while at the same time, keeping a lid on
local supplies and therefore price.
If you support giving Keystone their pipeline you're supporting continued
outrageous prices at the gas pump.
Kelly A.
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 07:50:44 -0600
From: ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] How much does it cost to buy the U.S. Senate?
To:
Left wing billionaire pledges $100 million to buy the Senate.
-RR
One man has answered the question, "How much does it cost to buy the U.S.
Senate?" The price tag and his name came to light as the only plausible
explanation for an otherwise inexplicable event.
Two months ago, an even more bizarre spectacle than usual took place on the
Senate floor. From the evening of March 10th through to the next morning, about
30 Democratic senators held a 14-hour+ speechathon. The event was billed as an
attempt to push America into addressing "climate change." Translation: It was
meant to publicize measures that would rectify so-called 'global warming' and
protect against environmental 'threats' such as the oil and gas industries....
Thomas Steyer...has been called the most influential man in America with whom
next to no one is familiar...
... Steyer hosted a recent fundraiser at his San Francisco home that netted the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee $400,000 and where Senate Majority
Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and the six other Democratic senators in
attendance openly discussed plans for ...[ the] talkathon, according to
reports."
In other words, the speechathon was planned at the billionaire's home in Reid's
presence. The uber-influencial Reid is the same Democratic Senator who
lambasted the billionaire Koch brothers for their donations to Republican
causes and campaigns. On March 10, the Business Insider reported Reid as
stating, "I'm trying to find a Republican – somebody, anybody – who
will raise an objection to two brothers trying to buy America." Apparently,
Reid wants only the Senate to be up for sale, and only to a Democratic buyer.
How Much Did it Cost ... Steyer and the Democrats?
So what was the Senate's price tag? Let's see ... the talk-a-thon reportedly
lasted 15 hours. With the dangled pledge of $100 million to Democrats, Steyer
was able to buy (or rent) the floor of the Senate at a rate of $6 million an
hour. I agree with the twitterer who wrote, "Who says Congress is broken?" The
fact that someone is willing to pay $6 million an hour for it is a clear
free-market sign of its worth. Correction: This has nothing to do with the free
market.
How Much Does the President Cost?
Political commentary sites are openly speculating on whether Steyer can buy
Obama's final decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would supply vast
quantities of Canadian oil to the U.S. The project has strong bipartisan and
public support; even two lengthy environmental analyses by the State Department
couldn't point to any major environmental impact. Nevertheless, as the Sunshine
State News (Fla., April 25) reported: "Never mind the Kochs. After assessing
who did what bad to America lately, I nominate Tom Steyer for the top of the
list. Last week the billionaire hedge fund manager from San Francisco bought
off the White House to the tune of $100 million in order to delay the Keystone
XL pipeline decision." (Note: Steyer retired some while ago from the hedge fund
business.)
Predictably, Landrieu broke Democratic ranks to castigate the delay. She called
Obama's decision "irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable" – a move
to satisfy extreme radicals while sacrificing 42,000 jobs and billions from the
economy. Other Democrats, such as Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, joined her.
The man who bought the Senate floor, the man who bought Obama ... Thomas Steyer
may also become the man who thwarted Keystone and drove Canadian oil toward
China. If he fractures the Democratic Party, however, he may cost them more
than he can deliver.
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer"- Stevie
Wonder "Superstition"...
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/536cb3789b8e5337866bbst04vuc
Other related posts:
