This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Obama Kills Keystone XL Pipeline

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Who needs actual jobs when you can have crony solar companies which go tits up in under 2 years at a cost to taxpayers of over half a bill. From Bloomberg: "The Obama administration will likely announce rejection of TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline later today or tomorrow, according to two people familiar with the matter. The decision will probably come from the State Department, which has been charged with reviewing the project, and a joint statement will come from some of the larger unions and environmental groups in support of the decision, according to one of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the announcement is made. It wasn’t immediately clear whether the administration would continue studying alternative routes for the pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast."

WaPo adds:

The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

 

However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska’s Sandhills. Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns will make the announcement, which comes in response to a congressionally-mandated deadline of Feb. 21 for action on the proposed Keystone pipeline.

Reapply... only to be shut down again.

Oil's reaction to the news:

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:16 | Link to Comment pods
pods's picture

Well, since the economy is likely to fall off a cliff soon, at least we will not need the oil?

pods

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Alien Invader
Alien Invader's picture

Oil was so 2008. These days hot air blowing out of DC can be harnessed to power everything!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:30 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Well, when the trans-texas corridor stitches up with all the other "Freeway Modification and Extension" programs happening everywhere....then it'll be all clear enough.

Plus, in this geologically shakey age, LNG tankers make the most sense for Gas. That or a judicious mix of transport methods.

pipelines are crappy, weak logistical nightmares. Look at all the global wars around pipelines.

Enough already.

ori

/1460-days-ago

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:51 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

...saved or created....

...shovel ready jobs...

The real tragedy is no new nuclear plants, nuclear waste sites, or passenger rail. 

I guess we'll just stick with our 40-year-old nuclear power plants, burning coal, and even more super-mega-big highways.

Winning the future!

Change!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

I have watched the NJ Turnpike grow from 6 to 8 then split into two seperate 6's then 12, then 24 and built south towards Delaware.

The last time I run south on that pike was a total sitting still traffic northbound from 15 all the way down to 7.

 

There was one Christmas evening some years ago where a tollbooth had  a issue and the resulting jam stretched from NYC all the way down to Richmond VA until nearly dawn.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:58 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

 

Ever ride the MTR or KCR trains in Hong Kong?  Amazing.

They are winning the future, while we are mortgaging ours.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:01 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

I guess now I know why my Trilogy Energy did a faceplant starting a week ago.

I had thought that killing Keystone was a foregone conclusion before this decision was leaked.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:15 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

 

This all plays into the affirmative action Kenyans’ desire to spread the wealth to the rest of the world.  America’s advantage over the rest of the world has been cheap energy and reserve currency status.  The Harvard educated communist is working on both fronts as hard as he can.  Kill the currency, Marx, kill energy supplies.  

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:31 | Link to Comment whstlblwr
whstlblwr's picture

Oil company propaganda on ZH. The pipeline would lose jobs, cause pollution, leaks, and gas prices would go up. Winning.

"The job estimate is based on a poorly documented and unsubstantiated study commissioned by the oil company itself, referred to as the Perryman Group study. The study inflates the job estimate by calculating jobs on a yearly basis, not the total number created as a result of the pipeline. For instance, employing 10,000 people for two years would equal 20,000 jobs by the company's count. Additionally, the estimate includes non-U.S. jobs created in Canada, "where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed."

"TransCanada has already admitted that the project would increase gas prices for Americans by driving up the price of heavy crude in the region."

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11937

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:39 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So the Canadian oil is the US's birthright to do with as they see fit?  What if Canada tells the US to pound sand?

And did it ever occur to you that the source of the reserve currency status was cheap energy once upon a time??

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 18:35 | Link to Comment Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Interesting. Canada has been the largest exporter of oil (and brains) to the states for years. Under numerous governments. A few people have squawked about it - namely why is gas more expensive in the states as compared to Canada. The answer is we don't have the refineries. And a subset have asked, why not. 

I can't stand Harper but he has done a few things right. One was trying to secure the Arctic under Canadian rule (sorry we do own it) and it is looking that he is walking away from the Keystone thing and trying to woo other buyers. 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 18:47 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Most of the difference in price is the Fed. and Provincial taxes....

I have no idea why there are not refineries in Ft. McMurray. Well, actually, if you look at the integrated majors involved in the tar sands and their refinining exposure, the answer becomes clear.

You know the old joke?

Everytime a Canadian moves to the States, the average IQ in each country rises....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:33 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

 

I get tired of all the mail stating the President hasn’t accomplished anything.
An impressive list of accomplishments!

· First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

· First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

· First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States

· First President to violate the War Powers Act. .

· First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .

· First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.

· First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

· First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.

· First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

· First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat. .

· First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.

· First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

· First President to terminate America ’s ability to put a man in space.

· First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

· First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

· First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.

· First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

· First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

· First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

· First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

· First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. .

· First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.

· First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.

· First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

· First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.

· First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.

· First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

· First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

· First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

· First President to take a 17 day vacation.

So how is this hope and change working out for you?

