Did you look at who sponsored your link ? Reminds me of a OWS link.

 

Each point has a link out to another site. If you feel the judgment is faulty tell us why.

 

Do you think there are going to more than 6500 jobs?

 

Do you think it will not have a negative impact at the pump?

 

Do you think it will greatly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil?

 

Do you think farmers costs will not go up?

 

Do you think that unlike the Keystone I project there will be no leaks/spills?

 

This is your chance to sell us. I've already pointed out the faults in the 20k jobs claim. This is your chance to point out the faults in the article I found.

 

Or you can just keep complaining about the delay. Up to you.

BTW this has nothing to do with elections in my mind.

 

Part of it is without question contrarian as I find people who spout off without knowing anything irksome. No one on this board is smart enough to KNOW the facts so why not go out and look for opinions that differ just to make sure your opinion seems sound. Prove what I've found wrong. We'll all be smarter for it.

 

I'm darn skeptical of a lot of things about this project. This bitumen process is almost an unknown to us. It's not something to guess on and take a chance with unless you have a high confidence factor. The company has a poor history of spills and it only takes one to screw up a lot.

 

So let's quit making this a political discussion because that's way down the list of importance. If you think the opinions I've referenced are crapola then back up your belief. It's what would make this board better instead of the normal pejoratives and inane repeated recitations.

More than 6,500 jobs: yes

Negative at the pump: no

"Greatly" reduce dependence: no

Farmer cost rise: no

Spills: Probably, but very little environmental impact

Every big controversy seems to generate its own information fog. Facts may be incomplete or missing altogether. Reporting can get fuzzy. For every negative source you site. I can retrieve a positive source.. I'm for the pipeline. You are not. I can't convince you, nor can you convince me.

I also find people who spout off without knowing anything irksome. Especially the ones who believe their sources are always factual.. What make yours right and mine wrong or visa-verse ?

Each point has a link out to another site. If you feel the judgment is faulty tell us why.

 

Do you think there are going to more than 6500 jobs?

 

Yes as those are just the construction jobs. Those guys are going to spend money (see Alaskan Pipeline stories) and the materials have to be manufactured and delivered. In addition I can't see employment at refineries not going up with the infusion of that much oil

 

Do you think it will not have a negative impact at the pump?

 

Should help at the pump if it truly is half of what we import from the middle east and we purchase it, not just refine it.

 

Do you think it will greatly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil?

 

See above.

 

Do you think farmers costs will not go up?

 

It sounds like it would in the Midwest but the greater supply elsewhere would lower those costs and since we're talking half of our current mid east supply, I would think that the lower costs elsewhere would far exceed the greater midwest costs.

 

Do you think that unlike the Keystone I project there will be no leaks/spills?

 

I would think it would experience leaks and spills just as any other pipeline would.

 

 

The problem with debating this is that everyone has an agenda. I did find it interesting that the president's former National Security Advisor broke ranks and has come out in favor of the project.

 

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/16/jim_jones_bucks_obama_on_keystone_xl_pipeline

 

I'm sure we'll find out his agenda soon enough.

Approval of the pipeline is also vital to our national security.. With all the unrest in the Middle East and Obamas refusal to deal with Iran. Our main supply of oil could be shut down overnight.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/energy-intelligence/2011/12/15/approving-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-a-matter-of-national-security?s_cid=rss:energy-intelligence:approving-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-a-matter-of-national-security

What I don't understand is why anyone would oppose something the MAY help at the pump or that MAY create 6000 jobs. Even if it only creates 3000 jobs according to my math that's a net positive.

 

And if anyone doesn't believe that Obama and the other Dems aren't holding this up to help keep the support of the environmental left I will point out that prior to his election Obama PROMISED his ardent anti-war supporters that he would close Gitmo. How's that worked out. There is no doubt in my mind that if we as a country have the poor judgement to give Obama a second term this pipeline will be magically OKed very shortly there after because Obama will no longer have to be in Campaign mode.

 

That may be kind of refreshing, seeing how he governs when he's no longer in campaign mode 24/7 as he has been since his coronation, err inauguration.

I don't understand the whole scope of this project. I'm confused how it would lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the line would produce oil for exporting. Which leads me to another question...why would we export our own oil? Why not keep it domestic and reduce the amount of foreign oil we purchase?

