HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 9 Democrats signed letter...

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:14 AM

9 Democrats signed letter urging quick approval of Keystone XL pipeline

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the Senate on Wednesday urged quick approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, ramping up pressure on President Obama to move ahead with the project just days after he promised in his inaugural address to respond vigorously to the threat of climate change."There is no reason to deny or further delay this long-studied project," said the letter, which was initiated by Sens. John Hoeven, R-N.D., and Max Baucus, D-Mont., and signed by 44 Republicans and nine Democrats. Another Democrat, Jon Tester of Montana, supports the pipeline but did not sign the letter

The Obama administration has twice thwarted the 1,700-mile pipeline, which Calgary-based TransCanada first proposed in late 2008. The State Department delayed the project in late 2011 after environmental groups and others raised concerns about a proposed route through environmentally sensitive land in Nebraska.The State Department said Tuesday it does not expect to complete a review of the project before the end of March. The State Department has jurisdiction over the pipeline because it crosses a U.S. border.

At a news conference Wednesday, senators from both parties said the Nebraska decision leaves Obama with no other choice but to approve the pipeline, which would carry up to 800,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in western Canada to refineries in Houston and other Texas ports. The pipeline also would travel though Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

"No more excuses. It's time to put people to work," Baucus said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OIL_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-18-07-43

Manchin and Baucus are 2 of the senators. Baucus claims the Keystone will create thousands of jobs. Cornell University researched it and begs to differ.


Sean Sweeney, director of the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute, said today in an interview: "This report questions the jobs claims promoted by TransCanada Corporation, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and other proponents of the pipeline. The report's findings should generate a high level of skepticism regarding the value of KXL as an important source of American jobs."
"It is GLI's assessment that the construction of Keystone XL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates," Sweeney said.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/092811_GLI_study_finds_Keystone_XL_pipeline_will_create_few_jobs.html

83 replies, 4809 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 83 replies Author Time Post
Reply 9 Democrats signed letter urging quick approval of Keystone XL pipeline (Original post)
octoberlib Jan 2013 OP
CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2013 #1
octoberlib Jan 2013 #2
RC Jan 2013 #38
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #46
Historic NY Jan 2013 #3
CaliforniaPeggy Jan 2013 #4
kentauros Jan 2013 #40
2naSalit Jan 2013 #5
octoberlib Jan 2013 #9
2naSalit Jan 2013 #12
ProSense Jan 2013 #6
octoberlib Jan 2013 #7
Rhiannon12866 Jan 2013 #21
cali Jan 2013 #25
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #37
octoberlib Jan 2013 #63
nc4bo Jan 2013 #44
KamaAina Jan 2013 #67
DonCoquixote Jan 2013 #76
cbrer Jan 2013 #8
octoberlib Jan 2013 #10
octoberlib Jan 2013 #13
jambo101 Jan 2013 #36
kentauros Jan 2013 #42
Cha Jan 2013 #11
raouldukelives Jan 2013 #14
Morning Dew Jan 2013 #15
octoberlib Jan 2013 #16
Morning Dew Jan 2013 #17
Melinda Jan 2013 #54
Morning Dew Jan 2013 #59
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #70
NickB79 Jan 2013 #28
RC Jan 2013 #39
kentauros Jan 2013 #45
RC Jan 2013 #60
kentauros Jan 2013 #61
laundry_queen Jan 2013 #72
The Straight Story Jan 2013 #18
customerserviceguy Jan 2013 #27
woo me with science Jan 2013 #31
Sunlei Jan 2013 #52
pansypoo53219 Jan 2013 #19
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #41
think Jan 2013 #20
DallasNE Jan 2013 #22
gtar100 Jan 2013 #23
UnrepentantLiberal Jan 2013 #24
Sunlei Jan 2013 #26
kentauros Jan 2013 #47
Sunlei Jan 2013 #51
kentauros Jan 2013 #55
NickB79 Jan 2013 #29
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #43
earthside Jan 2013 #53
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #57
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #56
NickB79 Jan 2013 #78
woo me with science Jan 2013 #30
RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #33
LisaLynne Jan 2013 #34
forestpath Jan 2013 #49
leftstreet Jan 2013 #62
octoberlib Jan 2013 #65
Catherina Jan 2013 #75
xchrom Jan 2013 #32
grntuscarora Jan 2013 #35
forestpath Jan 2013 #48
Oilwellian Jan 2013 #50
Nye Bevan Jan 2013 #58
Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2013 #64
GoCubsGo Jan 2013 #66
octoberlib Jan 2013 #69
woo me with science Jan 2013 #68
woo me with science Jan 2013 #71
RandiFan1290 Jan 2013 #73
woo me with science Jan 2013 #81
woo me with science Jan 2013 #74
patrice Jan 2013 #77
woo me with science Jan 2013 #79
woo me with science Jan 2013 #80
woo me with science Jan 2013 #82
woo me with science Jan 2013 #83

