18 replies to this topic

[xg22]

A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers.

Flint Hills Resources Canada also operates a crude oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta, the starting point of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

The company's website says it is "among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters." Koch Industries also owns Koch Exploration Canada, L.P., an oil sands-focused exploration company also based in Calgary that acquires, develops and trades petroleum


more

http://www.reuters.c...rticle/2011/02/

[egghead]

The same day Obama caves in to his environmental base and once again says screw you to his union supporters-The new energy survey on gas prices comes out

The headlines--PUMP PRICE DOUBLES SINCE INAUGURATION DAY...

[Farley]

One of very few acts by Old Bomba that showed courage and concern....since the Alberta tar sands have been bought up by China, who wants to do the risky , dirty work in America, and then ship the oil to themselves.......Old Bomba finally is making some sense....and the "thousands" of jobs claim is thoroughly debunked as another goBPer lie to get America to vote against our own interests. but that is nothing new

[egghead]

keep up the spinning Farley--just the same old environmental crap we have heard since the start of this project--so much for your concern with the middle class

Your bud Boma is going to take a beating for this sellout to the left wing base of the party--as one headline today put it "Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity" (and that was from the left leaning Newsweek)

This was a pretty clear case that Obama is so obsessed with his reelection he will sell out the rest of the country placating his environmental supporters --SAD--This is just another in a rather long list why the labor movement is stupid for supporting the Democratic party

[Farley]

eggy, dream on.............if Old Bomba was obsessed with re-election he would have caved to the Kochs and allowed the pipeline in hopes the Kochs wouldn't be to mean during the campaign.....eggy do a little research about the amount of "REAL" jobs this would generate, the amount of "REAL" and potential environmental damage it would cause...Who profits, and where the oil would go,.....you make yourself look like an uninformed idiot with your inane inaccurate posts

[scb]

-Guys-

I'm highlighting the comments posted above, to wit...

"do a little research"

...and...

"you make yourself look like an uninformed idiot with your inane inaccurate posts"

...for purposes of consideration as to just who made them. Bring a "smile" to your face?

He is what he is, folks.

-scb- (who, so as not to look like "an idiot", attempted to consult "every school child" in order to "research" the validity of this post)

[egghead]

Farley-why is it the left discounts jobs created by the private sector but lavished praise on jobs that cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to create

"eggy do a little research about the amount of jobs this would generate" Lets just rack this silly response up to you woke up brain dead and just fired off one of your standard left wing reflexes--but you have been off your game lately

But this is really all the research you need--$7 billion deal to be done with private-sector funding.Wow--no public sector money--it creates some jobs puts money into the US consumers pocket while delivering oil-sand deposits in the Canadian province of Alberta to U.S. refineries and terminals along the Gulf Coast. It would make the vast network of pipelines already crisscrossing the central states significantly more efficient.

So let me get this Straight--no cost, creates jobs, improves efficiency and we refine the oil? and I quote;you "make yourself look like an uninformed idiot with your inane inaccurate posts" ; and i haven't even mentioned the added benefit of stable oil supplies and strengthening trade with our closest ally

Now I know you are hanging your hat on that "potential environmental damage it would cause" yet the Obama administration’s extensive environmental review found otherwise-environmental studies confirmed what we knew from the beginning—that a new pipeline would have a limited environmental impact, much less so than transport by barge, truck, or railcar. That pipelines have a limited environmental impact is one of the reasons we have more than 50,000 miles of crude oil pipelines in the U.S. already

So farley--what part of ;"sellout to the left wing base of the party"; is inaccurate

--before responding next time--wake up have a cup of coffee run around the block get all those cobwebs out count to three and use your brain not your standard left wing rhetorical chant--Though I do understand why you hate any private sector job creation--

be happy Farley there is plenty of time left to find other Solyndra's for us to throw tax payer money to create long lasting green jobs

[xg22]

In December 2010, according to Boehner's financial disclosure forms, he invested $10000 to $50000 each in seven firms that had a stake in Canada's oil sands, the region that produces the oil the pipeline would transport. The firms include six oil companies — BP, Canadian Natural Resources, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Devon Energy and Exxon — along with Emerson Electric, which has a contract to provide the digital automation for the first phase of a $9.4 billion Horizon Oil Sands Project in Canada.


http://www.ipolitics...aY-5eXaYPjs.htm

[scb]

-xg22-

Not sure how significant the Boehner investment information is, given that (1) apparently the investments were NOT made just in "December" as the article asserts, but were investments HELD by him in that year-ending month (he may have maintained them for years), and (2) the investments were directed by an outside advisor, possibly in a non-qualified blind trust, and (3) given that the maximum amount invested in any of the seven firms didn't exceed $50,000, and in sum don't appear to be an overly significant portion of his total investment portfolio.