 

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/01/11/presidential-accomplishments/

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:16 | Link to Comment American34
American34's picture

Whats so dang wrong with Solar and Wind anyhow. It IS clean, it does last FOREVER and we DON"T need to fight wars to get to it. Look, im not a hippy but I am pretty sure if you add the cost of all our oil wars, all the tax write offs we give the energy industry and the cost of over centralizing the power grid into it, coal and oil just aren't that great after all. And heck, even if Climate Change isn't real we end up getting tons of REAL high quality jobs building and maintaining wind and solar here in the US and not having to go anywhere else for energy and as anyone who has ever driven by a coal power plant plant can tell you, a lot cleaner and better smelling air.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:21 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

Nothing wrong with wind and solar, when the market decides that is the direction to go.  As we have witnessed central planning always fails.

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Oh goodie, let's "Let the market decide". 

But first let's remove all the subsidies.

For starters the preferential tax treatment of mineral resources.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

You can't eat the sun.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:41 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

You can't print the sun either which is why obama's solari cronies failed.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:21 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

But you can rocket load those filthy nuclear waste fuel and ship it into the sun as garbage to be incinderated.

 

I like Sun, Geo and Wind.

But my house is not worth what it will take to install any of this crap.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:34 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

But you can rocket load those filthy nuclear waste fuel and ship it into the sun as garbage to be incinderated.

 Did you really just say what I think you said?

Do a computation of the historical failure rate for large payload launches and get back to me, kay?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:48 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

actually we do eat the sun or at least its converted energy. That was true for every human era except the petroleum, soon to be extinct.     

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:06 | Link to Comment andybev01
Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:29 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

ROI on wind and solar is crappy.  Those big windfarms are upside down when you weigh the amount of electricity they produce compared with the manufacture, transport, erection and maintenance costs.  Huge government subsidy is the only thing making those stand up.

But before you make any decisions, watch a few more flashy commercials that showcase melting pot community college students putting on swiss seat harnesses to learn about turbine maintenance in a community cooperation effort sponsored by some corporation ass deep in graft and political favors.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:47 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Some stupid dentist in town spent over $30k (highly subsidized, of course) installing a windmill at his office, which is in a place where it will never, ever be cost effective. He got his name and face all over the news though, so perhaps it will attract all of the idiots to him. I wish him the best of luck with that.

Meanwhile I've got one of the best spots in the region (on a bend of a major river bluff which faces prevailing winds), and I still don't think it is worth doing when you see the speed required to actually generate power.

I'll likely install an older-style one someday and hook it to a water pump.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:18 | Link to Comment cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture

 

 

A $30,000 wind generator doesn't even generate enough power for a small home.

The technology doesn't even approach the energy density needed for a typical home, much less any commercial or industrial need.

Fossil fuel power has far greater energy density, and nuclear power exceeds fossil fuel by leaps and bounds.

Nuclear is the obvious common sense choice.  And yes there are safe clean nuclear technologies available, like Thorium Molten Salt for example.

But TMS isn't as profitable to reactor makers as Uranium. 

So again, corporate profits dictate what technology is used, safety be dammed.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 23:40 | Link to Comment rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

The Thorium cycle should have been receiving some real research funding rather than Bammy's Cronies....it offer sreal rpomise, but you can imagine how much lobbying against it there must be between the oil companies and AIPAC.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

if placed in the correct locations, wind returns 30% on average from its energy potential rating if on land and 40% off shore. We have already done an extensive study along the east coast indicating we could produce approximately 70% of our electrical needs including electrifiying most of our small vehicle fleet. The answer is not rogue members of the dental profession. Much like our current energy systems, and given how behind the eight ball we are on desperately needed systems, this will take a coordinated (and non-corrupt) effort to pull off. Unfortunately we have chosen a different and criminal coordinated effort directed at soon depleted sources in the middle east. The cost of that alone (plus lifelong medical) would have gone a long way to get that going. And, unlike IRAQ, I hear the job site carries a just a tad less risk. THe real answer is a multitude of production systems where they make sense. Local electrical production will also be key as so much is lost in long term transmission. Storage is the biggest part  of the puzzle but a lot of brilliant ideas are out there including vehicle components that plug back into the grid and can send the energy either direction. Heating stone elements somewhere in the house when production is at peak for later release also makes sense. By far the most practical and effective techiniques would be passive solar design in our homes and buildings that capture the heat      

    

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:15 | Link to Comment Encroaching Darkness
Encroaching Darkness's picture

"It IS clean, it does last FOREVER and we DON"T need to fight wars to get to it." Well - solar panels using today's technology might last twenty years; there are numerous examples of installed solar projects that will NEVER pay out, based on the energy savings differential and useful life. It's clean as long as the plants that make them aren't in your backyard - China makes lots, and has lots of environmental challenges as a result. We won't fight wars to get the sunlight - but getting some of the rare elements involved in manufacturing solar cells can get chancy. Look, I'm not saying it CAN'T work - but given the results of Solyndra, First Solar, etc. are YOU willing to invest in US facilities to make them? Even with the enormous government subsidies, nearly all solar cell manufacturers are losing money right now. Yes, there are energy subsidies for oil&gas exploration, etc. Let's end all subsidies, and see who wins - wait, that would be a FREE MARKET approach, and we can't have that, it reduces the role and need for government. Any medium-sized town has folks who can repair gas engines; how many can repair solar panels? WAIT, you say you can't repair solar panels - that once the silicon cracks, you have to start over with a new cell? Great technology, solar, it's expensive, works 1/2 of the day and is unrepairable - can't wait to get some! (/sarc)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:54 | Link to Comment American34
American34's picture