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:18 AM

1. I expect the Republicans to approve of this mess, but the Democrats?

Are they blue dogs?

The pipeline is an environmental boondoggle, a complete mess. I despair for our environment should it be built over our precious water resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:20 AM

2. I've been trying to find out the names of the other 7

but haven't had any luck yet. Damn corporate Dems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:28 AM

38. Most Democrats now-a-days are DINO's anyway.

 

You know 3rd Way? Center Right? Bought and paid for just like Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:33 AM

46. Yes, indeed.

Forget about all those fancy "civilization collapse" woo-woo scenarios which are being bandied about by some of our more out-there fellows around here. The mere possibility of a spill contaminating parts of the Ogallala aquifer and possibly poisoning thousands, and the fact that there's not even any safeguards in place, and the fact that most of it is going to Mussolinian corporatist China anyway, should be more than enough for people to oppose this disaster in the making, James Hansen's way-out-of-left-field one-time statement notwithstanding(hey, no offense, he's a decent fellow and a good scientist. But even the best boffin isn't perfect, and will make mistakes every so often.).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:20 AM

3. All for oil that will never be used in this country or europe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:22 AM

4. Plus it's not really oil. I forget what they call it. Oil it is not.

It's a toxic sludge so thick that it won't flow unless it's thinned with more toxic chemicals. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:18 AM

40. It's called "bitumen"

and it's not a sludge in its natural form. Bitumen (also known as asphalt, but not the paving material, which is a form of concrete using asphalt as one of its ingredients) is at the lowest level in the cracking/distillation process of crude oil. Crude has to be "cracked" for us to get the fuels and chemicals we use out of it. At the bottom of the process you get tar and asphalt, with tar being "lighter".

For them to send the bitumen through the pipe, it is partially refined to a slurry, mostly to get the impurities and solid matter, like sand, out of it. If they left it in, it would clog the pipe and nothing would flow. It is also heated (to 150C) to flow through the pipe, because otherwise, it would be a solid if not heated


(edited to add: actually the chemistry of it is rather fascinating. The Wiki link is worth reading )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:28 AM

5. Baucus

is one of my DINO Senators, and he's always been on the wrong side of we the people. He might as well have signed up as a Repug. He's anti environment, anti wildlife... unless you can legally kill it, anti anything that helps retain the health of the ecosystem, biosphere... a total sellout. I won't be voting for his sorry ass, ever. I only voted for his cohort, Tester because it was crucial to keep D's in the majority in the Senate, and for no other reason because there was no other sane reason for voting for him and only insane reasons to vote for that ignoramus teabagger that was running against him. Baucus married into his wealth, even though he tried to get his mistress appointed to the Justice Dept. in a big position, so they wouldn't end up poor? Worthless POS he is. He has no intention of listening to reason either.

Check this out:

Legislator: Montana university officials must promote natural resource development

http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/montana-legislature/article_d15f28e9-40f6-5623-a108-bf7653c9172d.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:36 AM

9. Interesting. So that's why Tester wouldn't sign it . Thanks for the info on Baucus.

I'm from NC and I'm not surprised Kay Hagan is on that list. She's a DINO too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:50 AM

12. Neither one is trustworthy from my state

and the one House member, we have such a low population in the state that we only have one (!) is a teabagging bimbo, no offense to bimbos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:29 AM

6. Nine Democrats?

Ugh! Time to call these Senators out.

Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.) J
Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Link to letter here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/us/obama-is-urged-to-approve-oil-pipeline.html

Senator Reid and the rest of the Democratic caucus should reject this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:32 AM

7. Thank you, ProSense! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:59 AM

21. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:28 AM

25. The ususal suspects. Ugh is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:03 AM

37. If approved (hopefully not), the Keystone Pipeline will run through.....

....the states in this illustration:



So, tell me why the 7 Dem Senators from Alaska, Indiana, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Virginia, and North Carolina think this is such a good idea for their respective states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:54 PM

63. Excellent point. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:28 AM

44. There she is, no surprises from you Kay Hagan.

She getting lots of comments on her Facebook page.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:47 PM

67. That should read "Mary Landrieu (D-Oil Industry)"

similarly with Manchin (coal). Then you have the states along the route (MT and ND). And then you have some dyed-in-the-wool DINOs (there is considerable overlap there).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:08 PM

76. Mary Landrieu (D-La.)

Why oh Why does this not surprise me...

Mary, you have wrecked your own state, a good portion of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida, by whoring yourself out to Oil.. Yes, that is not a feminist word, but considering the amount of DEAD people this woman has on her hands, I will bend the rules.

These seven should be tossed out of the party, as they are at best, dead wight, at worst, backstabbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:35 AM

8. Has anyone seen figures for how much energy

 

this pipeline will require to heat it to allow this sludge to flow?

Especially in the northern states (and Canada) during winter?

This is a bad idea that will push us closer to the edge concerning climate change. JOBS?? One cannot eat money...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:39 AM

10. Good question. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:53 AM

13. Apparently they thin it with toxic chemicals. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:40 AM

36. I believe its called crude oil

As thats what it becomes after being extracted from the shale and sent on its way through pipelines. Much of the Keystone pipeline has been up and running for some time,its the XL extensions that are whats causing a redefinition of the routes due to environmental concerns .Once finished it will add an additional one million barrels a day to Americas need for 25 million barrels a day.
Some good reading on the project and its history can be had on Wikipedia.
[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jambo101 (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:24 AM

42. Actually, we won't see any of it as fuel in the US.

It will be connecting to the refineries along the Houston Ship Channel for further refinement, only to then be shipped to China and elsewhere overseas. All we get from it is some temporary jobs for the designing and building of it, some permanent maintenance and leak-detection jobs, and more work for the existing people in the refinery plants.

We're nothing more than a route and Right of Way out of Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:42 AM

11. Big Bad Baucus to Pres Obama: "No more excuses"..

I thought this was interesting about Kerry..

Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would not take part in any decisions that could affect the companies he has holdings in until those investments are sold off. Among the investments are holdings in two Canadian companies, Suncor and Cenovus Energy Inc., both of which have publicly supported the Keystone XL pipeline. Kerry's investments are in family trusts.


Thank you octoberlib

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:50 AM

14. I'll be overjoyed at even tiny steps against climate change.

This would be one of them. A baby step. But you gotta start somewhere and take a stand for something. Stand with Wall St and the deniers or stand with the environment. You can't do both. Not anymore, not with what we see happening.
And really, the President is demanding it of us. To be the change we want to see. To press onward into a brighter future.
I am heartened to hear of vigorous action around the bend more than I can say. My hopes remain high but I do fear vigorous may be a bit of stretch. Instead of vigorous just do small things like ending the pipeline, downsizing the military and turning the golf courses into sustainable farmlands. A few baby steps can add up before we even get to vigorous actions like tearing down shopping centers, replanting millions of acres of forests & finally shutting down the practice of turning irreplaceable gifts of the earth into mulch for cocaine parties and retirement funds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:03 AM

15. Yeah, let's run a pipeline full of oil over the Ogallala aquifer . . .

what could possibly go wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Morning Dew (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:09 AM

16. I've read that aquifer provides water for 8 states. Disaster in the making. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:13 AM

17. That it is...

Good thread - thanks for the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Morning Dew (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:14 AM

54. I'm so glad I clicked this thread...

The pollyanna in me prefers to stay away from bad news threads, but seeing you makes it worth the icks.... Hiya Ms. Dew, welcome back!!!

