Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

laundry_queen

(8,646 posts)

25. The bands beg to differ

Reply to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #24)

Sat Feb 23, 2013, 10:34 AM

Feb 2013

a large portion of them insist those are not revenue sharing deals. And a few have decided to go to court to stop deals, especially after new band elections.

And with that I'm done...since you are clearly on the pro oil side, which is also the side republicans and pro-corp dems take. I have no further interest in discussing this. 'Beneficial' as it may be to industry and provincial, state and federal coffers, it's a continued disaster for the environment. Long past time to get serious about alternatives.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

27 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy [View all] ashling Feb 2013 OP

That makes no sense at all. dkf Feb 2013 #1

Instead of exporting a finished product laundry_queen Feb 2013 #5

I highly doubt the OP likes the idea of building more refineries. dkf Feb 2013 #6

And I highly doubt your question was sincere. laundry_queen Feb 2013 #7

I absolutely believe the pipeline will create jobs. dkf Feb 2013 #11

Well, I agree with you on one thing laundry_queen Feb 2013 #15

Because Western Canada and the border states don't really need any more refined product, Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #9

Yes, weren't they wondering how they would get what they needed there in the first place? dkf Feb 2013 #12

Look laundry_queen Feb 2013 #14

Do you have any idea what it would cost to replace the gulf coast refining capacity? Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #17

OH, well, certainly I'll take your word for that. laundry_queen Feb 2013 #18

Just like i'm suposed to take your word for it? Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #19

Because it's more of a hassle to go over the Rockies. laundry_queen Feb 2013 #20

There are already three pipeline systems crossing the Canadian Rockies Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #22

Please tell me how many laundry_queen Feb 2013 #23

The agreements that have been signed are for revenue sharing Sen. Walter Sobchak Feb 2013 #24

The bands beg to differ laundry_queen Feb 2013 #25

"Hey, why aren't we refining this stuff here? ... oldhippie Feb 2013 #27

Obviously haven't read the article ashling Feb 2013 #10

+1 think Feb 2013 #26

Complete insanity. I hate it! patrice Feb 2013 #2

Monkey wrench mwrguy Feb 2013 #3

You don't quite need to be worried about a supposed total climate "apocalypse" to realize..... AverageJoe90 Feb 2013 #4

A pipeline is just a short term employment generator jambo101 Feb 2013 #8

He doesn't mention that as tar sand, it does not get taxed. Festivito Feb 2013 #13

Yep. Good point. nt laundry_queen Feb 2013 #21

That is one butt ugly pipeline tormenting the face of the Mother Earth Berlum Feb 2013 #16