I am pretty disappointed in all the responses here to my comment on Wind and Solar power. First, off I didn't mean the Solar Panels lasts forever, I meant the wind. I thought that was obvious but apparently not. 2nd, I am big advocate of Free Market Economics, I agree with the ideal of ending all the subsidies. However, I believe the role of government in society is to stear the society it governs in the direction that is best for that society. What is government anyhow, it is US, it is the sum total of what society as a whole gives to promote common goals. Well at least that is what is should be. I am a big proponent of Self Sufficiency, even on a society wide scale. If that means the government/society needs to give the Free Market a push in the right direction to bring about energy independence then I think subsidies are alright. HOWEVER, our entire economic and government system is so corrupt and off balance it is not even funny.

As for the efficiency and cost of Wind and Solar some of you need to do your research. I have been honestly considering using Wind and Solar to provide a significant portion of my electrical needs and it isn't near as expensive as many of you are implying. Don't believe the rumors and hype, do your research, look around and talk to some folks who have already done it before you judge them all as fools. No matter the issue being discussed it is important to have an honest idea of what your talking about. Lastly, Wind and Solar should be looked at as part of the solution and not the whole, as well as an investment. Yes, the upfront costs are somewhat high, but so are the costs of building a power plant of any kind. Its called investing in the future. A mix of Wind and Solar that will power a home in an average location can take 10 years to pay off. Thats not bad, especially when you get another 10 years out of the average system. Not everything is free OR easy, especially things worth doing. 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 18:57 | Link to Comment Encroaching Darkness
Encroaching Darkness's picture

" However, I believe the role of government in society is to stear the society it governs in the direction that is best for that society."

Sorry you're disappointed - but you're going to be disappointed, consistently, as long as you believe this.

Government CANNOT KNOW " the direction that is best for that society" - that gives government omniscient powers. Hell, most governments cannot see beyond the next election - and if they could, wouldn't do what's "best for that society" if it had any chance of impairing or preventing their re-election.

"HOWEVER, our entire economic and government system is so corrupt and off balance it is not even funny." THERE, you do get at least part of it - now reconcile that with your previous statement.

Governments are made up of flawed human beings - sometimes, the more flawed, the more electable, it seems like. Given that, how can you hope for them to understand what "is best for that society."?

"it isn't near as expensive as many of you are implying." because of government subsidies. Subsidies are a government intervention into free markets. How can a government made up of power-mad control freaks hope to pick winners and losers in technology? Look up "Capstone Turbine"; one moving part electrical generation, multiple power sources possibilities, dependable (No, I don't own one, or any stock in it!) Should the government decide whether Capstone is better than solar (works all day, not just half) or wind (never shuts down even if no wind is available) ? Would you be better off, worse off or indeterminate if it did subsidize Capstone instead of solar? Why?

Picking technology winners and losers is NOT a government function; think Solyndra, LightSquared, First Solar and all the other frauds recently funded. Let FREE MARKETS pick the winners and losers, and avoid making government bigger to do things it is incapable of doing.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 19:32 | Link to Comment American34
American34's picture

Thank you for your comments. At least you take the time to explain yourself in a thought provoking manner without filling your comments full of useless four letter words. However, the Free Market isn't exactly all knowing either. It is a very good way of letting the public choose and therefore creates a highly competitive and efficent way of allocating resources but it is a somewhat poor method of long term planning, such as 20 or 30 years out.  Not to mention Government is essential for certain aspects of a peaceful society, such as a good Military, public transportation(Interstate System), and Free Market management such as standards of measurement(Standard 120V no matter who provides the power) and of course Police and Fire.

Both the Government and Free Market hold their proper places in a good society. I suppose you are right though, no Government can last too long without being corrupted. So why should we be surprised that like every other empire in history America too will fall. No country lasts forever, heck the idea of a "Country" as we know it is only a very recent idea indeed.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 19:50 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep... let the markets decide but remove the subsidies for fossil fuels as well...

For shits and giggles, do you recall this?

From a post of mine on another thread:

Do you remember mandated cellulosic ethanol targets under GWB? Where was the outrage when the companies backed by the Feds then went tits up? Hell, at least solar panels are a demonstrated technology....

http://www.ajc.com/business/plant-closure-bursts-ga-838588.html

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who steered a $76 million federal grant to Range, said that “by relying on American ingenuity and on American farmers for fuel, we will enhance our nation’s energy and economic security.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture followed up with an $80 million loan guarantee. Georgia officials pledged $6.2 million. Treutlen County, one of the state’s poorest, offered 20 years worth of tax abatements and 97 acres in its industrial park.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 23:43 | Link to Comment rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

Based upon empirical research, it appears the present role of government is to convince the people it is doing one thing while doing the opposite as so directed by a variety of special interest groups.