My face is cracking from this huge ass smile you brought me!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Melinda (Reply #54)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:03 PM

59. Hey, Melinda!

Always, always, always good to see you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:05 PM

70. Sad, but true. That's a reason why it's gotta be stopped. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Morning Dew (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:15 AM

28. Don't worry, we'll have that aquifer pumped dry soon

What with the increasingly scarce rainfall to water the crops and livestock.

By the time we get a big spill, there won't be any water left to pollute. See, problem solved!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:38 AM

39. Yeah, so what's the problem here?

 

What I don't get is why Canada doesn't refine this shit and ship is from their West coast. Used the money saves by not building the pipeline to build the necessary refineries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:31 AM

45. They're going through us because it's cheaper.

Even as this is a $7 billion project for them, that's still less than what it would cost to go through the Canadian Rockies. Building pipelines through rock, as well as pumping up and over mountains, costs much more, even if the route is shorter.

I suspect that if they can't make the connection across the US/Canadian border that they'll try to build the pipeline to the west. And if they can't do that, they'll find another route or means. If they're willing to invest that much money just for the route through our country, I don't see them as giving up easily if thwarted here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentauros (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:10 PM

60. That makes sense.

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:15 PM

61. You're welcome :)

I'm not for this pipeline, either. I actually did some mapping work on it, and only took that job because I had been out of work for about a year. As soon as there was a slowdown of work, I was laid off. I'm now working for a surveying company, doing similar work. Basically, I know pipelines and much of the design surrounding them and other petro-chemical processes. I'm glad to be able to offer my knowledge on this subject

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentauros (Reply #45)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:27 PM

72. It's in the works.

It's called the Northern Gateway pipeline and they are trying to push it through. BC is mostly against it, but I have a feeling they have their price...the First Nations, however, will be the ones who stop it, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:22 AM

18. In the end, I think, Obama will approve it

His admin, even when denying it, was pretty mum about letting certain things be grandfathered in if there was a new application.

They could have denied that and caused many years' delay but did not do so.

I hope I am wrong and people can remind me of being wrong - but I don't think I am.

He could have, early on, just denied it and did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:14 AM

27. For quite some time

he's been able to keep both sides pacified, if not actually happy, by giving enough mixed signals that he would come down on "my" side, whatever the position of the voter happened to be. We're coming to the end of that, at some point, I expect the GOP to figure out how to put Keystone into must-pass legislation, and the Senators whose names are on that letter will be joining them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:25 AM

31. Of course he will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:05 AM

52. Obama said once the permitting process is complete it's done. Very close to all the permits finished

You just got to hope that there is NO cheating on the permits like there was with the now famous Gulf disaster and the crashed on the coastline oil rigs in Alaska and the bitamin spills on the Yellow river disaster they haven't even cleaned up yet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:30 AM

19. oil drenched democrats.

like 'global warming', i think MORE STUDIES NEED TO BE DONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:23 AM

41. No.

Global warming is a reality, Pansy......maybe not the apocalyptic, inevitably civilization-ending humanity-killing event as some nuttier people here would put it, but it is still a reality, and one that needs to be dealt with. And also, there's been plenty of studies done on Keystone XL, too: It won't create jobs, nor will it really lower our dependence on foreign oil, because most of it is being exported to China, a country run by criminally insane so-called "Communist"(more like Mussolinian) maniacs, and incompetent boobs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:45 AM

20. This pipeline will leave a stain on America and the politicians that blindly

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:05 AM - Edit history (1)

support it.

From the environmentally damaging tar sand removal; to transporting it over parts of one of the largest aquifers in the world; to getting to avoid taxes in a foreign trade zone in Texas due to loopholes this project is a fucking boondoggle....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:05 AM

22. TransCanada Does Not Have An Emergency Plan In The Event Of A Spill

So to me it is still premature to green light this project. Below is what I posted when it was announced that the Nebraska Governor has given his blessing to the revised route.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=376977

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:22 AM

23. How is it that they come to the conclusion, after this "long-studied project", to move forward with

it. I've heard study after study conclude that not only is this *not* that great of a job creation project, but also that it's dangerous for the environment and none of the oil production will be of benefit to the US. I've heard that the oil, after it is refined in the south, will be shipped overseas. And I've heard that this source of oil, the tar sands, is one of the dirtiest, most polluting sources of energy we could possibly use. Am I wrong? Have I been fooled by environmental extremists hell-bent on an agenda of clean air, water, and land?

