Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Mar 10, 2014.
This story by Curtis Tate might change your mind
Nothing will change my mind yes we need it.
So what did you think of the linked article
We certainly do need the Keystone Pipeline!
However, given the massive pile of rules and regulations that the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency has imposed on this needy project, I doubt very seriously that much (if anything at all) actual work on it will take place within our nation's borders.
Yea it will be a good campaign issue this fall.
Interesting article. J.P. Morgan would be proud. Someone said he bailed out the U.S. govt. back in the days of railways and Chinese coolies. Now we are suffering from the "Revenge of Mao".
On the lighter side, someone needs to look at fixing the railbeds and the bridges. They are in dire need of repair--highways and bridges too. WPA anyone? Maybe Mao would help.
A pipeline would still be more efficient in terms of moving the energy where it needs to go. The price of diesel needs to drop. But we already have too many tractor/trailers on the worn out highways.
Is someone manipulating the energy market? "The love of money is the root of all evil."
Let's go back to buffalo dung for fuel. No can do--we killed most of the buffalo--and Indians--while building railroads?
We got trouble--right here in River City.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
If this is such "major news" I've got to wonder why it shows up in a less-than-major newspaper like the Sacramento Bee. The claims of the so-called "experts" that there is going to be an increase rail traffic of crude oil, thus making the pipeline "unnecessary" is ludicrous. And the price differential between shipping oil by rail or through a pipeline is "negligible"? What a farce! Someone is cooking the books.
There is no way a train can haul oil as rapidly or as efficiently as a pipeline. The Alaskan Oil pipeline, for example, moved 192 million barrels of oil south in 2012 and leaks and accidents lost less than 1,000 gallons of that. The cost per barrel for transportation? Averaging 12₵ a barrel since June, 1977. No train in the world can move a barrel of oil that cheaply.
There is no threat to the environment, as is proven by the way wildlife have adapted to the pipeline going through mating and hunting territories with nary a whimper or changed habit. Trains, on the other hand, have derailed on three separate occasions, spilling millions of gallons of oil in the Canadian wilderness, since rail shipments began two years ago.
This story is nothing less than a liberal scam. Its packed with lies and propaganda.
No one wants a train wreck of crude oil in their town. Pipelines are easier to contain--so I read. Warren Buffett has made another fortune with the railroads in the Dakotas, and we now know that he uses the money to help Planned Parenthood. Most of all, America needs to become energy independent once again.
Indeed. We learned this back in the 1870's when John D. Rockefeller, rather than bow to the price demands of the railroad barons, built his own oil pipeline.