It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Not sure if this is the right place. Please move if necessary. I want to believe it's politics that's drove Obama's decision to reject the pipeline.


President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports. Read the article for more....


Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline Article

Some agree and some disagree with the decision Obama has made. I for one disagree because this pipeline could bring so many needed jobs to the United States.

Because of the 100s of thousands of jobs this pipeline can create, which is tax dollars in the government's pocket, if it's not a polictical decision, then what drove Obama to make the decision to reject it?




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Maybe because it's going to be cheaper when they invade Iran?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I agree with obama for once. yes it would create alot of jobs but these would only be temporary as people are needed to build said pipeline. and its a safe bet that once its constructed 95% of the "new jobs" will be gone. not to mention the environmental damage potential from this pipe line.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
He's got to play to his rich environmentalist backers(I.E. see reply above)...
edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
He rejected it because he hates the energy companies......pure and simple. He set out (outlined in his book) to take down coal....oil I think is just a bonus.

Get ready for 5 bucks a gallon.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by KnightFire
 


Agreed, I think the jobs it would create are crucially needed at this point. It's like he's systematically pushing the US to be a third world country, ruining our economy, no jobs, unemployment is soaring, downgraded economy ratings, killing jobs by not doing the pipeline, what next?
edit on 20-1-2012 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mileslong54
reply to post by KnightFire
 


Agree, I think the jobs it would create are crucially needed at this point. It's like he's systematically pushing the US to be a third world country, ruining our economy, no jobs, unemployment is soaring, downgraded economy ratings, killing jobs by not doing the pipeline, what next?

Whats next?
I'm seriously thinking of moving to Belize that's what's next for me


You libs can have the third world self-flagellating( "self- loathing")nanny state crap hole you've turned this country into...
edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Yep.

We sold half our Oil Sands to China 2 months ago..



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   


Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still “entirely possible” the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again.

Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.

“We strongly believe that Keystone’s in the best interests of both countries,” he said. “We’ll continue to be an active supporter of the project.”


They'll find another, less environmentally damaging route to build the pipeline. Oil is not the only way to create jobs. Rebuilding old bridges and roads would be better for the country. Investment in clean energy and American tech companies creates jobs. Also, there are studies that show the jobs created by the pipeline would be way less 100,00.

Why do Republicans always say if we don't do x China will get y as a threat when they want something done? Who is outsourcing all of our jobs?



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnightFire
Because of the 100s of thousands of jobs this pipeline can create


Quick correction: It's millions of jobs. (No seriously)




posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Throwback


Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still “entirely possible” the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again.

Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.

“We strongly believe that Keystone’s in the best interests of both countries,” he said. “We’ll continue to be an active supporter of the project.”


They'll find another, less environmentally damaging route to build the pipeline. Oil is not the only way to create jobs. Rebuilding old bridges and roads would be better for the country. Investment in clean energy and American tech companies creates jobs. Also, there are studies that show the jobs created by the pipeline would be way less 100,00.

Why do Republicans always say if we don't do x China will get y as a threat when they want something done? Who is outsourcing all of our jobs?


Actually it wasn't the US that mentioned China, it was Canada. We have to sell it to someone, gave you first crack, you didn't want it, so now we see if China does.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Why are we depending on tar sand oil anyway which is the crudest and hardest to refine out of all petro sources? When has adding new jobs become more important then not poisoning the land and water (both ours and Canada's) and wouldn't it kill off other jobs as well (farmers for instance)? Are people still questioning Peak Oil and what it means to our "economy"? Why continue to support a dying industry to the point of going to war with other nations (chancing WW3) and defecating on our own backyard (eco-cide) while rigorously objecting to any funding towards finding or modifying cleaner renewable energy? All of this while knowing that oil and other fossil fuels not only destroy our environment (what we need to survive) but are also finite and due to reach peak anyway (if it hasn't already).
edit on 20-1-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


The Chinese do not own the Olisands, they bought Conoco Phillips share of Syncrude, in reallity there are numerous forien investors in the oilsands, US,French,British,Chinese,Thai,Korean,Norweigion.....................

Go Oilers Go



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by QuadroClip
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


The Chinese do not own the Olisands, they bought Conoco Phillips share of Syncrude, in reallity there are numerous forien investors in the oilsands, US,French,British,Chinese,Thai,Korean,Norweigion.....................

Go Oilers Go


No, it's a Joint Venture now.

Oilers suck. 30th place.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I for one oppose the pipeline, sure it will create a few good paying jobs but its STEALS peoples land this is totally unacceptable.
www.nytimes.com...