With all that, we have "leaders" in this country who somehow come to the conclusion that this pipeline is actually a good thing. How do they justify that to themselves?

I know, it's a rhetorical question. They are congressmen after all. A profession that attracts a disproportionate number of people who couldn't care less how stupid they act as long as they are making money. Assholes. No surprise that Baucus is one of them. He's stretches the meaning of "Democrat" beyond recognition. Seriously, he's no Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:23 AM

24. Now that the election is over

 

let the good times roll!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:32 AM

26. canada should refine their shale oil 'in place' on their wasteland, it's for china anyway!!

It's crazy to pipeline it thousands of miles to a texas refinary!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:39 AM

47. It's not as "crazy" as it sounds to the uninformed.

Petro-chemical refineries take years to design and build from scratch. They don't just have pre-existing designs and modular units waiting to be put in place and built. Every single plant out there is a custom-build.

I'm sure TransCanada didn't see this project as any different than all the other millions of miles of pipelines all throughout this continent, and were expecting a quick design and build to existing refineries. As that hasn't happened, I would suspect some of their executives have wondered why they didn't just build new plants up there and find another route.

However, as I've said already, a route through the Canadian Rockies would have been far costlier and time-consuming than the route they picked through us. There's a lot more to the design, construction, and operation of a pipeline than simply pumping a liquid through some hollow steel cylinders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentauros (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:00 AM

51. canada has miles and miles of wastelands from their shale industry, have 100% domestic needs met,..

They have their own refinaries in Canada, or have china build a refinary= they are the buyers! and can ship refined sludge from the (now open due to global warming) NW passage.

or move that sludge to Alaska ports and existing refinaries. That's closest to the huge russian oil fields anyways.

America also has thousands of miles of existing!! pipelines, no need at all to take the risk of a disaster or build new pipelines.

Someone must be pushing this NEW pipeline and Texas refinary because of personal private profits. Nothing good for America at all and the risk is way to high.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:15 AM

55. Yes, we do have lots of pipelines.

But, they're in use! New pipelines are being designed and built every day for all sorts of products, and, unless you're running either an inert gas, or natural gas through a particular pipeline, it can't be used for crude oil or other liquid products. The pumping needs and pressures are different as are the seals, valves, and steel thicknesses. I know this because I'm in that industry.

And I stand behind my post that TransCanada was expecting an "easy" time for this pipeline and why they didn't build new refineries up there. Design alone for new refineries takes at least two years. Construction takes at least another full year. That's a minimum of three years for a new refinery when they were expecting their pipeline project to last no more than two years, start to finish. Why build new when you can use existing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:20 AM

29. James Hansen of NASA says it's "game over" for the climate

If we build this monstrosity. The amount of carbon that all that refined tar sand oil will put out over the next few decades will single-handedly push us past the point of no return, and ensure that human civilization comes to a crashing end within a century as global temperatures go up 4-6C. Farmlands will be destroyed by drought, wildfires will eat up the forests, the seas will consume the coasts, the oceans will die as they acidify, and humanity will see the worst die-off of our species in our evolutionary history. We are setting into motion the worst mass extinction since the end of the age of dinosaurs.

But fuck that, we could sell that black gold to the Chinese for $100/barrel! WOOOO-WEEEEE!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:27 AM

43. He definitely exaggerated a bit(understatement), though, to be truthful & honest with you.

I mean, come on, we have REAL issues to be concerned about with this, and not some fantastical scenario that sounds like the plot from a bad '80s B-movie(and I say this as a B-Movie aficionado, btw.) or pulp novel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:14 AM

53. Nothing fantastical about it.

We are already past the point of no return on greenhouses gases in the atmosphere.

Every month or so it seems we get a new report of the 'unexpected' acceleration of the impacts of global warming.