Not particularly out to defend Boehner...but, let's face it; in this day and age, $70,000-$350,000 in securities for a even moderately successful person of his age isn't that big a deal. Perhaps an investment total of (at the highest) $350,000 down to (at the lowest) $70,000 might have some shock value with the peanut gallery but I seriously doubt if it would be meaningful enough to sway the votes of many (if any) congressmen.

Might want to find another, more responsible, bandwagon to jump on.

-scb-

[xg22]

Well as for bandwagons I am actually somewhat undecided on the XL Keystone. And I'm just having fun with the boehner as iI like his picture.

The Oil would not lessen the 'world price' hence the price at the pump. As for the price at the pump today there are always those working behind the scenes to drive the Barrel price up despite the lack of demand, as we are seeing.

Yes some temporary jobs would be created during construction and I suppose more jobs at the refinery level (allthough with automation I'm not sure how many) but I agree that every job would be a bonus if you are unemployed.

And let's not lose sight that Nebraska played a major role in temporarily delaying this route.



The Nebraska Sand Hills are the rolling, grass-covered dunes that form a thin, porous layer atop the Ogallala aquifer in north-central Nebraska -- where a stubborn bunch of ranchers has vociferously insisted it would be foolhardy to build an oil pipeline.

Over the last year, the ranchers have signed petitions, testified at public hearings, and driven officials from the U.S. State Department, which will decide on a permit for the pipeline, out across the Sand Hills in their pickup trucks.

They've dug holes in the sandy prairie grass and pointed to the good, clean water flowing just inches below the surface. And they've held cups under burbling artesian wells on their cattle ranges and offered them to visiting reporters to drink.

Still, when the decision was announced in Washington, D.C., Thursday to hold off on permitting the pipeline until a route around the Sand Hills can be studied, the celebration was tinged first with a hearty dose of Nebraskan skepticism.

Cone said he and his neighbors have tried to make it clear that they aren't opposed to the pipeline; it would bring jobs and new oil supplies, and they wouldn't want to argue against either one. But they say it should go anywhere but where the highly permeable Sand Hills roll across the aquifer, a massive subterranean waterway that underlies 27% of the irrigated land in the U.S.

http://www.google.ca...d7MPVQqoJZc8vWQ



Since Obama took office, oil production has increased substantially — with more drilling rigs being deployed in America today than at any time since the mid 1980′s.

http://thinkprogress...by-keystone-xl/

[egghead]

XG this narrative "oil production has increased substantially" has zero to do with Obama or the Democrats-

It takes a minimum of up to 10 years for an oil company lease is won at auction to the first actual production of oil--which means the production increases seen today-or the so called "drilling rigs" producing oil were approved well over 10 years ago--and the major increase (which is hotly debated and based on some funky Obama math) in production has come in part because of a boom in shale oil production, especially in North Dakota

The energy fact every American should sit up and take notice of is---leasing acreage on federal lands is at the lowest level since 2001--and overall leasing has declined significantly --Which means in the 10 year cycle we are in deep do do--

[scb]

-egghead-

After last night's address, there's little doubt in my mind that Obama will keep us out of the "deep do do" via his marshaling of sustainable alternative energy sources. And, given the vast amount of attention he gave to budget deficiencies last night, I'm sure he'll be able to do it without adding to our national debt as well. Face it; he's got an incredibly bright track record in that area already.

Meanwhile, I think we ought to really put the hammer down on those who actually INVEST in realistic energy production goals. The panache of such individuals is really astounding! They should be our servants...and put their money where "we" want it put....and not where they, themselves, might want to place it and/or where it would do the most good.

Down with private enterprise! Tax those capitalist sons-a-******* right out of the country!