If the government has to confiscate private land to put in this pipeline then its not worth it. I dont know the logic of supporting such a silly idea. People work their entire lives to be able to purchase property and the government should not have any right to just take it away and give them fair market value. If the owners wanted to sell fine but what gives the US government the right to force anyone to sell their property? Its my land i choose what to do with it keep it or sell it its my choice not anyone else's.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by KnightFire
 


I for one am all for drilling for oil or using the Oil sands especially when it is land based. There seems to me to many pseudo environmentalists out there who actually espouse a “Not in my Backyard” mentality. They just use environmentalism as their excuse.

Would a spill be extremely damaging to the environment? To a degree, yes.

But seeing that the pipeline is all based upon the land, a response can be mounted much faster and more effectively than an off-shore drilling rig as the BP Gulf spill illustrates.

There is also the matter of hands on maintenance, rather than depending upon robotics.

The POTUS is using this as a political tactic. It doesn’t fit within his agenda of having the citizens depend upon the Government, rather than the people earning an honest wage for an honest day’s work. That scares them as it takes power away and returns it to the individual.

By refusing this pipeline, Obama is killing jobs, sinking money into failing “Green energy” businesses and increasing the cost to conduct life on the backs of the US citizen.

Now, other countries will be the main beneficiary of that pipeline.

I wonder how much the people will hoop and holler when they get hit with their heating bills and the cost at the pump two years from now? Especially when we currently have the chance to negate that pain now.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 


Why can't the companies installing the pipeline lease the land, rather than imminent domain? Communications companies do that all the time.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Immune
 


Why can't the companies installing the pipeline lease the land, rather than imminent domain? Communications companies do that all the time.


This site seems to have some good information and some answers to many questions.

Nebraskans for Jobs & Energy Independence


Fiction: Keystone XL has been bullying landowners.

Fact: That is not how TransCanada does business. Keystone XL extends TransCanada's commitment to treat landowners with respect and work with them in good faith. That commitment is reflected in the fact that we have successfully reached easement agreements with more than 80% of landowners on the route in Texas (as of February 2011). In addition, we have currently negotiated agreements with almost 93% of landowners who own/control almost 90% of the tracts of land along the entire pipeline route.
During our 60-year history of safely meeting American's energy needs, we have developed positive relationships with more than 40,000 landowners in North America. We meet face-to-face with landowners to understand their specific needs and address their concerns. We work hard to be a good neighbor.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KnightFire

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Immune
 


Why can't the companies installing the pipeline lease the land, rather than imminent domain? Communications companies do that all the time.


This site seems to have some good information and some answers to many questions.

Nebraskans for Jobs & Energy Independence


Fiction: Keystone XL has been bullying landowners.

Fact: That is not how TransCanada does business. Keystone XL extends TransCanada's commitment to treat landowners with respect and work with them in good faith. That commitment is reflected in the fact that we have successfully reached easement agreements with more than 80% of landowners on the route in Texas (as of February 2011). In addition, we have currently negotiated agreements with almost 93% of landowners who own/control almost 90% of the tracts of land along the entire pipeline route.
During our 60-year history of safely meeting American's energy needs, we have developed positive relationships with more than 40,000 landowners in North America. We meet face-to-face with landowners to understand their specific needs and address their concerns. We work hard to be a good neighbor.


There are those who will read that statement and say what a load of BS. The fact is, there are companies out there who do care what their customers think and abide by the rule of, “The customer is always right.”

If I owned land that the pipeline was proposed to pass through, I would lease in a heartbeat. It’s a gamble of course, as it may be my land that has a break in the pipe. But if leasing provided extra income for me and my family, that is a risk I would gladly take.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by KnightFire

Originally posted by TDawgRex
reply to post by Immune
 


Why can't the companies installing the pipeline lease the land, rather than imminent domain? Communications companies do that all the time.


This site seems to have some good information and some answers to many questions.

Nebraskans for Jobs & Energy Independence


Fiction: Keystone XL has been bullying landowners.

Fact: That is not how TransCanada does business. Keystone XL extends TransCanada's commitment to treat landowners with respect and work with them in good faith. That commitment is reflected in the fact that we have successfully reached easement agreements with more than 80% of landowners on the route in Texas (as of February 2011). In addition, we have currently negotiated agreements with almost 93% of landowners who own/control almost 90% of the tracts of land along the entire pipeline route.
During our 60-year history of safely meeting American's energy needs, we have developed positive relationships with more than 40,000 landowners in North America. We meet face-to-face with landowners to understand their specific needs and address their concerns. We work hard to be a good neighbor.


There are those who will read that statement and say what a load of BS. The fact is, there are companies out there who do care what their customers think and abide by the rule of, “The customer is always right.”

If I owned land that the pipeline was proposed to pass through, I would lease in a heartbeat. It’s a gamble of course, as it may be my land that has a break in the pipe. But if leasing provided extra income for me and my family, that is a risk I would gladly take.


I agree as I would lease out my property too. The pipeline will be underground, which means the land can still be farmed and more than one income could come out of it.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join