The real question is just how this climate change is going to affect us, humans (and we are going to find out).

The Keystone pipeline project and the development of tar sands is also all that you need to verify Peak Oil. The only way this pipeline is viable, just as fracking for shale oil, is that the price per barrel makes it economically feasible. In other words, the cheap oil is indeed running out making unconventionally produced petroleum fiscally viable.

We ain't seen nothin' yet ... it is going to look like a slow motion B-movie (and that's hoping for the slow motion part).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:14 AM

57. .....

Every month or so it seems we get a new report of the 'unexpected' acceleration of the impacts of global warming


You do realize this is a bit of an exaggeration, right(a lot of this does have to do with confirmation bias, btw)? Not only that, but in fact, there's actually been at least a couple of reports I've come across that actually suggest otherwise. Here's a Met Office statement for you, btw:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2013/01/met-office-scale-back-global-w.shtml

And just so you understand, this doesn't undermine the importance of combatting AGW. But we do need to keep cool heads as much as possible; paranoia and gnashing our teeth about the supposedly inevitable "end", never solved anything, TBH; same was true for getting rid of ozone-destroying CFCs, and for combatting air pollution, and the same goes for AGW, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:20 AM

56. Exaggerated? Really?

Is the Sierra Club exaggerating when they say this:
Either we leave at least two-thirds of the known fossil fuel reserves in the ground, or we destroy our planet as we know it. That’s our choice, if you can call it that.

http://ecowatch.org/2013/civil-disobedience-stop-tar-sands/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:19 PM

78. Oh come now

We all know that the credibility of NASA's pointman on global warming, and that of the world's largest environmental protection group, both pale in comparison to the opinion of a single poster on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:24 AM

30. Only as many Democrats as are needed, will participate.

Gotta maintain the illusion of a party working against Big Oil. And we will be encouraged to vent fruitless anger against the villain of the moment. But the villain always changes, and we will never win.

Really, the game is elegantly orchestrated, isn't it?




http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:
....
They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it.
...
The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.


The corporatists who work in both parties are very, very slick at what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:30 AM

33. You need some theme music for your post

I suggest:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:34 AM

34. Yeah, it really is.

As politics has become more and more show, I guess we shouldn't be shocked by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:45 AM

49. +1 Slick and for sale to the highest bidder.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:17 PM

62. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:28 PM

65. It's very frustrating. Government by the corporations, for the corporations. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:52 PM

75. +1000 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:27 AM

32. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:36 AM

35. This seems a good thread to mention the 350.org 2/17 activity:

http://act.350.org/sign
Join the #ForwardOnClimate Rally on 2/17!

At 12 Noon on Sunday, February 17, thousands of Americans will head to Washington, D.C. to make Forward on Climate the largest climate rally in history. Join this historic event to make your voice heard and help the president start his second term with strong climate action.up/presidentsday
The first step to putting our country on the path to addressing the climate crisis is for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:44 AM

48. I live in VA. Just submitted comments to Mark Warner's office. Can't stand him

 

and don't consider him a Democrat no matter what he calls himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:57 AM

50. Sierra Club to Engage in Civil Disobedience for First Time in Org’s History to Stop Tar Sands

I received this email yesterday...the push is on. I doubt Kerry would approve it so they're trying to get it through while Hillary's still SoS. (You have to get SoS to sign off on the deal since it crosses international borders.) I guess we'll see soon enough if Obama is truly committed to cleaner energies and cutting carbon emissions. So far, he gets an F among environmental groups.

Next month, the Sierra Club will officially participate in an act of peaceful civil resistance. We’ll be following in the hallowed footsteps of Thoreau, who first articulated the principles of civil disobedience 44 years before John Muir founded the Sierra Club.

Some of you might wonder what took us so long. Others might wonder whether John Muir is sitting up in his grave. In fact, John Muir had both a deep appreciation for Thoreau and a powerful sense of right and wrong. And it’s the issue of right versus wrong that has brought the Sierra Club to this unprecedented decision.

