You're speaking about what we "could" do. None of what you mention as "could" has been proposed yet. Why are we bringing that into the debate when it's not reality? The issue is granting the right to a company to move tar sand oil from Canada to the Gulf. That's it. They've made no promises about anything. That's what's being said should be approved.

 

Let's face it, everything is conjecture right now. Nothing is reality and everything is possible. Now is the time when it should be debated, not after the fact.

"Could" be made? I haven't seen that approval requirement.

 

While I agree that it can have an impact on prices that's not the reason people are saying to approve it. They're saying it will lessen our dependence. There is no evidence of that.

 

I do not know the answers to your last two questions. I do know I just read that a General said it will not make us safer .

 

I also seem to remember that global warming is now considered to be a potential national security issue. The process required to move and process the bitumen is much, much more harmful to the climate than conventional crude oil. The Pentagon now monitors global warming in regards to safety.

 

I'll take a National Security Advisor to the president over "a general".

 

As to evidence, there is no evidence that it would harm the environment either. Everything on both sides is based on past events. Many believe it will lessen dependence, many believe it will harm the environment.

Latest news: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-republicans-move-control-keystone-approval-022133713.html

Latest news: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-republicans-move-control-keystone-approval-022133713.html

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting approach.

 

For those that are for this pipeline or any such pipeline tell me what the minimum benefit the US would have to receive in order to receive your support taking into account all of the positives and all of the negatives.

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.

 

Correct. The 12 spills: 2 gallons, 5, 5, 10, 10, 10, 10, 15, 20, these are a "drop in the bucket". Now the "big ones", 216 gallons, 2100, & 21,000. In all of these spills TransCanada was able to limit to its property.

The real job numbers.. http://ht.ly/8yrFz

The jobs claim by the XL project is not supported by evidence. If I remember correctly even the company that would benefit says the jobs created are not very high.

 

Actual number of jobs would be 5k to 6k.

 

So let's use that number when we are debating.

 

I've just joined this and not read the article. Is 5-6k from the article or another source. Is that construction jobs only. Does it include satellite jobs like, trucking, restaurants, parts suppliers, steel suppliers.

 

Toyota employees how many? How many jobs were created by Toyota?

I've just joined this and not read the article. Is 5-6k from the article or another source. Is that construction jobs only. Does it include satellite jobs like, trucking, restaurants, parts suppliers, steel suppliers.

 

Toyota employees how many? How many jobs were created by Toyota?

 

The Keystone CEO says it is about 6500 jobs. The 13k is derived from 6500 people working for 2 years.

From what I've read what the Rs have essentially done is guarantee the project will not be completed at all because they are not giving the State Department enough time to do a review. That likely means that Congress will address it later.

 

Political theater.

 

Sounds like the way the Dems passed the healthcare bill.

 

Why not pass this so we can find out what's in it?