Obama Kills Keystone XL

Dr. Evil Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:31 am

Obama points to environmental factors in his decision, but our current glut of oil makes all this pipeline hub-bub seem pretty silly. As I've said for some time, why would we pump Canadian oil when we have our own to pump? Now that we have our own pumpers suffering the wrath of cheap oil, why would we promote the Canadian oil industry? This really brings into focus the lack of thought put into this political albatross.

Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/index.html

Clicker Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:34 am

Dr. Jones wrote:Obama points to environmental factors in his decision, but our current glut of oil makes all this pipeline hub-bub seem pretty silly. As I've said for some time, why would we pump Canadian oil when we have our own to pump? Now that we have our own pumpers suffering the wrath of cheap oil, why would we promote the Canadian oil industry? This really brings into focus the lack of thought put into this political albatross.

The albatross in this case is BarryO. Short sighted thinking being touted as the long view is a major failing of the Liberals in charge. The decision to kick the keystone can down the road is a safe one now that the empty suit has Canadian allies in govt. He now thinks there will be no backlash from Canada. He may have simply succeeded in causing the Looney libs in Canada to be short lived in office.
Every winter I spend a lot of time in Southern Arizona and California and a neighbor heads for South Texas. We both have a lot of contact with Canadian Snowbirds and hear the angst over the Liberals in govt there. This year I expect I'll have to hear a lot more of it!!!!!!!!!!

The short view is that there is an oil glut but the industry is mercurial and supply and demand loks like a rollercoaster over the years. Keystone will even out those wild gyrations and give both us and Canada a market for out oil product. It's just a matter of time and it'll get done................

Gomezz Adddams Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:48 am

Dr. Jones wrote:Obama points to environmental factors in his decision, but our current glut of oil makes all this pipeline hub-bub seem pretty silly. As I've said for some time, why would we pump Canadian oil when we have our own to pump? Now that we have our own pumpers suffering the wrath of cheap oil, why would we promote the Canadian oil industry? This really brings into focus the lack of thought put into this political albatross.

Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/index.html

The "current glut" of oil didn't exist in 2008 when the permitting process for KeystoneXL began. In fact in 2008, US oil production was on par with levels not seen since 1947. it took only two years for the original Keystone pipeline (which also crosses international borders) to be permitted and Keystone XL was slated to go online in 2012 when domestic oil production was on par with 1953 production.

Said "glut" has come about through evil capitalist's development of fracking technologies which has allowed US oil production to soar because of North Dakota and Texas oil fields, threatening OPEC and the Saudis causing them to open wide their wells. Of course this doesn't stop O'Clowna from claiming credit where credit isn't due because the vast majority of US production increases have come about on privately owned land.

Canada represents 43% of our oil imports. Why shouldn't we import additional oil from a trusted ally over pipelines covering close, safe and protected territory? Besides, most of XL oil would have only replaced other imports of heavy oil coming from asshole countries like Venezuela and diminishing oil feedstocks from Mexico.

Of course XL pipeline detractors like yourself and O'Clowna have had an end run called on you. Enbridge Energy has increased their capacity of their cross-border Alberta Clipper pipeline with an expansion of capacity by replacing older pipe with 17 miles of new 34" pipe. With the use of inter-connecting pipelines, Enbridge will double the capacity of the Clipper to 800,00 barrels a day, all allowed under the existing presidential permit. 800,00 barrels per day was what XL was projected to pump. Canada will now have 1.7 million barrels of pipeline capacity. cheers

Also look for an increase in unit trains coming out of Canada as more oil will be moved by rail, although not as safely as by pipeline and ironically increases the carbon footprint of Canadian oil, the very thing O'Clowna is claiming he'll decrease by rejecting Keystone XL. Suspect

Dr. Evil Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:16 pm

="Gomezz Adddams"]
Dr. Jones wrote:Obama points to environmental factors in his decision, but our current glut of oil makes all this pipeline hub-bub seem pretty silly. As I've said for some time, why would we pump Canadian oil when we have our own to pump? Now that we have our own pumpers suffering the wrath of cheap oil, why would we promote the Canadian oil industry? This really brings into focus the lack of thought put into this political albatross.

Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/index.html

The "current glut" of oil didn't exist in 2008 when the permitting process for KeystoneXL began. In fact in 2008, US oil production was on par with levels not seen since 1947. it took only two years for the original Keystone pipeline (which also crosses international borders) to be permitted and Keystone XL was slated to go online in 2012 when domestic oil production was on par with 1953 production.

Regardless of when it was proposed it was still in direct competition with US crude.

Said "glut" has come about through evil capitalist's development of fracking technologies which has allowed US oil production to soar because of North Dakota and Texas oil fields, threatening OPEC and the Saudis causing them to open wide their wells. Of course this doesn't stop O'Clowna from claiming credit where credit isn't due because the vast majority of US production increases have come about on privately owned land.

That's not exactly true. Evil capitalists didn't develop fracking. Colnol Edward Roberts developed fracking after his observations of exploding artillery during the Civil War. The evil capitalists merely swapped the explosives for water.

Canada represents 43% of our oil imports. Why shouldn't we import additional oil from a trusted ally over pipelines covering close, safe and protected territory? Besides, most of XL oil would have only replaced other imports of heavy oil coming from asshole countries like Venezuela and diminishing oil feedstocks from Mexico.

According to Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's comments in refrence to the Keystone XL pipeline, "We export 97% of our energy to the US and we would like to diversify that". This pipeline wasn't meant for the US. Not to mention the fact that studies conducted by our own DoE said that Canada won't be able to produce enough oil to fill all the pipelines they already have in place in the US for decades.

Of course XL pipeline detractors like yourself and O'Clowna have had an end run called on you. Enbridge Energy has increased their capacity of their cross-border Alberta Clipper pipeline with an expansion of capacity by replacing older pipe with 17 miles of new 34" pipe. With the use of inter-connecting pipelines, Enbridge will double the capacity of the Clipper to 800,00 barrels a day, all allowed under the existing presidential permit. 800,00 barrels per day was what XL was projected to pump. Canada will now have 1.7 million barrels of pipeline capacity. Also look for an increase in unit trains coming out of Canada as more oil will be moved by rail, although not as safely as by pipeline and ironically increases the carbon footprint of Canadian oil, the very thing O'Clowna is claiming he'll decrease by rejecting Keystone XL.

I would really like to know where you get your information from, because you obviously have no fracking clue what you are talking about. The Alberta Clipper(Line 67) pipeline expansion is still awaiting presidential approval. The "end run" I assume you are referring to is actually Line 3, which is also currently hung up in court, so I would hold off on the end zone dance for a bit. This pipeline doesnt require presidential approval because it is an existing pipeline that is allowed to be maintained. Strangely enough their "maitainance plan" includes substantial flow increases plus a bit of rerouting. I guess we'll have to see. It's sad that we have people in this country like yourself that would cheer on Canadian jobs at the expense of American jobs just to make a silly political statement.

Gomezz Adddams Sun Nov 08, 2015 11:39 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
="Gomezz Adddams"]
Dr. Jones wrote:Obama points to environmental factors in his decision, but our current glut of oil makes all this pipeline hub-bub seem pretty silly. As I've said for some time, why would we pump Canadian oil when we have our own to pump? Now that we have our own pumpers suffering the wrath of cheap oil, why would we promote the Canadian oil industry? This really brings into focus the lack of thought put into this political albatross.

Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/index.html

The "current glut" of oil didn't exist in 2008 when the permitting process for KeystoneXL began. In fact in 2008, US oil production was on par with levels not seen since 1947. it took only two years for the original Keystone pipeline (which also crosses international borders) to be permitted and Keystone XL was slated to go online in 2012 when domestic oil production was on par with 1953 production.

Regardless of when it was proposed it was still in direct competition with US crude.

Said "glut" has come about through evil capitalist's development of fracking technologies which has allowed US oil production to soar because of North Dakota and Texas oil fields, threatening OPEC and the Saudis causing them to open wide their wells. Of course this doesn't stop O'Clowna from claiming credit where credit isn't due because the vast majority of US production increases have come about on privately owned land.

That's not exactly true. Evil capitalists didn't develop fracking. Colnol Edward Roberts developed fracking after his observations of exploding artillery during the Civil War. The evil capitalists merely swapped the explosives for water.

Canada represents 43% of our oil imports. Why shouldn't we import additional oil from a trusted ally over pipelines covering close, safe and protected territory? Besides, most of XL oil would have only replaced other imports of heavy oil coming from asshole countries like Venezuela and diminishing oil feedstocks from Mexico.