 

The government does not solve problems, it creates even newer and more dangerous ones.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

If you want the model for mass transportation via rail.. go to Singapore.

Beyond description.. fast.. modern.. understandable.. clean, safe.. get just about anywhere in no time.

But that pipeline is about more than just cars V rail.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:18 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

So what do we do in America where 30% of the population is feral?  No one rides public transportation in America because they are afraid of being attacked or killed.  It not like we raise civilized people with a mother and father over here.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/cta-bus-wildings-123404378.html

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:30 | Link to Comment LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

shhh.  you shouldn't talk about protected peoples like that man.  You'll go up on the FEMA list for sure.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:43 | Link to Comment Van Halen
Van Halen's picture

Hello! Secret FEMA agent in disguise here! You've been caught engaging in unsanctioned opinions. Please report to your nearest reeducation camp immediately.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:13 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

The thought police have good records on me.  

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:49 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

"So what do we do in America where 30% of the population is feral?"

Great point.  Answer: concealed carry and caning (preferably public).

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Silver Dreamer
Silver Dreamer's picture

The DC Metro is heavily used.  In fact it is so packed that parking before you get to the train and space on the them are both hard to find.  Tons of people are using the trains even though they break down, crash, have A/C that doesn't work in the summer, and have heaters that do not work in the winter.  Even the occasional person that smelled like urine didn't stop people.

Public transportation is being used in the DC/MD/VA area.  It just isn't worth it though financially or time wise.  Why would I bother with the Metro when it makes my commuting time three times longer while putting up with all of the crap I mentioned above?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:43 | Link to Comment prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

You might poll some people on that theory.  Sure, violence is a consideration but you'll probably find that most don't use it because it's either nonexistent in their area, inconvenient, or the fact that petrol/diesel is too cheap to keep people from using it.  Even when oil was $140/bbl consumption hardly dipped.  Pump prices don't reflect true cost anyway.  Did somebody say something about subsidies?  Consider the preferential tax treatment for oil extraction/refining industries (i.e. subsidies).  And the US spends $60B+ annually maintaining waterways between the US and our foreign petroleum suppliers (subsidies).  Finally, the cost of military intervention/bases involving oil-producing regions (subsidies)?  Real cost of oil:  at least $250/bbl

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:12 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

The elasticity of demand for gas is -0.06% or a 10% increate decreases use 0.6%.  So a 100% increase in gas prices would drop usage 6%.  Mass transportation is impractical for all but a few highly concentrated areas of the world.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:12 | Link to Comment prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

My ignorance is showing, but is there a relevant range for the elasticity "constant".  In other words, what happens at $100/gal?  Agreed on pragmatic problems with mass transportation.  Eisenhower didn't push thru highway funding because population is concentrated in the US.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 21:58 | Link to Comment UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

My handy-dandy computer calculator says that would equal -171.4285714%

Try it sometime.

And I know, I know, Maths iz hard.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 22:11 | Link to Comment economics1996
economics1996's picture

In the long run everything is elastic.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:56 | Link to Comment Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

I'd like to see a study of how much petroleum products are consumed by the military.  I know that by the time gas gets into a humvee in Afghanistan it costs around $400 a gallon.  It's like the Pentagon is perpetuating war just so it can fund its own operations.

Thu, 01/19/2012 - 00:09 | Link to Comment Freewheelin Franklin
Freewheelin Franklin's picture

That "merge" at 7A is a bitch, ain't it?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:02 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

it's just total mfin brilliance at all levels.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:05 | Link to Comment Vaiman
Vaiman's picture

He's just givener hard to bend the country over and do er good.  Canada will end up sending the oil to China! 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:39 | Link to Comment weinerdog43
weinerdog43's picture

Um, hello.  That's where it was going anyway.  The pipeline was going to ship the oil to Europe and Latin America.  It was not going to be used in the USA.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:03 | Link to Comment KK Tipton
KK Tipton's picture

"The pipeline was going to ship the oil to Europe and Latin America.  It was not going to be used in the USA."

Of course, this is why the pipeline was going to a PORT on the Gulf of Mexico.

 

We also have trains in the Pacific NW shipping USA coal to China 24/7.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 23:47 | Link to Comment rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

It is part of the "Coal for iPhones" program and it appears to be working very well.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:24 | Link to Comment gladiator2
gladiator2's picture

I have a question.   Why build a pipeline instead of a refinery or two on site at the tar sands mine ?   Rather than move heavy oil to the Texas Gulf Coast, why not refine it to gasoline, diesel, heating oil, asphalt, and chemicals in Canada and export the value-added product or use them in Canada ?   A large refinery complex would be far less costly both in time and $$ and less politically controversial than a 1500 mile pipeline across aquifers and farmland.

Agreed we could use the jobs here, but Keystone seems like doing it the hardest possible way.  