More than 6,500 jobs: yes

Negative at the pump: no

"Greatly" reduce dependence: no

Farmer cost rise: no

Spills: Probably, but very little environmental impact

Every big controversy seems to generate its own information fog. Facts may be incomplete or missing altogether. Reporting can get fuzzy. For every negative source you site. I can retrieve a positive source.. I'm for the pipeline. You are not. I can't convince you, nor can you convince me.

 

Can you expound a bit as to why you believe what you believe?

Do you think there are going to more than 6500 jobs?

 

Yes as those are just the construction jobs. Those guys are going to spend money (see Alaskan Pipeline stories) and the materials have to be manufactured and delivered. In addition I can't see employment at refineries not going up with the infusion of that much oil

 

Do you think it will not have a negative impact at the pump?

 

Should help at the pump if it truly is half of what we import from the middle east and we purchase it, not just refine it.

 

Do you think it will greatly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil?

 

See above.

 

Do you think farmers costs will not go up?

 

It sounds like it would in the Midwest but the greater supply elsewhere would lower those costs and since we're talking half of our current mid east supply, I would think that the lower costs elsewhere would far exceed the greater midwest costs.

 

Do you think that unlike the Keystone I project there will be no leaks/spills?

 

I would think it would experience leaks and spills just as any other pipeline would.

 

 

The problem with debating this is that everyone has an agenda. I did find it interesting that the president's former National Security Advisor broke ranks and has come out in favor of the project.

 

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/16/jim_jones_bucks_obama_on_keystone_xl_pipeline

 

I'm sure we'll find out his agenda soon enough.

 

What assumptions are you making in regards to "helping at the pump" and "dependence?" Are you assuming the oil coming to the Gulf will stay in the States?

 

How long do you assume the jobs created will last? High paying? Low paying?

What I don't understand is why anyone would oppose something the MAY help at the pump or that MAY create 6000 jobs. Even if it only creates 3000 jobs according to my math that's a net positive.

 

And if anyone doesn't believe that Obama and the other Dems aren't holding this up to help keep the support of the environmental left I will point out that prior to his election Obama PROMISED his ardent anti-war supporters that he would close Gitmo. How's that worked out. There is no doubt in my mind that if we as a country have the poor judgement to give Obama a second term this pipeline will be magically OKed very shortly there after because Obama will no longer have to be in Campaign mode.

 

That may be kind of refreshing, seeing how he governs when he's no longer in campaign mode 24/7 as he has been since his coronation, err inauguration.

 

All Tell, as I've said previously you can't just pass something simply because there are potential job gains attached to it. That would be short-sighted. If jobs are the only goal then we simply need to get rid of all environmental regulations. Is that healthy?

What I don't understand is why anyone would oppose something the MAY help at the pump or that MAY create 6000 jobs. Even if it only creates 3000 jobs according to my math that's a net positive.

 

And if anyone doesn't believe that Obama and the other Dems aren't holding this up to help keep the support of the environmental left I will point out that prior to his election Obama PROMISED his ardent anti-war supporters that he would close Gitmo. How's that worked out. There is no doubt in my mind that if we as a country have the poor judgement to give Obama a second term this pipeline will be magically OKed very shortly there after because Obama will no longer have to be in Campaign mode.

 

That may be kind of refreshing, seeing how he governs when he's no longer in campaign mode 24/7 as he has been since his coronation, err inauguration.

 

There are legitimate concerns about the environmental impact and people are going to have honest disagreements about what is more important.

What assumptions are you making in regards to "helping at the pump" and "dependence?" Are you assuming the oil coming to the Gulf will stay in the States?

 

How long do you assume the jobs created will last? High paying? Low paying?

 

See my answer to #2 where I stated my assumptions-if it is truly half of our mid east imports and we purchase it.

 

Construction and any jobs that spring up to service those positions would only last the lenght of time of construction just like any other infrastruction jobs. That doesn't mean we don't do them. Other additional jobs of transporting and refining the additional oil would be long term and yes, with unions involved they would be high paying on the construction, transport and refining. Other peripheral would run the spectrum.

I would think it would experience leaks and spills just as any other pipeline would.

 

 

.

 

The Keystone I has had more first-year spills (12) than any other pipeline in history.

 

12 spills is not something we should just write off as "it happens."(not your words) It speaks to their commitment to quality and safety.

See my answer to #2 where I stated my assumptions-if it is truly half of our mid east imports and we purchase it.

 

 

Are you assuming the oil that makes it to the Gulf stays in the States?