According to Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's comments in refrence to the Keystone XL pipeline, "We export 97% of our energy to the US and we would like to diversify that". This pipeline wasn't meant for the US. Not to mention the fact that studies conducted by our own DoE said that Canada won't be able to produce enough oil to fill all the pipelines they already have in place in the US for decades.

Of course XL pipeline detractors like yourself and O'Clowna have had an end run called on you. Enbridge Energy has increased their capacity of their cross-border Alberta Clipper pipeline with an expansion of capacity by replacing older pipe with 17 miles of new 34" pipe. With the use of inter-connecting pipelines, Enbridge will double the capacity of the Clipper to 800,00 barrels a day, all allowed under the existing presidential permit. 800,00 barrels per day was what XL was projected to pump. Canada will now have 1.7 million barrels of pipeline capacity. Also look for an increase in unit trains coming out of Canada as more oil will be moved by rail, although not as safely as by pipeline and ironically increases the carbon footprint of Canadian oil, the very thing O'Clowna is claiming he'll decrease by rejecting Keystone XL.

I would really like to know where you get your information from, because you obviously have no fracking clue what you are talking about. The Alberta Clipper(Line 67) pipeline expansion is still awaiting presidential approval. The "end run" I assume you are referring to is actually Line 3, which is also currently hung up in court, so I would hold off on the end zone dance for a bit. This pipeline doesnt require presidential approval because it is an existing pipeline that is allowed to be maintained. Strangely enough their "maitainance plan" includes substantial flow increases plus a bit of rerouting. I guess we'll have to see. It's sad that we have people in this country like yourself that would cheer on Canadian jobs at the expense of American jobs just to make a silly political statement.

Actually Canadian crude isn't in "direct competition" with US crude exports since most US oil exports have been banned since 1975. Also US crude is of a much higher grade than Alberta tar sand oil is. What Canada wants is access to US refining capacity in the Gulf that can handle the heavy crude coming out of Alberta. In fact Canadian crude is more in competition with Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crude.

The story of fracking is an inspiration vs perspiration one, one which capitalism is very adept at exploiting. Yes, Colonel Roberts had an epiphany on the battlefield and when the war was over he started the Roberts Petroleum Torpedo Company. He developed a technique that worked in the vertical oil wells of the day, patented it and sold his torpedoes for $100@ and 1/15 share of the increased flow of the well. Sounds like capitalism to me.

Halliburton developed commercial hydraulic fracking based on the research of Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation and when Halliburton patents expired in 1968, other companies joined in. But modern fracking didn't really take off until it was combined with horizontal or directional drilling and in 1998 with the use of a technique called "slickwater" fracking which used various fluids, including gels, foams, sand and ceramics. Capitalism at work again.

From everything I've read on the Enbridge Albert Clipper interconnect pipeline is it started pumping this summer. Yes, the tree huggers went to court once they had pulled their pants up but the State Dept had stated in letters that Enbridge had the authority to build the interconnect under its existing presidential permit for Line 3 and didn't need further State Department approval.

And quit crying your fcuking crocodile tears over lost American jobs. A whole crap load of well paying construction jobs went poof when O'Clowna rejected Keystone XL. Even the unions are pissed over his running the clock out.

Clicker Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:48 am

The new Canadian PM is getting his tit in the wringer now because the original intent of the Keystone deals was to avoid refining the oil in Canada and avoid shipping it from Canadian ports on the west coast. It was a win, win, for the industry and the environutcakes. Now the industry is going to be, at least temporarily, trashed by what much of the country sees as an oppressive French speaking govt Liberal trying to reimpose a dynastic Quebec based ruling party. Film at 11.

Dr. Evil Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:29 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
="Gomezz Adddams"]
Dr. Jones wrote:Obama points to environmental factors in his decision, but our current glut of oil makes all this pipeline hub-bub seem pretty silly. As I've said for some time, why would we pump Canadian oil when we have our own to pump? Now that we have our own pumpers suffering the wrath of cheap oil, why would we promote the Canadian oil industry? This really brings into focus the lack of thought put into this political albatross.

Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-decision-rejection-kerry/index.html

The "current glut" of oil didn't exist in 2008 when the permitting process for KeystoneXL began. In fact in 2008, US oil production was on par with levels not seen since 1947. it took only two years for the original Keystone pipeline (which also crosses international borders) to be permitted and Keystone XL was slated to go online in 2012 when domestic oil production was on par with 1953 production.

Regardless of when it was proposed it was still in direct competition with US crude.

Said "glut" has come about through evil capitalist's development of fracking technologies which has allowed US oil production to soar because of North Dakota and Texas oil fields, threatening OPEC and the Saudis causing them to open wide their wells. Of course this doesn't stop O'Clowna from claiming credit where credit isn't due because the vast majority of US production increases have come about on privately owned land.

That's not exactly true. Evil capitalists didn't develop fracking. Colnol Edward Roberts developed fracking after his observations of exploding artillery during the Civil War. The evil capitalists merely swapped the explosives for water.

Canada represents 43% of our oil imports. Why shouldn't we import additional oil from a trusted ally over pipelines covering close, safe and protected territory? Besides, most of XL oil would have only replaced other imports of heavy oil coming from asshole countries like Venezuela and diminishing oil feedstocks from Mexico.

According to Canada's Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's comments in refrence to the Keystone XL pipeline, "We export 97% of our energy to the US and we would like to diversify that". This pipeline wasn't meant for the US. Not to mention the fact that studies conducted by our own DoE said that Canada won't be able to produce enough oil to fill all the pipelines they already have in place in the US for decades.

Of course XL pipeline detractors like yourself and O'Clowna have had an end run called on you. Enbridge Energy has increased their capacity of their cross-border Alberta Clipper pipeline with an expansion of capacity by replacing older pipe with 17 miles of new 34" pipe. With the use of inter-connecting pipelines, Enbridge will double the capacity of the Clipper to 800,00 barrels a day, all allowed under the existing presidential permit. 800,00 barrels per day was what XL was projected to pump. Canada will now have 1.7 million barrels of pipeline capacity. Also look for an increase in unit trains coming out of Canada as more oil will be moved by rail, although not as safely as by pipeline and ironically increases the carbon footprint of Canadian oil, the very thing O'Clowna is claiming he'll decrease by rejecting Keystone XL.

I would really like to know where you get your information from, because you obviously have no fracking clue what you are talking about. The Alberta Clipper(Line 67) pipeline expansion is still awaiting presidential approval. The "end run" I assume you are referring to is actually Line 3, which is also currently hung up in court, so I would hold off on the end zone dance for a bit. This pipeline doesnt require presidential approval because it is an existing pipeline that is allowed to be maintained. Strangely enough their "maitainance plan" includes substantial flow increases plus a bit of rerouting. I guess we'll have to see. It's sad that we have people in this country like yourself that would cheer on Canadian jobs at the expense of American jobs just to make a silly political statement.

Actually Canadian crude isn't in "direct competition" with US crude exports since most US oil exports have been banned since 1975. Also US crude is of a much higher grade than Alberta tar sand oil is. What Canada wants is access to US refining capacity in the Gulf that can handle the heavy crude coming out of Alberta. In fact Canadian crude is more in competition with Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crude.

Are you really that bat shiste crazy??? While we are not allowed to export raw crude, we have free range on processed petroleum products, which could most certainly be made from our own crude. So yes, it certainly does compete against our oil. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The story of fracking is an inspiration vs perspiration one, one which capitalism is very adept at exploiting. Yes, Colonel Roberts had an epiphany on the battlefield and when the war was over he started the Roberts Petroleum Torpedo Company. He developed a technique that worked in the vertical oil wells of the day, patented it and sold his torpedoes for $100@ and 1/15 share of the increased flow of the well. Sounds like capitalism to me.

Halliburton developed commercial hydraulic fracking based on the research of Floyd Farris of Stanolind Oil and Gas Corporation and when Halliburton patents expired in 1968, other companies joined in. But modern fracking didn't really take off until it was combined with horizontal or directional drilling and in 1998 with the use of a technique called "slickwater" fracking which used various fluids, including gels, foams, sand and ceramics. Capitalism at work again.

From everything I've read on the Enbridge Albert Clipper interconnect pipeline is it started pumping this summer. Yes, the tree huggers went to court once they had pulled their pants up but the State Dept had stated in letters that Enbridge had the authority to build the interconnect under its existing presidential permit for Line 3 and didn't need further State Department approval.