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:57 | Link to Comment Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

The hardest way, but the most profitable way for the people involved in the project.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 19:16 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Look at who has the action in the tar sands amongst the integrated majors and how much refining capcity they have elsewhere....

It is callled "Robbing Peter to pay Paul".....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:31 | Link to Comment SHEEPFUKKER
SHEEPFUKKER's picture

The U.S. doesn't need Canada's oil yet.....they've got Iraq's, Libya's, and soon to be Iran's. ;)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:46 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Just like with Alaska, they're saving it for later.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:53 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

You can have Alaska, it will cost you 700 to 1200 dollars a month for heating oil in your home depending on season.

As I type this there is a Russian Tanker carefully off loading enough to keep Nome going as it digs out from 30 feet of snow.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Maxter
Maxter's picture

We are actualy considering selling it to China since the U-S doesn't seem interested by our oil.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:42 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

NotApplicable

Just like with Alaska, they're saving it for later.

Gotta wonder where the Green Weenies are on the Fracking issue.This method of extraction is going to destroy our aquifers, many are already seeing serious disease in children, and the areas where this is the most prevalent, the tap water is basically a carcinogen now.

Would(GREEN WEENIES), make a hell of a lot more sense to stop them from Fracking, before we're FRACKED to death?.The sensible thing would be OPEN up the Alaskan reserve fields for conventional drilling,much cleaner,safer,and results are the same.

Where is the EPA while our declining aquifers are becoming more and more polluted?.

But, hey I guess if they REALLY cared, they may have figured this out by now.Or could it be this is a way to limit population increases.................gonna be a bitch on hospital costs.

Esp the tree hugging Nazis.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:00 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Why they care so much, they're creating all of these cancer charities in advance of the upcoming epidemic!

You should see the reactions I get when people approach me to ask for donations to "Fight X form of cancer", and I tell them that cancer isn't even a disease, but rather a symptomatic response to a genetic disorder,  environmental contamination, or some combination of the two (predisposition and triggers). Then I lead them through the logic.

What's the world's largest killer? Diarrhea

Is it a disease by itself, or a symptom of many different diseases? Many

Should we spend all of our resources looking the cure for diarrhea, or focus on prevention of it while looking for the cure to the underlying diseases? (guess what answer I get?)

Then they walk away, trying to forget our conversation while looking for the next mark.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:56 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

What makes you think that Alaska is not open? I mean, of the millions upon millions of acres to be explored why is all that oil only in Federally restricted lands?

You did see this, didn't you?

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2622

Similarly, for the kerogen and bitumen deposits in Colorado and Utah, 3% or so lie in Federal lands, there is nothing stopping Big Oil from going after the other 97%.... Well, one thing does stop them, the fact that there is no economical oil to be had....

Finally, let me guess, it was the Commie Vegans that stopped Texas from producing in 1970 and caused the subsequent decline in the lower-48...

Take your irrational bullshit elsewhere... 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:47 | Link to Comment HellFish
HellFish's picture

Keep repeating the lies.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:46 | Link to Comment prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

Define "need"

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:39 | Link to Comment 847328_3527
847328_3527's picture

Who gave all the Texas toll roads and parking meter business to Spanish Bankers:

http://transtexascorridor.blogspot.com/

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:48 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Gave? I think you mean sold.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:07 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

No ORI.

For most of the rest of this century, the ability to move as much available gas and oil as quickly and economically as possible will be critical to national survival much less prosperity (the banker/government racket has killed the prosperity thing for quite a while). 

Energy which is in North America is available here first and available elsewhere second. Energy which has direction optionality outside the US is subject to market and political forces.

This is a stupid move made by a stupid government which has been elected by people who have been stupified and culturally neutered (on purpose).

Of course if those who stupified and de-Americanized this country get their way, it won't matter because the former United States of America will just continue evolving into just another principality in the empire of the NWO.

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:23 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

yes ManT. I said pipelines are NOT the way.

Of course an oil based economy needs oil, lot's of it.

Age of OIL is over, this is just the last gasp. years, not decades more.

ori

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:55 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

"Age of OIL is over, this is just the last gasp. years, not decades more"

I agree that it is ending and we have probably seen peak, but every thing takes longer than expected.

Private money wouldn't want to build that thing if the supply wasn't sufficient for the investment life.

The fact that the supply is being forced elsewhere demonstrates government insanity in an energy dependent country.

Either the US government is insane or it has an agenda other than energy security.

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:02 | Link to Comment doug79
doug79's picture

So when do you think that Canada will be attacking a pipeline through its best trading partner's territory to destroy a piece of inftrastructure built by a Canadian company transporting Canadian oil? 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:00 | Link to Comment Albertarocks
Albertarocks's picture

It's pretty damned wacky isn't it?  I suppose the Canadian companies could eventually get pissed off enough at the lunacy of it all and decide to build that pipeline to the west coast instead.  Crazier things have happened.  Last I heard there was already an oil pipeline somewhere in the USA and the environment isn't totally wrecked yet.  What's the real reason for vetoing the pipeline O?  Oh yeah... planned destruction of the global middle class.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:39 | Link to Comment Mikehy
Mikehy's picture

Maybe i am missing the sarcasm in ORI's post, but it sounds completely insane. LNG tankers are enormously expensive to build and maintain and to meet the capacity of pipelines offer there would need to be scores of new LNG tankers built and crewed. Pipelines are by far the most efficient way to move petroleum products and 2nd place isnt even close.Unless these magical vessels have wheels on them i also dont see how they would get to the production areas.

