Posted on 09/12/2011 7:59:14 PM PDT by neverdem
11. The Canadian government is laying plans for a pipeline to the Pacific coast. If the USA does not want the oil, it will be exported to other countries. Canceling the USA part of the pipeline will not shut down the oil sands production.
No. The USA can’t afford for him to oppose it, which is why he just might. When was the FIRST time he did ANYTHING for the good of this country? Tick. Tick. Tick. bzzzt. Time is up....
It is in the bamster’s genetic makeup to oppose anything that benefits the USA. He is a totally evil SOB.
Well,, those SEEM to be pretty compelling reasons. But on the other hand, Daryl Hannah is against it,,and she DID play a mermaid in a movie in the 80s.
This article and its author assumes that Obama does not want to destroy this country. He does.
Transcript: Sarah Palin's Iowa speech [Sept. 4, 2011] Grand Slam!
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the ping!
It warms my heart when Communist idiots are arrested. Too bad there's a catch-and-release policy for them.
McKibben was on a PBS news broadcast a week or so ago giving his foolish opinions on the matter, which boiled down to a) approving the pipeline will destroy the Earth, and b) this pipeline must not be approved because lots of Commies are willing to go to jail to make a political statement. Yet the PBS anchor somehow seemed to think that McKibben had legitimate points to make.
Obama will go along with it, at least for now, because he has little choice but to pretend that he has America's best interests at heart, but if he is re-elected (heaven forbid), he will find a way to stop it.
*
Bingo, we have a winner!
You’re right. 0bama can do plenty of things to prevent this from coming to fruition.
It is in the bamster’s genetic makeup to oppose anything that benefits the USA. He is a totally evil SOB.
You sound exactly like me.
0bama is one evil bastard.
Is it small wonder why both India and China are aggressively pursuing this technology? LFTR's promise a huge leap up in electricity generated without the air pollution and CO2 emission problems caused by burning coal--and unlike uranium-based reactors, LFTR's need way less thorium to generate the same amount of power per reactor.
Does anyone know a good reason why a refinery is not being built or proposed “up there” close to the Canadian border? Yes, the usual enviro reasons, but roughly the same reasons exist against the pipeline as currently planned. And the leadtime would be roughly equivalent.
From the political perspective in which James Hansen espouses his global warming BS, the term “climate scientist” is certainly oxymoronic in character.
I think he cares more about destroying the country than he does about being re-elected. He is first and foremost an America hating socialist.
PBS' News Hour is a shell of its former self.
Actually, we (Canadians) don't even have to have a pipeline in place. It happens that we have plenty of excess rail capacity to ship oil from Alberta to the B.C. coast. Of course, we have our own envrio-fascists, and they adamantly oppose both a pipeline to the coast, and tanker traffic from the coast. Rail shipment would get around the pipeline problem — but, building a tanker port would be more problematic. If it became a strategic issue for Canada (if, for instance, the U.S. stopped buying oil from the oil sands); it's likely that political opinion would swing, to favour shipping the oil to China by tanker.
BTW, Ronald Reagan secured guaranteed access to Canada's energy resources, through NAFTA. That access was the price the U.S. demanded for the deal. Canada can only cut supplies to the U.S. in proportion to what we cut back for our own domestic market. Unless, that is, the U.S. cuts back demand first. Then that new, lower, amount becomes the baseline. If you stopped buying oil-sands oil from us, we would be under no further future obligation to sell it to you. The U.S. would have to wait in line behind China, or any other new customers. That is just the way it is — it's not a scenario I want to see play out.
Here are links to a couple of articles about the rail shipment option:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/09/07/general-energy-nd-oil-pipeline-rail_8663353.html
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.