Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. State Department defends Hillary Clinton remarks endorsing Canadian (dirty oil) pipeline
People's Daily Online ^ | 10/22/10

Posted on 10/23/2010 9:23:35 AM PDT by Libloather

U.S. State Department defends Clinton remarks endorsing Canadian pipeline
09:39, October 22, 2010

U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner on Thursday defended his boss, State Secretary Hillary Clinton, on her remarks signaling support for the multi-billion- dollar pipeline project that carries Canadian oil to U.S. Gulf coast.

Toner said that Clinton also emphasized the U.S. need for cleaner energy resources while she said last week that she was " inclined" to back the project.

The 2,673-km Keystone XL pipeline would bring oil from tar sands of Canada's Alberta to refineries in Texas.

"But until that time, we need, frankly, to find energy sources in other areas as well, be they clean or dirty, and her words stand," said Toner.

Clinton's remarks stirred some controversy. Mike Johanns, senator from Nebraska where the pipeline would traverse, pushed back, calling her comment "premature." Numerous politicians from Nebraska demanded a thorough study of environmental impacts that the pipeline will have on the state's Sandhills and the Ogallala Aquifer.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; clinton; oil; pipeline
Senators demand explanation for Hillary Clinton’s remarks (on oil pipeline)

Sierra Club Calls on Hillary Clinton to Weigh Risks of Toxic Pipeline to Farms, Water, Air

1 posted on 10/23/2010 9:23:39 AM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
This looks like an extension of the already existing Keystone pipeline. I imagine the operational records from it should give some idea of the slim risk posed by the extension.


2 posted on 10/23/2010 9:50:23 AM PDT by epithermal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The question we should be asking "How much is she and Bill going to get from this?"


3 posted on 10/23/2010 9:56:34 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Lets get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
U.S. State Department defends Hillary Clinton remarks endorsing Canadian (dirty oil) pipeline

To all liberals, all oil is "dirty".

Electricity, though, is "clean" -- because it comes out of the wall plug.

4 posted on 10/23/2010 10:02:59 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance on Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The 2,673-km Keystone XL pipeline would bring oil from tar sands of Canada's Alberta to refineries in Texas.

Forget the polar bears and caribou, what about the prairie dogs and the "endangered" Texas prairie chicken (Mike Nesmith)? The herds of prairie dogs and prairie chickens will be decimated across the fruited plain due to their inability to copulate because of the pipeline running through their bedrooms.

sarc/

5 posted on 10/23/2010 10:10:07 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Which are you voting for on November 2nd? Freedom and liberty or FREE ice cream?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
We could then connect the Green River Formation oil project and it's 1 TRILLION barrels of recoverable oil to the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Green River pipeline would run about 883.34 miles from near Salt Lake to somewhere near Lincoln, NE. next to the alraedy I80 Interstate.
6 posted on 10/23/2010 10:14:18 AM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
There is no tar in the Alberta oilsands.
7 posted on 10/23/2010 10:25:47 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

When I was growing up on the prairie, they were referred to as “The TAR Sands”.

YOMV, but I’m natural born Albertan, and remember such trivia.


8 posted on 10/23/2010 7:55:47 PM PDT by Don W (I keep some folks' numbers in my 'phone just so I know NOT to answer when they call...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


9 posted on 10/23/2010 8:41:16 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don W
True — but, today only self-anointed environmentalists, out to shut down production, refer to them as “tar-sands”. You can tell the slant of any article on the topic, simply by what the author calls them.

There is tar in the region — on roofs, and in the cigarette butts in ashtrays. The stuff they're going to ship in the pipeline isn't tar.

10 posted on 10/24/2010 12:20:43 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA; Don W; epithermal
There is no tar in the Alberta oilsands.

Fine...

how about "...crude bitumen, which has many of the properties of tar but contains more toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than tar (which is higher in phenolics), ..."


That would, of course, be more technically correct and would eliminate the use of the technically incorrect colloquial "tar" in the sentence. I just fail to understand why calling it tar rather than bitumen is somehow bad politically.

11 posted on 10/24/2010 7:14:58 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Some interesting insights into the politics of the pipeline in this paper:

“Editorial, 10/24: Hillary Clinton undermines Keystone XL pipeline approval”

http://journalstar.com/news/local/article_2ca64efe-dc9a-11df-a210-001cc4c03286.html


12 posted on 10/24/2010 8:56:54 AM PDT by epithermal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

“I just fail to understand why calling it tar rather than bitumen is somehow bad politically.”

It’s one of those “strange but true” things. “Tar” is the moniker of choice of the “environmentalists”, who want to shut down the operation. Apparently, “tar” has more negative connotations than “oil”. The industry, their supporters, and most disinterested bystanders call them “oil sands”.

As I said, you don’t need to read further than the label used; to tell what slant the article has.


13 posted on 10/24/2010 9:52:34 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
As I said, you don’t need to read further than the label used; to tell what slant the article has.

It's from Xinhua, so it might just be translation. Or it might be style, "oil" is used in the sentence right before it. Or it might be intentional slant. Xinhua doesn't tend to be environmentalist in slant.

14 posted on 10/24/2010 10:15:50 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
“It's from Xinhua, so it might just be translation.”

True enough — you can't tell the original author's slant from a translation. Otherwise: “tar” = opponent; “oil” = neutral to supporter.

BTW, it would suit China's interest just fine; if the U.S. refused to take any more oil from the oil-sands. That would spur on the building of the pipeline across the Rockies to a new west-coast tanker port — whence the oil would be shipped to China.

15 posted on 10/24/2010 10:36:56 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
There is no tar in the Alberta oilsands.

You know more about it than I do. Say, maybe Canada has a SHORTAGE of tar and the US is pumping it up there!

Proposed oil tar pipeline loses support

16 posted on 10/24/2010 10:58:04 AM PDT by Libloather (Teapublican, PROUD birther, mobster, pro-lifer, anti-warmer, enemy of the state, extremist....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

Pretty funny. At least the headline writer didn’t think it was a “sand” pipeline.


17 posted on 10/24/2010 11:05:13 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson