Heavy Lobbying Before Keystone Oil Pi...

Heavy Lobbying Before Keystone Oil Pipeline Decision

There are 7 comments on the National Public Radio story from Jan 12, 2012, titled Heavy Lobbying Before Keystone Oil Pipeline Decision. In it, National Public Radio reports that:

The Syncrude tar sands mine north of Fort McMurray, Alberta, November 3, 2011. Alberta's tar sands would supply the oil for the prospective Keystone XL pipeline.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at National Public Radio.

Perspective

Cold Lake, Canada

#1 Jan 17, 2012
Why don't we just build a pipeline to somewhere in Alberta from the oilsands and build refineries in house? Shut in some oil pipelines to the states as they don't like our dirty oil as it is. Maybe than convert those once upon dirty oil pipelines to gas and diesel pipelines than sell the best to Americans. Keep the jobs in house. Increase profits on a barrel of oil.
I don't know just a thought?
Sick of Stupid

Ames, IA

#2 Jan 17, 2012
Seem like a good thought to me. It makes very little sense to send more oil to the old overworked refineries we already have. Everytime the weather is bad, the price goes up.
What does a giant company actually do with 93 million in profits every quarter??

Wouldn't it be better to refine the oil in the north where it comes from?
the only reason there are lots of refineries in the south is ther is oil there. surely they cold build some new refineries...

Oh wait a minute. I almost forgot..
Supply and demand. If they end up making too much oil by being smart, then the price will have to come down.
No one wants that really. Why do you think they continbue to do business in the mid east when Canada has enough oil for the whole continent for 150 years, even at a much better price? Canadian oil sands oil is only about $45 a barrel.
Are these oil companies business men looking at the bottom line? Or power brokers trying to keep the world under their thumbs?

The free market is an illusion.
corporations are people, money is speech.
indy

Mansfield, MA

#3 Jan 29, 2012
theres too much fed regulations to build refineries.... there is one side of us politics that is anti-oil.... or anything oil.... except that they invest in it, and get rich from it..... some see, or just say, oil as the devil, i guess if one is rich, and lives in a big white hous, he doesnt really have to worry about the price of gas or heating oil....but the majority of us have those worries..... if the oil hads to be move by trian, instead of the keystone pipeline, the big corp train companies get rich, in this case it would be o's buddy warren buffet... so im guessing there is a payoff to whomever makes the decision...... sounds like we need an investigation.....

Since: Feb 12

Lahaina, HI

#5 Feb 3, 2012
This is good to hear.

“your life is great”

Since: Aug 09

you poop in clean water

#6 Feb 3, 2012
indy wrote:
theres too much fed regulations to build refineries.... there is one side of us politics that is anti-oil.... or anything oil.... except that they invest in it, and get rich from it..... some see, or just say, oil as the devil, i guess if one is rich, and lives in a big white hous, he doesnt really have to worry about the price of gas or heating oil....but the majority of us have those worries..... if the oil hads to be move by trian, instead of the keystone pipeline, the big corp train companies get rich, in this case it would be o's buddy warren buffet... so im guessing there is a payoff to whomever makes the decision...... sounds like we need an investigation.....
you should do a little investigating on your own.
.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitu...
,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415...
.
the link from cornell reveals what the TRUE impact would be, not only environmentally, but economically as well.
the 2nd link is a little questionable (IMO), but if even a part of it is true, then it's a good thing that O turned it down.
That being said, it should also be kept in mind that it's Boehner and his buddies that are pushing this, and stand to profit.
Ironically, it was a elected republican from Nebraska that personally called O and asked him to not approve this pipeline.
.
.
this oil was not earmarked for US use, it's to be put on the open market.
and...., the company that owns TransCanada is owned by Mr. & Mr. Koch, not Mr. Buffett.
.
.
indy

Mansfield, MA

#7 Feb 10, 2012
anneutral wrote:
<quoted text>
you should do a little investigating on your own.
.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitu...
,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415...
.
the link from cornell reveals what the TRUE impact would be, not only environmentally, but economically as well.
the 2nd link is a little questionable (IMO), but if even a part of it is true, then it's a good thing that O turned it down.
That being said, it should also be kept in mind that it's Boehner and his buddies that are pushing this, and stand to profit.
Ironically, it was a elected republican from Nebraska that personally called O and asked him to not approve this pipeline.
.
.
this oil was not earmarked for US use, it's to be put on the open market.
and...., the company that owns TransCanada is owned by Mr. & Mr. Koch, not Mr. Buffett.
.
.
.....i get alot of left sided news, but..... obama said we need jobs, this would provide jobs.... i dont need to have some libby news try to tell me other wise... its very common for my pals on the left to tell me o didnt say that, as im listening to him say what i hear him say...sorry, not all of us are so stupid...... so are u saying o nixed it because he is in for some big money from the koch's? seems o's in with so many richies......
indy

Mansfield, MA

#8 Feb 10, 2012
anneutral wrote:
<quoted text>
you should do a little investigating on your own.
.
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitu...
,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415...
.
the link from cornell reveals what the TRUE impact would be, not only environmentally, but economically as well.
the 2nd link is a little questionable (IMO), but if even a part of it is true, then it's a good thing that O turned it down.
That being said, it should also be kept in mind that it's Boehner and his buddies that are pushing this, and stand to profit.
Ironically, it was a elected republican from Nebraska that personally called O and asked him to not approve this pipeline.
.
.
this oil was not earmarked for US use, it's to be put on the open market.
and...., the company that owns TransCanada is owned by Mr. & Mr. Koch, not Mr. Buffett.
.
.
also im pretty sure buff owns burlinton northern ..... u may want to do a lil research on that ........

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

TransCanada Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gas plant plume 'no threat' (Mar '11) Apr 20 Yellow means Sulp... 5
News Inside The Herald - If a community is only wort... (Jan '08) Apr 12 Trust Us eh Bow Tie 61
News Power generating station beginning to take shape (Jan '08) Mar '18 Power Halton sile... 137
News TranCanada donates $200K to rink expansion project (Nov '12) Nov '17 what they do 2 ot... 13
News Statement on TransCanada Oil Spill on Keystone ... Nov '17 anonz 2
News TransCanada says 210,000 gallons of oil leaked ... Nov '17 anonz 3
News TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline Shut After 5,00... Nov '17 sure do tell eh 1