More importantly , the Keystone XL pipeline would be transporting crude, not LNG, from mid continent.There will be a pipeline built one way or the other. Its either going to be directly to the texas refining center or to the coast so the crude can be shipped by sea to some other refining center (China).

Am i the idiot for even responding to this?

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:59 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yes, speaking of DC and power, now the sheeple will run to their new "savior" Mitt Rhobama.  Unbelievable how obviously scripted this all is now.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:27 | Link to Comment hunglow
hunglow's picture

Pig shit!

Methane!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:39 | Link to Comment Van Halen
Van Halen's picture

Alien Invader - hysterical!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:23 | Link to Comment Silver Bug
Silver Bug's picture

Wow this is shameful. A chance to create real jobs and security for the U.S. And he throws it all away because it is an election year. Canada will be shipping that oil to China.

 

http://silverliberationarmy.blogspot.com/

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:27 | Link to Comment kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

"Because this is an election year" - do you really think that this helps him to get elected?  It will be quite the opposite.  So why?  Who wants him to be a one term president and why?

 

I posted this below... but, IMO...

So, I wonder why TPTB want Obama to be a one term president?  It's not like Obama suddenly grew an interest in supporting his constituency.  I mean he has already proven himself to be a neocon with respect to our war mongering foreign policy.  And he is clearly an opponent of civil rights as he signed the NDAA into law after saying he wouldn't... it's not like he's some sort of environmentalist all of a sudden.  It would seem that this one is almost too easy: access to energy, creation of jobs, etc.  The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that this is as transparent as GHWB yawning and checking his watch during a debate.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:46 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

"So, I wonder why TPTB want Obama to be a one term president?"

OK, here's my theory. So that a Republican (any but Ron Paul) is elected, will take the wrong actions, everything tanks, Republican policies are blamed, and Obama (or someone new) is elected in 2016 to finish the conversion to totalitarian state.

Just a theory.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:50 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

He'd never get the nomination. Hillary would.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:03 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

I could see that. Bumper sticker: "The one you should have elected in 2008!"

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:47 | Link to Comment AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

Jobs? You're kidding me right? Pipelines are created because they don't require a big permanent workforce. Just the assemblers (which are fired once assembly's finished), and then a small manteinance crew. All the while they leak everywhere, specially contaminating considering the sludge coming from the tar sands. And it keeps the oil world rolling, as if that has any future. I regret to say it, but IMHO, Obama did right killing the pipeline.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Pipelines are far more efficient and far less dangerous than oil tankers. But you've stopped using energy so you're doing your part.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:55 | Link to Comment HungrySeagull
HungrySeagull's picture

In World War Two, the Railroads were required to CARRY ALL of the Intracoastal oil traffic (None by ship because the German U Boats were sinking them left and right) and finally had to haul oil products out of Cushing and other places in solid trains in all directions.

 

Pipeline by rail. And they got it done too.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:45 | Link to Comment AchtungAffen
AchtungAffen's picture

I bet if we count oil lost due to tankers crashing and oil lost due to constant pipeline leak, we'd get different numbers.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:47 | Link to Comment kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Given a dozen options, Commiebama will always choose the one that hurts America most.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment Greater Fool
Greater Fool's picture

But Robomney will change all that! /sarc

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:20 | Link to Comment Sneeze
Sneeze's picture

What's it like to be totally oblivious?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:51 | Link to Comment myshadow
myshadow's picture

It is the right decision, I'm surprised he did it... The jobs thing is a red herring, and the oil goes to the world market...Furthermore, who would profit from this?  The koch's among others.

There may be a back door to this. Keeping OIL over $95 is also mission critical for Tar Sands. That won’t be too hard for this monopoly.

The view from the left.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/18/state-department-plans-rejection-...

 

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:15 | Link to Comment defencev
defencev's picture

And that is because Marxist Obama deliberately destroys the country. Is not it clear?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

There were some pretty legit concerns about contamination of drinking water.  Freshwater in general, and particularly freshwater that's suitable for drinking, is a far more precious commodity than oil.  I disagree with the Obamapuppet on pretty much everything, but this is one his handlers got right.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

Technologies that  push back "peak oil" (tar sands, fracked gas) use up and/or contaminate fresh water. Peak Water is next.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:01 | Link to Comment Encroaching Darkness
Encroaching Darkness's picture

You actually think OPuppet did this to preserve freshwater supplies? Or that he cares about fresh water, clean air or arable land?

Garbage: OPuppet did this for VOTES, votes from his green Obamabots; first crony capitalism, now crony environmentalism. Same shit, different color label. Chicago politics at its finest, mixed in with feel-good, think-bad optics in an election year.

After all, its not like anyone who might have been employed by the pipeline, its construction, operation or the sale of its transported products would have voted for OPuppet anyway. Those would be WORKING people, not the food-stamp UE-collecting welfare-supported drones that benefit from his policies.

The pipeline companies must not have contributed enough to his re-election campaign, so they lose. It's that simple, that corrupt, and that typical of his whole administration.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:05 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Hear! Hear!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:45 | Link to Comment myshadow
myshadow's picture

16 yahoos and counting....

 

I agree with you.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:07 | Link to Comment HarryM
HarryM's picture

The economy might fall off the cliff , but it seems the market will go up anyway.

Total disconnect

Maybe end of 2nd qtr - just before election

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:17 | Link to Comment clones2
clones2's picture

What has this guy actually accomplished the past 3 years???

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:19 | Link to Comment clones2
clones2's picture

I forgot that he has raised Americas debt more than every other president combined... My bad.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:50 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

clones2

Clones, sorry but not true, just from Washington to Clintons 1st term.

Not from Washington to Bush.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:53 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

He's still got another year.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:56 | Link to Comment clones2
clones2's picture

I think $1.5 Trillion next year might do the trick and just what the good ole US of A needs...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:57 | Link to Comment clones2
clones2's picture

And from a recent article...

"That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion--more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined."

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:06 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Hairy Reid and the Dem Senate has not submitted a budget since Obama came to office.  They should all be impeached.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment Landrew
Landrew's picture

You should read the constitution! That isn't the budget process! House originates the budget, the Senate ratifies it. O'Bummer signs it into law. That is the only way it is law.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 19:21 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

That's Freddie... just ignore him, his hatred of anything Muslim or Democrat is only exceeded by his lack of social graces...

(He's like the kid with the extra chromosome that gets locked in the basement when company is around)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:07 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

That's poppy Bush, ya know. (W was 43)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment Joe Sixpack
Joe Sixpack's picture

As the Newt likes to point out- he signed up more Americans then evcer in history on food stamps!

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:55 | Link to Comment prodigious_idea
prodigious_idea's picture

Wrong, and more than a little over-used, but a great soundbite

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:46 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

clones2

Destroyed the Constitution,made us all potential terrorists,spent over 5 Trillion in less than 4yrs,is asking for 1.5T more in 15 days,(it took Bush 8yrs to spend 7T)and with this Veto,it will cause the Canucks to run it across Canada,and they already have a deal in the bag with China for the entire deal.

So, outside of tearing/destroying the hell out of everything he touches,and costing us trillions on failed policies and ventures(on purpose).

I would give him an A+ for completion of tasks he got elected to do thus far.Good Job!.

And a F- for posing as an American.Much less a POTUS.

WTF more could you ask of a supposed leader?.

4 more years of this dude,and we're worse than Iran.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:01 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Cancel your TV service because TV keeps this criminal in power. ALL TV is absolute s**t.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:22 | Link to Comment SillySalesmanQu...
SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

+1 DosZap

That was the plan all along...was'nt it?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:50 | Link to Comment Haole
Haole's picture

Hasn't his handicap dropped considerably..?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:17 | Link to Comment SheepleLOVEched...
SheepleLOVEcheddarbaybiscuits's picture

obama=serial hipocracy

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:17 | Link to Comment Gubbmint Cheese
Gubbmint Cheese's picture

Obama - doing his best to make things worse since day one.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Yes, but the way he sees it, he has done the right thing at a slower pace than he wanted.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment DB Cooper
DB Cooper's picture

Winning

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:18 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

There were no jobs to be created for the states the pipeline would run through, except for secondary restaurant and hotel-maid jobs.  All the construction would be union, from out-of-state, most likely Illinois.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:54 | Link to Comment Dick Gazinia
Dick Gazinia's picture

I live in Nebraska and the last pipeline employed tons of local people in this area as it passed about 1/2 mile from my house.

To say that no local jobs would be created is factually incorrect.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:58 | Link to Comment duo
duo's picture

One of the governors was on TV yesterday complaining about it.  The the pipeline you mention was built BEFORE Obama bacame president, and probably had to do with energy security more than handing out favors to unions.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:59 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

A one-off event can hardly be considered a job. It's merely a project. A job is where you work on one project after another (with occasional gaps) that can support you indefinitely.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:18 | Link to Comment BlackVoid
BlackVoid's picture

Actually, this is good news. Investing in expensive energy will never pay off.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

50,000 jobs created or saved by Barry with this, right?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment J 457
J 457's picture

Why rely on our friendly neighbors to the north for oil when we can instead start increasing more imports from those stable countries in the middle east.  <sarc>

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:27 | Link to Comment Divided States ...
Divided States of America's picture

Eff that notion, with an army half the size of their entire country's population, we can just walk over and demand that they give us their oil, cheaper alternative. Then it will be their copper, then freshwater, and their women.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Desert Irish
Desert Irish's picture

If you like women with hairy legs go for it, just leave us our beer. On second thoughts most americans just assume we're part of the US so why bother....

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:17 | Link to Comment Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

You're against genetics my man, they have hairy legs only because of govrnment policy, if you look at northern population of Canada they're mostly hairless (talking about legs) and only douchebags like you can mix everything in one backet. And have good time drinking that swill.  

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

Canadian women are generally pretty nice.  I remember being on a flight sitting next to a Scandinavian Canadian girl.  she was gorgeous and very nice.  I can think of a lot of other examples as well.

I avoid flying now because I do not want to be groped by the scum at TSA.

(message has been flagged by DHS -re TSA comment)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:35 | Link to Comment francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

they can keep their women... I'll take the beer

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Divine Wind
Divine Wind's picture

Canada is America's hat.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:59 | Link to Comment Dick Gazinia
Dick Gazinia's picture

The queen came across the atlantic and decided to name the land that we call Canada.  Her advisory suggested that they should put letters into a hat and have a commoner draw the letters to come up with a name.

A commoner was chosen and he reached into the hat and said "C-Aye", "N-Aye", "D-Aye".

Hence the name Canada.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:08 | Link to Comment misnomer
misnomer's picture

that's toque, hats don't cut it up here...

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 15:10 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Wait, only one "O" in toque?

Can't you people pronounce anything right? ;-)

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 16:55 | Link to Comment misnomer
misnomer's picture

I blame Quebec (as all good Anglo-Canadian's do)...

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Like I said before, it's not about harvesting oil, it's about controling the flow of it. JP Morgan stands to lose alot of money if this pipeline get's built. Create an artificial scarcity, it's not peak oil, it's peak production.

There is no such thing as peak oil.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:08 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

you understand that "peak oil" means a peak in the production of oil, right?

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:24 | Link to Comment Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

No, he doesn't understand

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:59 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

No, I do understand, I am a Gulf War Vet, our first job there was to kill all opposition, then turn their wells off and weld the valves SHUT! Peak oil is a myth.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 18:20 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Wow, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...

So just how did the Kuiwatis manage to produce any oil in the past few years with all the wells welded  shut?

If I go here, the historical data for Kuwaiti oil production

http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/output_en/Exports_BP_2011_oil_bbl_KW_MZM_NONE_auto_M.png

I see a big dip due to GW I, a few years later I see increased production compared to before Saddam came to town...

Are you sure that you are not making shit up on the fly???? 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Listen here, we were orderd to take over specific oil wells and SHUT THEM DOWN. Meaning render them inoperative. I don't have any idea of what fukin charts you put up, you serve your Country and folow orders. Agian. There is no such thing as Peak oil Period. Now your pissing me off. We have oil wells in the USA that rival Saudi Arabia so you tell me.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 19:28 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Does following alledged orders 20 years ago give you a excuse not to think for yourself now?

How the fuck do you reconcile Kuwaiti crude production since 1992 with your statment?

Do you think that maybe someone said once Red was finished putting out the fires that it was ok to re-open them?

No peak oil, eh? So the world is infinite?

How much oil meaning C+C (Crude + Condensate) does the world currently produce? How much did it produce 10 years ago, 5 years ago? 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 19:44 | Link to Comment Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

According to the chart, we did our fukin job bitch, are you doing yours?

Again, No such thing as peak oil fucker. No peak oil, peak production meaning limited harvest. NO SUCH THING AS PEAK OIL!! THERE IS 200 YEARS OF OIL IN ANWAR AND BASKING RIDGE COMBINED. SHUT THE FUK UP. THERE IS A PEAK OIL SUPLY IF YOUR THINKING OF THE LONG GAME, BUT BY THIS POINT, WE SHOULD BE OFF IT BY NOW BUT THE TECHNOLOGY IS BEING SUPPRESED FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES. WHEN I SAY "NO SUCH THING AS PEAK OIL" I AM DESCRIBING WITHIN OUR CHILDRENS LIFETIME.

 

YOUR SO FUKIN STUPID, YOU PROBABLY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT IRAN RUNS OPEC RIGHT NOW YOU IGNORANT FUCK.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 23:24 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

My, did you forget the meds...you really should be nicer. no one will like you if you play like that....

But seriously, if you can't handle a differing viewpoint and get confused by facts, go fuck yourself. 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:15 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

"Shit 4 Brains" would be a better handle for you....

 

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:43 | Link to Comment tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Yeah! So take that! *stamps foot*

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 17:58 | Link to Comment DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

peak oil is no match for peak comprehension

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment j0nx
j0nx's picture

They must have endorsed the R candidate.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment 55 men
55 men's picture

I am starting this new MLM. In a nut shell it basically destroys America, but it is going to be profitable. If your interested call the white house, they recruited me. You only have to get 3 people, then they get 3 peope. Before you know it, no more america.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:20 | Link to Comment THECOMINGDEPRESSION
THECOMINGDEPRESSION's picture

He would have created a million jobs for the oil cleanup..dumb putz

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:21 | Link to Comment gringo28
gringo28's picture

this is likely some kind of back room deal with Beijing. or maybe it's just Valerie Jarrett swooping in again, like Batwoman.

Wed, 01/18/2012 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

Moment of silence ... he's got a putt for a triple.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!