For civil disobedience to be justified, something must be so wrong that it compels the strongest defensible protest. Such a protest, if rendered thoughtfully and peacefully, is in fact a profound act of patriotism. For Thoreau, the wrongs were slavery and the invasion of Mexico. For Martin Luther King, Jr., it was the brutal, institutionalized racism of the Jim Crow South. For us, it is the possibility that the U.S. might surrender any hope of stabilizing our planet’s climate.

As President Obama eloquently said during his inaugural address, “You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time, not only with the votes we cast, but the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideas.”

As citizens, for us to give up on stopping runaway global temperatures would be all the more tragic if it happened at the very moment when we are seeing both tremendous growth in clean energy and firsthand evidence of what extreme weather can do. Last year, record heat and drought across the nation wiped out half of our corn crop and 60 percent of our pasturelands. Wildfires in Colorado, Texas, and elsewhere burned nearly nine million acres. And superstorm Sandy brought devastation beyond anyone’s imagining to the Eastern Seaboard.

We are watching a global crisis unfold before our eyes, and to stand aside and let it happen—even though we know how to stop it—would be unconscionable. As the president said on Monday, “to do so would betray our children and future generations.” It couldn’t be simpler: Either we leave at least two-thirds of the known fossil fuel reserves in the ground, or we destroy our planet as we know it. That’s our choice, if you can call it that.

That means rejecting the dangerous tar sands pipeline that would transport some of the dirtiest oil on the planet, and other reckless fossil fuel projects from Northwest coal exports to Arctic drilling. It means following through on his pledge to double down again on clean energy, and cut carbon pollution from smokestacks across the country. And, perhaps most of all, it means standing up to the fossil fuel corporations that would drive us over the climate cliff without so much as a backward glance.

http://ecowatch.org/2013/civil-disobedience-stop-tar-sands/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:28 AM

58. Good. Let's create some jobs.

I trust President Obama's administration to ensure that the project is environmentally safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:57 PM

64. Will their bribes..er..campaign contributions..be delivered in brown paper bags?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:37 PM

66. I can't wait to see how many more are going to lose their property through "eminent domain"

All these "less government" dummies who voted for the repugs and these corporate Democrats are going to be in for a big surprise when TransCanada Corp. decides to send that pipeline through THEIR property. It won't be their property for much longer. It's already happening:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/transcanada-in-eminent-domain-fight-over-pipeline.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoCubsGo (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:45 PM

69. Excellent article! Thanks

I read an article by a guy who hiked the pipeline and he said most US landowners he talked to were opposed to it but because of eminent
domain they feel like it's inevitable and unstoppable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:23 PM

68. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:02 PM

71. Kick. With this, and with the defeat of filibuster reform,

we got a very clear view this week of what we are *really* dealing with.

The party that claims to represent us is working for the one percent just as surely as are corporate Republicans. Corporate Democrats are repeatedly, deliberately complicit in furthering the agenda of the one percent.

They play us like fools.

It's well past time to argue over *whether* it is happening, and instead figure out what we are going to do about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:35 PM

73. I'm just not rich or naive enough to keep playing along

I'm also cursed with a great memory. 2000 seems like only yesterday and I remember everything.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandiFan1290 (Reply #73)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 09:05 PM

81. Yup. Here, too.

I have always said that the biggest problem corporate Democrats face (and corporate Republicans, too) is convincing the country that what they see with their own eyes and experience in their own lives, isn't really happening.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
And the chained CPI will certainly increase the chocolate ration...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:51 PM

74. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:34 PM

77. Too bad they can't be successfully 3rd partied. If "the Left" had coalesced instead of balkanizing

individual issues around playing revolution with Right Winger Obamaphobiacs, maybe there'd be enough of an authentic Left constituency now to be of consequence to Obama in re his response to this XL push. I'm not sure we matter now that the vote is done.

Issues are used to leverage for and against other issues in Congress, so XL is going up against at minimum tax reform, health care, and the right to organize, so I'm not feeling real hopeful especially with talk of alliance between MoveOn and the Tea Party, which may account for what was apparently not enough of a response from what calls itself "the Left" to support the possibility of a talking filibuster to convince Harry Reid to go for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 09:19 AM

79. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 03:54 PM

80. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:07 PM

82. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:34 PM

83. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread