Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit


"This is not good for our country," Boehner said. "The president wants to put this off until it's convenient for him to make a decision. ... The president's got an opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs almost immediately. The president should say yes."

Is this even possible??? Instead of creating jobs, lets outsource the only "shovel ready jobs" there were.

How can someone favor environmentalist groups (no matter how much donations he gets from them) over well being of the country?

===============

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/industry-source-state-department-will-reject-keystone-pipeline-reroute/
 
Solution
No
If someone says, we need to strengthen our infrastructure, then what exacly is that?
If its wind, solar etc etc, no problem then?
No gas, who cares about bridges?
Whos going to be responsible for 5$ a gallon gas this summer? You think people wont remember this?
BP, and what happened there wont happen on land for one, its alot easier, its just the distance, also, any overseer can actually see whats going on, as they dont actually do much diving, do they?
For some reason, its still a race to the bottom here, not sure why, but lifting the economy doesnt seem to be priority one here, and giving monies to the likes of Solyndra, which was predicted to fail within a few weeks of its actual failing, several years prior, he spent that money...


DING! This is the truth of the matter, regardless of how you dice it up; oil money, lubing up congress, will get it's way.


:lol:

I'm not sure what you meant by this but it's hard to look at it with any seriousness.

Wip99gt, don't bring hybrids into this, it's a total straw man and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Any person who has a clue about the tech knows that the battery production is just as, if not more, toxic than petroleum driven vehicles.

However I totally agree with your last statement and have to share this:
deadpoliticians.jpg


OMG, that is entirely debatable considering that Canada is already selling their oil to China, with no stipulations on the trade. I found this out from a friend of mine up in BC and had no idea on the quantities being shipped over, so really, Trans Canada just stands to make more money plain and simple.

Now to take the benefit of the doubt, let's say that this pipeline actually does create more jobs but we'll stay on the conservative end and say 10,000, which is still heavily inflated. That means it would only actually effect unemployment number by less than 1%. I know every little bit helps, and I'll concede that, but it just stands to make the rich richer, nothing new, nothing truly gained.

Ars talks about the fact that nothing is going to change any time soon (in prices), regardless of what discoveries are made, because "peak oil" has already happened, it comes more down to what reserves are economically viable:
"We are not running out of oil," the authors argue, "but we are running out of oil that can be produced easily and cheaply." This creates significant delays before any of the new reserves can be tapped, and it limits the amount of oil that can be economically extracted from them.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/weve-hit-peak-oil-now-comes-permanent-price-volatility.ars

I also dug up a couple cartoons that caught my eye as of late, this one from politico:

anger_management_big_oil_teacher_pension.png


This one from NPR, although originally on politico:
wuerkerkeystone_custom.jpg


They speak for themselves. :)

Oh, and this is directly from the Washington Post link that Wanamingo posted:
A TransCanada statement Sept. 30 said the project would be “stimulating over 14,400 person years of employment” in Oklahoma alone. It cited a study by Ray Perryman, a Texas-based consultant to TransCanada, saying the pipeline would create “250,000 permanent jobs for U.S. workers.”

But Perryman was including a vast number of jobs far removed from the industry. Using that technique in a report on the impact of wind farms, Perryman counted jobs for dancers, choreographers and speech therapists.

Garbage in, garbage out.



PS
Wanamingo that Cornell University link actually takes us to Urban Outfitters, can you correct that as I'd like to read it. Thanks man!
 
Yeah I did get a little out of topic with the hybrid car thing. My neighbors always brag about theirs so it's always in the back of my mind.
How the hell to they get 250,000 jobs out of a pipeline and a couple of refineries? I don't understand how someone could even say that with a straight face. I do see a realistic 10 to 15k jobs out of it. I don't think that many would be permanent though.
It's disgusting to see the actual profits of the oil companies and also the amount the oil sands projects are subsidized by the feds. I like the first comic because it's been in the news up here about members of parliament pensions. The country puts in about $23 per every one the politician puts in. I wish I got even a 1/4 of that for mine.