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3836573-it-new-pipeline-nature-enbridges-line-3-project-heart-lawsuit

And quit crying your fcuking crocodile tears over lost American jobs. A whole crap load of well paying construction jobs went poof when O'Clowna rejected Keystone XL. Even the unions are pissed over his running the clock out.

Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:56 pm

Are you really that bat shiste crazy??? While we are not allowed to export raw crude, we have free range on processed petroleum products, which could most certainly be made from our own crude. So yes, it certainly does compete against our oil. Sorry for the inconvenience.

You are one of the dumbest people I've ever tried to have a conversation with. I've scraped substances off of my shoes that exhibited more intelligence than you.

The US currently produces about 70% of the oil consumed domestically. Where would you prefer to have the other 30% come from? The Mideast with our dollars going to pay for state sponsored terrorism? How about Venezuela, home to a radical leftist government that has propped up Cuba and colluded with Iran? Maybe we should depend on Mexico whose oil production is cratering because of aging oil fields and a national monopoly on oil production, foregoing any outside investment. Or how about some heavily subsidized Fred Ziffel Magic Corn Cob Juice? Which do you prefer to take up the difference in production/consumption? Enlighten me.

Gomezz Adddams Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:05 pm

Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Heres a clue for you, you clueless lump: construction jobs are temporary by their very nature. Why is it O'Clowna can shout to the heavens and extol the greatness of those "shovel ready" (of course there really weren't any but I digress) construction jobs during the Recovery That Never Was, but when the oil industry does they are insignificant? Hey here's an idea Smart Guy™, you want permanent oil field jobs? Then open up government lands to energy exploration and production. Probably find enough gas and oil that we wouldn't have to import any oil.

Dr. Evil Mon Nov 09, 2015 5:43 pm

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Heres a clue for you, you clueless lump: construction jobs are temporary by their very nature. Why is it O'Clowna can shout to the heavens and extol the greatness of those "shovel ready" (of course there really weren't any but I digress) construction jobs during the Recovery That Never Was, but when the oil industry does they are insignificant? Hey here's an idea Smart Guy, you want permanent oil field jobs? Then open up government lands to energy exploration and production. Probably find enough gas and oil that we wouldn't have to import any oil.

It's not so much the construction part of the equation that bothers me, it's the decades of Canadian revenue made off of pumping their oil across our great counrty. Surely the recovery funds that were spent on construction projects were short lived, but at least they didn't defeat the purpose in the long term. Why would we open up government land for drilling when we already have drillers suffering from too much oil? That doesn't make sense. Even if we could pump enough oil to cover our needs, the capitalists in this counrty would still import if they could save a penny by doing so. So much for banding together and sticking it to the "assholes". Rolling Eyes

Gomezz Adddams Mon Nov 09, 2015 7:43 pm

Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Heres a clue for you, you clueless lump: construction jobs are temporary by their very nature. Why is it O'Clowna can shout to the heavens and extol the greatness of those "shovel ready" (of course there really weren't any but I digress) construction jobs during the Recovery That Never Was, but when the oil industry does they are insignificant? Hey here's an idea Smart Guy, you want permanent oil field jobs? Then open up government lands to energy exploration and production. Probably find enough gas and oil that we wouldn't have to import any oil.

It's not so much the construction part of the equation that bothers me, it's the decades of Canadian revenue made off of pumping their oil across our great counrty. Surely the recovery funds that were spent on construction projects were short lived, but at least they didn't defeat the purpose in the long term. Why would we open up government land for drilling when we already have drillers suffering from too much oil? That doesn't make sense. Even if we could pump enough oil to cover our needs, the capitalists in this counrty would still import if they could save a penny by doing so. So much for banding together and sticking it to the "assholes".

I see. You'd rather ship bags of cash to that crap hole of the Mideast rather than give another nickle to our largest trading partner. And a friendly one to boot. One who fought shoulder to shoulder with us in many wars.

Darth Cheney Tue Nov 10, 2015 6:12 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Heres a clue for you, you clueless lump: construction jobs are temporary by their very nature. Why is it O'Clowna can shout to the heavens and extol the greatness of those "shovel ready" (of course there really weren't any but I digress) construction jobs during the Recovery That Never Was, but when the oil industry does they are insignificant? Hey here's an idea Smart Guy, you want permanent oil field jobs? Then open up government lands to energy exploration and production. Probably find enough gas and oil that we wouldn't have to import any oil.

It's not so much the construction part of the equation that bothers me, it's the decades of Canadian revenue made off of pumping their oil across our great counrty. Surely the recovery funds that were spent on construction projects were short lived, but at least they didn't defeat the purpose in the long term. Why would we open up government land for drilling when we already have drillers suffering from too much oil? That doesn't make sense. Even if we could pump enough oil to cover our needs, the capitalists in this counrty would still import if they could save a penny by doing so. So much for banding together and sticking it to the "assholes".

I see. You'd rather ship bags of cash to that crap hole of the Mideast rather than give another nickle to our largest trading partner. And a friendly one to boot. One who fought shoulder to shoulder with us in many wars.

He's a liberal...if the bags of cash for doing nothing doesn't go directly to him, he is envious. That's what happens when you spend your life in an entitlement bubble. Pity him...he isn't right in the head. His time is coming and payback is going to be a beotch.

Just Braying It Tue Nov 10, 2015 7:59 am

Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Heres a clue for you, you clueless lump: construction jobs are temporary by their very nature. Why is it O'Clowna can shout to the heavens and extol the greatness of those "shovel ready" (of course there really weren't any but I digress) construction jobs during the Recovery That Never Was, but when the oil industry does they are insignificant? Hey here's an idea Smart Guy, you want permanent oil field jobs? Then open up government lands to energy exploration and production. Probably find enough gas and oil that we wouldn't have to import any oil.

It's not so much the construction part of the equation that bothers me, it's the decades of Canadian revenue made off of pumping their oil across our great counrty. Surely the recovery funds that were spent on construction projects were short lived, but at least they didn't defeat the purpose in the long term. Why would we open up government land for drilling when we already have drillers suffering from too much oil? That doesn't make sense. Even if we could pump enough oil to cover our needs, the capitalists in this counrty would still import if they could save a penny by doing so. So much for banding together and sticking it to the "assholes".

I see. You'd rather ship bags of cash to that crap hole of the Mideast rather than give another nickle to our largest trading partner. And a friendly one to boot. One who fought shoulder to shoulder with us in many wars.

Oh, so close! You would have hit all of the tea party strawmen if you would have included something about the troops and healthcare.

Gomezz Adddams Tue Nov 10, 2015 8:34 am

Ham Flower? wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Dr. Jones wrote:
Gomezz Adddams wrote:
Awww, you poor impressionable conservative, you really need to take a break from the oil soaked propaganda that is Faux News. This was temporary work that would have generated decades of revenue for the Canadians. I'm dumbfounded that this seems to be going a bit above your head.

Heres a clue for you, you clueless lump: construction jobs are temporary by their very nature. Why is it O'Clowna can shout to the heavens and extol the greatness of those "shovel ready" (of course there really weren't any but I digress) construction jobs during the Recovery That Never Was, but when the oil industry does they are insignificant? Hey here's an idea Smart Guy, you want permanent oil field jobs? Then open up government lands to energy exploration and production. Probably find enough gas and oil that we wouldn't have to import any oil.

It's not so much the construction part of the equation that bothers me, it's the decades of Canadian revenue made off of pumping their oil across our great counrty. Surely the recovery funds that were spent on construction projects were short lived, but at least they didn't defeat the purpose in the long term. Why would we open up government land for drilling when we already have drillers suffering from too much oil? That doesn't make sense. Even if we could pump enough oil to cover our needs, the capitalists in this counrty would still import if they could save a penny by doing so. So much for banding together and sticking it to the "assholes".

I see. You'd rather ship bags of cash to that crap hole of the Mideast rather than give another nickle to our largest trading partner. And a friendly one to boot. One who fought shoulder to shoulder with us in many wars.

Oh, so close! You would have hit all of the tea party strawmen if you would have included something about the troops and healthcare.

I considered it but then I thought to myself, "Self, if I include healthcare, there won't be anything for my bud Pucker Nut to bitch about". And really, wouldn't that just be gilding the lily?

Sponsored content

Obama Kills Keystone XL

Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL

Re: Obama Kills Keystone XL