President Obama Signs Pipeline Safety, Airport Security Bills

January 5, 2012

  • January 5, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    MP says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obama cares so much about pipeline safety that he is prepared to green light Keystone XL despite widespread concerns, including whether it is a good idea to duplicate a pipeline (the Keystone pipeline) that is already “leaking like a sieve” after only a year. If it leaks now how will it be performing in 50 years after continuously tranporting the most corrosive oil in the known world under pressure? All for super low quality tar sands oil that takes five barrels of fresh (non recycled) water to extract each barrel of.

    But our lovely President is in a hurry to screw up another negotiation and trade Keystone XL inclusion for a temporary extension of payroll tax funded by robbing (yet again) social security. And by doing so, the establishment GOP wins twice in the deal- weakens an effective social program they hate while getting a pipeline their benefactors love, and all for a very temporary give-away that is politically unrisky).

    • January 5, 2012 at 1:34 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Where do you get your information that he is prepared to greenlight Keystone? All he agreed to do is make a decision within 60 days. It is widely believed that he will kill the pipeline because 60 days is not enough time to conduct the environmental review required by law. Republicans know he will kill the pipeline, but they want him to do it before the election. That’s why they included his requirement to make a decision within 60 days as part of the tax bill extension.

      • January 5, 2012 at 6:10 pm
        bob says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        OPV –

        Hahaha, I can always rely on you to take the spin which damages the right more than the left eh OPV?

        The Keystone Pipeline was started in consideration by the states (meaning the work from the Canadian company started long before) in 2008. We have had 4 years to do a review. Not 60 days. I work with architects and engineers. For the type of soils testing and pipeline manufacturing engineering they would need to have approved it would take at most 1-2 years. My father in the medical field gets medical equipment approved in 6 month to 1 year timelines. He has to. Maybe if the government had to get off their ass and get things done (which is what the republicans are trying to force right now.) then we would have a reliable pipeline helping both economies. If Obama can’t get this done one way or the other, he’s the one DELAYING the decision in order to avoid the political damage at the COST of potentually millions of barrels of oil, billions in tax revenues, and billions of dollars of intercountry commerce. That is a huge problem OPV. Not just a small one. The republicans are indeed trying to force him to choose. A politician can’t hold up a project for FOUR years and expect to be considered efficient.

        • January 5, 2012 at 9:23 pm
          The Other Point of View says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          There’s no spin in what I said, and if you take it as damaging you must have a guilty conscience. I agree that Obama wanted to delay a decision until after the election. He wanted a delay because he knows how rejecting the pipeline might look to some voters.

          But I would like to know how Obama has held this up for four years when he hasn’t even been President for three years yet.

          • January 6, 2012 at 12:42 pm
            bob says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            OPV:

            “Republicans know he will kill the pipeline, but they want him to do it before the election.”

            Your political spin, and a fallacy at that. The republicans have done everything they can to get this economy going. Ryan, Mitchell, Boehner, and those three have had study after study approved from the CBO stating that higher social security benefits have been linked to pay inequality, studies showing plans to improve the economy which were not once looked at by the media, plans for the budget deal in August that not once hit the media, deals they were making, deals that were nearly made with 1 trillion in offshore revenues, where those businesses agreed to bring all opertaions back to the U.S. for a 5.25% corporate tax rate (if they really are paying nothing, would 5.25% bring them back, I sense fallacy in Obama’s tax the corporations mentality) they put deals on the table, again and again. Obama chopped them off at every turn. I find it insulting that on yet another aspect they try to get done, you chop it off as a political ploy. It’s exactly the reason they cannot do anything that they were elected to do. That political republican comment had no need to be added other than your pointless political banter you always seem to add in regarding republicans. You’ve done that at least twice that I have noticed randomly regarding social issues.

            And regarding your interpretation of my claim of Obama being at fault for delaying the pipeline are you joking? I said it takes 2 years at most to approve. 1-2. And now you are blaming the president who had the normal timeline (1 year) and not the one who has had the abnormal timeline (3 years) and are somehow disregarding that the 1 year of review ever happened? We’ve reviewed it 4 years now. That’s enough time. He needs to decide the review is adaquette or not. And if not, he needs to get someone on it, and get it done. Immediately. The fact that it hasn’t is his fault. Not republicans. Attempting to find an error in my logic on something and trying to say “you crazy republican, how did he not approve something 4 years ago when he’s been in office 3?”. Because he’s been in office delaying it 3 years. Do not talk condescending to me, and imply I’m blaming him for things he wasn’t in office for. It will not be tolerated. At all.

  • January 5, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    Scott R says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I had no idea piplines were so unsafe. Anyone care to share some statisical data?

    • January 5, 2012 at 2:23 pm
      The Other Point of View says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      The U.S. Departmet of Transportation Pipelines & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration has some good information.

      http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/PSI.html

      In 2011, there were over 500 pipeline incidents involving oil spills. Pipelines are safer than transporting by truck. The problem with Keystone is that is passes through the main water supply aquifer for much of our drinking water. One bad accident and that’s all she wrote.

      • January 5, 2012 at 2:35 pm
        Amazed says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Other, if we believe your logic, we should dig up all the existing pipelines criss crossing the country, crossing under rivers, lakes because an accident may happen at some point. The Alaskan pipeline has been a huge success story and it was put in over the most difficult terrain under extreme weather conditions and it has supplied a tremendous amount of energy this country badly needs and I have yet to hear a story about a bad leak that damaged the environment.

        • January 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm
          The Other Point of View says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Did you bother to look at the statistics on the government link I provided? Did you see how many millions of gallons of oil leak from pipelines every year?

          Don’t trust the government statistics? Just Google “pipeline oil leaks” and click the “news” button and read about all the leaks.

          I said it’s safer that transporting by truck (and cheaper too I can add), but nothing is foolproof. I have no issue at all with the vast majority of pipelines, but why have one cutting through our water supply? Why take that risk? Why not explore an alternate route? Why can’t people learn from history? You know, they said the Titanic was unsinkable.

          A little caution when it comes to our water supply is not too much to ask.

          • January 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm
            Amazed says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            You are right, nothing is foolproof. I think the safety record of pipelines is a whole lot better than trucks, rails and ships which leak all the way across the ocean. It is also the cheapest way to transport petroleum or natural gas. By the way, the environmental study has been completed for over a year and now they think they have to study it over and over. By that time, Canada will be selling the oil to China and we will still be in a huge fix for energy if a crisis happens and we are cut off of supplies.

          • January 5, 2012 at 3:51 pm
            The Other Point of View says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Well, how about that, we agree on two things. (1) Pipelines are safer than other methods of transportation; and (2) nothing is foolproof.

            Now if we could only agree that we should explore an alternative route that doesn’t not endanger our nation’s water supply, we could solve our nation’s problems.

  • January 5, 2012 at 2:30 pm
    Amazed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    We have hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in use in this country for decades and very few problems. The East Coast would have frozen to death a long time ago if it weren’t for the natural gas pipelines coming from the midwest. There is no way Obama will go along with the Keystone Pipeline since his benefactors in the Environmental lobby would raise cain. By all means, let’s not create any new private sector jobs and be less dependent on the Shieks, Chavez and Mexico. We can’t let a good crisis go to waste can we? Blame the Republicans when gas hits $5 gallon.

  • January 5, 2012 at 4:22 pm
    Nonsense says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    All,

    Can we agree that none of us want to rely on anyone for oil or any energy resources? This is not a partisan issue….

    Can we also agree that oil will eventually run out and that every country in the world is doing their best to produce alternatives to oil right now, with America considerably trailing other countries.

    I think with all of us being in Insurance we understand that reading statistics is normally done in a biased eye. For example, I could look at statistics on the percentages of the miles of oil pipeline and the years they are in service compared to spills and see they are a great success. On the other hand, you could look at the same stats and see there was one spill that was so bad it will do damage to the environment, which again is not a partisan issue. The environment is not some liberal word – the environment in this case means contaminated drinking water which directly results in health problems and the loss of a huge amount of drinking water for the American people.

    Finally, water is not a renewable resource – it is finite. Clean drinking water is the next gold rush and will only go up in price as demand goes up with population and supply goes down with consumption and contamination.

    So, I wonder why we would consider building a pipeline over one of the WORLDS largest Aquifer (Ogallala) and not look at other routes or possibilities. All Americans want what’s best for the future of our country and for our kids AND we all want jobs and the economy to grow now – but is this the best option to satisfy both of those objectives?

    • January 5, 2012 at 6:23 pm
      Mike N says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      “All Americans want what’s best for the future of our country and for our kids…” Sorry, but that simply is not true. If that were the case, the federal budget would be in balance, each state in the red would have cut 20% of their “workers”, and the federal budget would be half the size. Also, obamacare would not have been passed, and congress would stand up and admit to what failures Medicare (bankrupt), Medicaid (bankrupt) and Social Security (bankrupt) are, as well as to the fact their promises (at least those of the party who foisted such scams upon our country) were nothing short of lies.

      In regard to water not being a renewable resource, please see any water treatment plant in your community. Perhaps one could undertand processes of desalination?

      What we CAN agree on, is that oil produces life saving items which otherwise would not exist. Have you visited a NICU recently? You know all those plastic tubes? Oil. You know all those IV bags? Oil. You know all those little plastic boxe they keep the babies in, so as to keep them warm? Oil.

      Now, let’s visit the rest of the hospital, shall we? MRI machines contain plastic. Oil. Pacemakers? Plastic. Oil. X-ray machines? Many parts again made with plastic. Oil. The bag used for CPr? Oil. I could go on all day.

      The problem with oil is people do not stop to fully understand what it does, or how it is really used. Usually they just make the simpleton’s argument about “addiction to oil”, as if that is a bad thing. Oil does not simply mean gas (or its many, many other fuel product derivations) or fuel. Of course, in that regard there still is no other fuel which contains as much energy per measure. Period.

      Oil is essentially like capitalism. It’s the worst of all fuels, except when compared with every one of the alternatives.

      BTW, if leftist enviros are so worried about the pipeline leaking, why don’t they agree to monitor the pipeline for free, offering up a solution, rather than simply wailing on, doing everything in their power to kill this project, or anything else having to do with fossil fuels? why do enviros not work instead on trying to develop a pipeline that has multiple failsafes mechanisms? They could then marshall their fundraising prowess and pay for the improvements themselves. A “put your money where your mouth is” attitude, rather than “do as much to make everything as expensive as possible on everyone else, so as to impede progress at every turn, just so I can feel beter about myself” approach.

      • January 5, 2012 at 9:28 pm
        The Other Point of View says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        So much to comment on here, but I’ll just start with your first comment that implies that being in debt is a bad thing.

        Do you own a home? Did you pay cash for it, or did you take out a mortgage? If you took out a mortgage, does that mean you are a bad person because you incurred debt? Does incurring debt mean you don’t care about your family?

        • January 6, 2012 at 12:55 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Correction:

          If you take out more debt than you can handle, and force someone else to pay for it are you a bad person?

          Now, then you would have it close to right, but it needs a second statement:

          If you run deficits on a yearly basis that costs each American: $4,530 in immediate costs, plus increases the interest each year where very soon at of about a trillion of debt, and 500 billion (1/2) of the debt is on interest alone, robbing people of the services they need, while the average earnings or an american is only just over $40,000 annually, meaning you sign on 1/10th of your income each year, and add interest of $1,600 by $2015, with a total outstanding debt of $48,000 per person already, are you in trouble. Yes. Yes you are. We have about 15 trillion in debt. Divide that by about 310,000,000 people. $48,000 per person on $40,000 of income, growing $4,500 a year, plus interest of $1,600 on each by 2015 with only more to grow. Without that debt and interest we could pay for 500 billion of important aspects. The CBO predicts on very very giving circumstances (that our revenues will be above what they were in 2007. I doubt that highly) that we will have deficits of about 900 billion with $500 billion of that in interest alone. As in if Obama had not doubled our deficit, that would be about $250 billion of interest. He robbed us of 250 billion dollars of assistance through wreckless spending. I would call that a bad decision, bad debt management, and a bad person.

          • January 6, 2012 at 6:12 pm
            Amazed says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Bob, I am afraid we have a rogue government right now which thinks it can do whatever it wants. Most of our representatives and Senators are multi millionaires from taking lobbyists money, insider trading and other corrupt dealings. They leave us to twist in the wind with declining incomes, run up the countries debts and blame each other for the mess they have created. There needs to be a general housecleaning all the way to the top next November if we are going to turn it around.

        • January 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm
          bob says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I love you OPV, never a good come back but always a down grade to my posts. Let the record show I don’t down grade any of yours.

          But I left out a number for you. $40,000 earnings, 312,000,000 people, and the average person pays 17% on their federal taxes. Remind me how those numbers say we are not in bad debt?

          That technically means we have spent $48,000 worth of debt on each person with $6,800 of income, growing in interest almost 70 percent of their annual income each year ($4,500 / $6,800 = 66 percent) How in the world do you not see this as a problem? Or social security as an example. It is reliant on more people paying in than withdrawing. It doesn’t have a built capital over time. So any money we take from the rich to put in there is destroyed. Ok, fine I’ll be bipartisan, why not tax the rich, eliminate social security, put the funds in to a IRA which cannot be touched by the government or people (right now social security does not have a guarantee) and fix the whole thing? The funds would be reliant on growth to pay out on more than a 1:1 ratio, therefore you would not need more people paying in than people paying out, the capital growth would handle it. The answer? Because…Of conceptual lunatics on the left who have this debt is ok and we are just fine mentality, while insisting that only if the government takes directly from the rich will we have wealth. That destroys wealth. That is the reason it’s bad, why our current debt is only going to grow, and we are in a bad spot. If FDR had not set up the social security system back when he did and set up my system, the debt would not exist. At all. Crunch the numbers and you will see I am correct. Put 1940’s income into a IRA calculator based on the median income at the time, the numbers of growth, and if they had invested for 35 years as 1975. 1975 onward would be godly in terms of capital growth for every American.

  • January 5, 2012 at 5:54 pm
    Amazed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Nonsense, I only agree with part of what you say. You say that oil will eventually run out. I am tired of hearing the President say that we consume 25% of the oil and only have 3% of the supply which is a total fabrication. The good ole USA has more proven reserves than the entire Middle East and it has only grown larger over the years with the new technology for extraction. We may not have an infinite supply, but we do have 100 years at present consumption levels that we know of. Meanwhile, this administration continues to push its massively corrupt green agenda and taxpayers are paying for every failed green company in the hopes it can be made to work. Windmills are a joke and even Boone Pickens admits that and wants to go to natural gas. We have more natural gas reserves than the rest of the world combined and we aren’t developing it near enough. We can develop our resources in an environmentally friendly way if government gets out of the way.

  • January 6, 2012 at 2:36 pm
    nda159 says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obama tripled our deficit. Where do you read that? Bush added 3.9 trillion to the deficit which is more then any other president in history including Obama. Reagan added 1.9 trillion so if we look to the Republicans right wing to get us on level keel then we’re smoking something funny. If we look to the Democrate left wing we’re smoking the same stuff. We need moderates in place to solve our problems.

    • January 9, 2012 at 5:09 pm
      Amazed says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Do you mean we need moderates like McCain and Lindsey Graham to solve our problems. Everytime they reach across the aisle, we have yet another big spending bill passed. They are part of the problem, not the solution. The only answer is to have a Conservative House, Senate and President who will do the right thing for America and get it back on track. I certainly don’t trust Progressives or Moderates since they just bankrupt the country and do nothing that helps.

    • January 13, 2012 at 4:05 pm
      Always Amazed says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      I am sorry, but what are YOU smoking? “Bush added 3.9 trillion to the deficit which is more then any other president in history including Obama.” We are 15 TRILLION dollars in debit. This came AFTER Obama came into office NOT before. And! And! He is asking for another 1.5 TRILLION!

      • January 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Hey Always, Progressivism is a mental disease and you will have to make allowances for them since they are true believers. Never mind the facts. Obama has added more debt than all the prior Presidents in history and has done it in only 3 years. He hasn’t had a budget since he has been in office and the last one was rejectd 100-0 in the Senate. He would rather have continuing resolutions from now on to mask what a bad job he and his Democratic minions are doing.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*