Hussein, Berkshire Hathoway, Keystone Pipeline
) environmentalists were on board.As Hustly pointed out, normally this sort of thing does not have a hard limit like was set by the Republicans. My cynical side believes that it was done intentionally to set Obama up for bad press - it's the only thing that explains the rather strange oddities surrounding this situation. Yet more political tit for tat that benefits no one, in other words.
Once I see Newt denounce what he did and actually practice what he preaches, hey, Newt is golden in my book. Or maybe you are okay with hypocrisy? Just sayin', bro. I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul not because of his policies, but because he does what he says and he has remained consistent throughout his political carreer. I despise Romney and Newt for the same reason.
Last edited by blaen99; Jan 25, 2012 at 05:33 AM.
Reply
0
0
"The Keystone pipeline received State Department approval on March 17, 2008, and began commercial operation in June 2010." To clarify, the main pipeline system that runs from Canada into the US already exists. Unconventional oil, gas and NGL plays have become more economical with advancing technology so that drilling and E&P has advanced rapidly in certain areas.
However, because many of the producers are smaller, they are not really capable of making a ~20-year investment in infrastructure so major pipelines and pipeline expansions have not kept up. The political process does not help.
Holy beauracracy:
That's in addition to the State Department which acts as a delegate for the President, who has ultimate sign-off.
This has been in the works for a while and has been politicized the entire time.
That quote said nothing about the Sierra Club supporting the actual completion of the pipeline. Most of the environmental groups are opposed to the use and expansion of tar sands-derived oil. Most would prefer less access to oil, to force a change from a petroleum-based economy and society. The pipeline expansion represents more access to oil and potentially lower costs.
However, because many of the producers are smaller, they are not really capable of making a ~20-year investment in infrastructure so major pipelines and pipeline expansions have not kept up. The political process does not help.
Holy beauracracy:
Cooperating agencies for the Keystone XL project are the:
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
- Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS)
- the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
- National Park Service
- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency
- Natural Resources Conservation Service
- Rural Utilities Service
- the Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Administration
- and state environmental agencies.
The State Department released its Draft EIS for the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline project for public comment on April 16, 2010.28 The Draft EIS identified TransCanada’s “preferred alternative” (Figure 1) for the project as well as other alternatives considered. On July 16, 2010, EPA rated the Draft EIS “Inadequate.”29 EPA found that potentially significant impacts were not evaluated and that the additional information and analysis needed was of such importance that the Draft EIS would need to be formally revised and again made available for public review.
Additional criticism of the State Department’s implementation of the NEPA process followed an October 21, 2010, statement by Secretary Clinton that, while analysis of the project was not complete and a final decision had not been made, the State Department was “inclined to” approve the project.30 Critics of the project, including some Members of Congress, stated that the Secretary’s statement appeared to prejudge its permit approval for the pipeline proposal as a foregone conclusion.
Additional criticism of the State Department’s implementation of the NEPA process followed an October 21, 2010, statement by Secretary Clinton that, while analysis of the project was not complete and a final decision had not been made, the State Department was “inclined to” approve the project.30 Critics of the project, including some Members of Congress, stated that the Secretary’s statement appeared to prejudge its permit approval for the pipeline proposal as a foregone conclusion.
That quote said nothing about the Sierra Club supporting the actual completion of the pipeline. Most of the environmental groups are opposed to the use and expansion of tar sands-derived oil. Most would prefer less access to oil, to force a change from a petroleum-based economy and society. The pipeline expansion represents more access to oil and potentially lower costs.
Last edited by Scrappy Jack; Jan 25, 2012 at 09:37 AM.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Twenty thousand jobs is really not that many jobs and investing in green technologies will produce that and more. But I’ll tell you what, you know it seems to me that the Republicans would rather have an issue than a pipeline.
How's that Chevy Volt doing again? Solyndra? All the jobs GE sent to China over light bulbs?
Not only is 20,000 jobs a lot, it also has an effect on: Uniform Laundering Services, Banking Services, Food Services, Transportation Services, Day Care Services, Construction Services, Window Cleaning Services, Decorating Services, Vendor Services, etc. Not to mention Grocery Stores, Retail Shops, Car Repair Shops, Health Insurance Companies, Gyms, Restaurants, Private Schools, etc.
Reply
0
0
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Quality Control Bot
General Miata Chat
8
Aug 28, 2008 09:45 PM
MazDilla
Insert BS here
29
Jun 13, 2008 09:20 AM