-scb- (who's engaging in either a bit of sarcasm, or telling one big "Farley" - your choice)

[egghead]

Jeez I thought you got hit by lightning and went over to the dark side-

but with Obama's energy policies we may all be living in the dark

One thing is for sure--Obama is determined to make green economically viable by driving up the cost of non green energy--but he is the "foodstamp" President"

[egghead]

and another Obama green tech company bites the dust-Ener1 with over 120 million in green tech funds--after the Energy department decided to invest in a company that had lost two-thirds of its value the year before--and that 120 million bucks created 33 jobs--par for the course for the governments job creation thought process

C'mon when are the unions going to grow a pair and throw this knucklehead to the curb

Manwhile the fair share crowd owes more than $3,420,168,684 in back taxes for 2010--Heck even Obama's executive leaders owe the government over 800,000 dollars in back taxes-Lets talk about fairess when our government employees won't pay taxes they owe

[xg22]

Keystone XL fight not over yet: Nebraska State Sen.



There's a political game going on in Washington," Democrat Ken Harr told InsideClimateNews in an interview. "We did what we needed to do for Nebraska, and we can't control what's going on in Washington. Now, other forces are going to have to go after it."



http://insideclimate...obama?page=show

[Farley]

scabby and eggy still have NOT done the research on this pipeline.../...guess they want us to be a colony to Red China and provide them with natural resources while they provide Americans with a polluted aquifer and cancer.......good trade...eh scabby?

[scb]

-Farley-

Yes...guess we're just incapable of doing the type of thorough research that someone of your recognized "ability" routinely accomplishes; i.e. - like asking "every school child", etc. Nor, apparently, are our minds "flexible" enough to do the type of "research" that cites sources that contradict our claims. Heck, we can't even seem to find the sources that speak to the topics of the "top 30 corporations", or the "latin root" of the German word "Reich, or the "average CEO" making upteen times more than the average worker, or that of Halliburton moving its corporate headquarters to the Middle East.... or to "quotes" that otherwise seem not to exist. We're totally deficient in that area!. And, for some reason, we haven't been able to do the same type of "research" (you know; indications of major environmental problems, blah, blah) on pipelines that you have as well. What a pity! [smile]

You are what you are, "Farley".....and do you REALLY think that "what you are" is someone who should be lecturing OTHERS on the topic of "research"? What's next....going to propose a class on ethics, are ya'? [smile]

-scb-

[stark]

Want cheaper prices at the gas pump?...then set aside a hefty precentage of refined fule to stay in the good old USA. Then when the speculators or whomever want to jack up the price all we have to do is market or own supplies. In the meantime, we need to expand comuter rail and bus systems. If you expect the people on unemployment to take a $5.00 an hour job then charge him/her over $3.00 for a gallon of gas to get to and from work you'd better figure out a cheaper way to get him/her to the JOB.

[scb]

-stark-

Who's going to "set aside" those hefty percentages? How is that going to be accomplished without either expropriating property and/or causing the CURRENT prices of fuel to go up? Or, in either case, not causing an expense to the taxpayer? And I'll grant you that it would be nice to expand public transportation systems...but, then again, who's this "we" you're talking about? Meaning 'you" and who else? If you can find those who are voluntarily willing to associate with you in such an idea - and are willing to pay for it as well - then more power to you. However, rarely has public transportation been self-sustaining....somebody has to foot the bill. That's been the case even in more "public" inclined societies; witness the revolt against passenger rail transportation subsidies in Europe today. So sometimes that's an extremely "hard sell".

Beyond that, who's "expecting" people on unemployment to take a $5/hr job and then "expecting" to charge him over $3/gallon to get to and from work? Personally, MY expectation is that such individuals would "expect" to deal with their OWN problems...and not force their "expectations" on others. Or, given the fact that there are "$5/hr (think you're getting involved in a little hyperbole there, aren't ya'? After all, what are the dictates of today's minimum wage laws....even state ones?) jobs AVAILABLE, then why are individuals who could be filling those jobs granted unemployment subsidies in the first place? In short, why is there an "expectation" of someone ELSE being required to foot THEIR bills?

Lastly, I can't help but note your derision of "$5/hr jobs". Given that such a wage is somewhat HIGHER than what I received after I first graduated from college, such derision makes one wonder. What, pray tell, MADE such wages "low"? Now I'm sure the standard answer is "inflation". But what *IS* inflation, other than an addition to the money supply to cover increased prices of goods and services over and above what they're NATURALLY worth. And where has the greatest increase in the money supply to cover increased prices been concentrated over the last few decades? Can anyone say "unions" and "cost of living" increases? We, through "our" labor policy over the last few decades (at least up ntil Reagan) have built inflation INTO the system...with the result that EVERYBODY - not just the weaker, less contributory elements - in society has suffered. Perhaps we need to get back to a time where value is given for value received.....WITHOUT favor to those who aren't willing to function on a market value basis.

-scb-