Jump to content
Paulding.com

Keystone pipeline defeated


Recommended Posts

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/11/house-keystone-vote-an-act-of-war/

 

House Vote On Keystone ‘Has Signed Our Death Warrants,’ Is An Act Of War

 

For Immediate Release: November 14, 2014

Contact: Aldo Seoane, 855-942-2669 Ext 701
Wica Agli / Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote in Favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline an Act of War

Rosebud, SD – In response to today’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to authorize the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal president announced that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) recognizes the authorization of the pipeline as an act of war.

The tribe has done its part to remain peaceful in its dealing with the United States in this matter, in spite of the fact that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has yet to be properly consulted on the project, which would cross through tribal land, and the concerns brought to the Department of Interior and to the Department of State have yet to be addressed.

“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said President Cyril Scott of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

“We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://samuel-warde.com/2014/11/house-keystone-vote-an-act-of-war/

 

House Vote On Keystone ‘Has Signed Our Death Warrants,’ Is An Act Of War

 

For Immediate Release: November 14, 2014

Contact: Aldo Seoane, 855-942-2669 Ext 701

Wica Agli / Rosebud Sioux Tribe

Rosebud Sioux Tribe: House Vote in Favor of the Keystone XL Pipeline an Act of War

Rosebud, SD – In response to today’s vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to authorize the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, the Rosebud Sioux Tribal president announced that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) recognizes the authorization of the pipeline as an act of war.

The tribe has done its part to remain peaceful in its dealing with the United States in this matter, in spite of the fact that the Rosebud Sioux Tribe has yet to be properly consulted on the project, which would cross through tribal land, and the concerns brought to the Department of Interior and to the Department of State have yet to be addressed.

“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said President Cyril Scott of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe.

“We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation borders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”

Like they can bring a war. They tried that once before and lost. They can be wrong you know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary Landrieu cannot help the Democrats now - nobody's giving her money, and this just put the final nail in her coffin. 54-46 (46 including two independents who caucus with Democrats) come January.

 

Meanwhile, Canada is laughing all the way to the bank, because if the US doesn't approve it, they have an alternate route planned to take it across Canada to the east coast. So they're sittin' pretty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary Landrieu cannot help the Democrats now - nobody's giving her money, and this just put the final nail in her coffin. 54-46 (46 including two independents who caucus with Democrats) come January.

 

Meanwhile, Canada is laughing all the way to the bank, because if the US doesn't approve it, they have an alternate route planned to take it across Canada to the east coast. So they're sittin' pretty.

She still would have lost if the pipeline had been approved by the senate. She ignored talking about the pipeline during her campaign for the general election. The voters in LA were viewing this move by her as no more than a last minute attempt to get back into the good graces of the voters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

She still would have lost if the pipeline had been approved by the senate. She ignored talking about the pipeline during her campaign for the general election. The voters in LA were viewing this move by her as no more than a last minute attempt to get back into the good graces of the voters.

 

You are correct...she's been a goner for a good while now. The first thing she did after the general election was to attack her runoff opponent, Bill Cassidy. She held a big news conference with printed signs and everything and said where was Cassidy during Katrina. Well, Cassidy wasn't even in government then...he was doing his regular job, which is being a dr. So his response was I was setting up a field hospital for Katrina refugees during Katrina. :smh:

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/mary-landrieu-accuses-bill-cassidy-nothing-katrina-setting-hospital/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like they can bring a war. They tried that once before and lost. They can be wrong you know.

What could they be wrong for in this issue? They will be surrounded by a pipeline but they don't want it on THEIR property.

 

I see nothing wrong with them not wanting SAND TAR going through their land.

 

Perhaps your reaction is just a knee jerk reaction so you can feel you are further supporting the Republican Party?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are correct...she's been a goner for a good while now. The first thing she did after the general election was to attack her runoff opponent, Bill Cassidy. She held a big news conference with printed signs and everything and said where was Cassidy during Katrina. Well, Cassidy wasn't even in government then...he was doing his regular job, which is being a dr. So his response was I was setting up a field hospital for Katrina refugees during Katrina. :smh:

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/mary-landrieu-accuses-bill-cassidy-nothing-katrina-setting-hospital/

I laughed when that was in the news. She proved how stupid she is. It kills me how people want to bash Bush for the "slow" response for federal assistance following Katrina, but it was her as governor who actually slowed the assistance. She wouldn't sign the documents needed for FEMA to act.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I laughed when that was in the news. She proved how stupid she is. It kills me how people want to bash Bush for the "slow" response for federal assistance following Katrina, but it was her as governor who actually slowed the assistance. She wouldn't sign the documents needed for FEMA to act.

I am glad she is going to lose, but in fairness to her, she was not Governor of Louisina during Katrina.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mary Landrieu cannot help the Democrats now - nobody's giving her money, and this just put the final nail in her coffin. 54-46 (46 including two independents who caucus with Democrats) come January.

 

Meanwhile, Canada is laughing all the way to the bank, because if the US doesn't approve it, they have an alternate route planned to take it across Canada to the east coast. So they're sittin' pretty.

And then on to China! We need that Oil and the jobs it will bring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What could they be wrong for in this issue? They will be surrounded by a pipeline but they don't want it on THEIR property.

 

I see nothing wrong with them not wanting SAND TAR going through their land.

 

Perhaps your reaction is just a knee jerk reaction so you can feel you are further supporting the Republican Party?

Not a knee jerk reaction. Just acknowledging that they are spitting in the wind. Their words will make no difference in the outcome. Maybe the route can be changed but if China does not get it first because this President his dragging his feet it will happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a knee jerk reaction. Just acknowledging that they are spitting in the wind. Their words will make no difference in the outcome. Maybe the route can be changed but if China does not get it first because this President his dragging his feet it will happen.

Well, the fact that China, with all of their environmental issues can have it. It's a filthy dirty product that takes way to much processing (what's to be done with the by products from the processing?.)

 

The environmental impact is a big issue with this issue.

 

Of course, it's not in our backyards so what do we care, right?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

And then on to China! We need that Oil and the jobs it will bring.

The Chinese can not breath the air because of the pollution. They closed down the manufacturing facilities for days before a summit they were so ashamed. The good thing, when all their workers die we will be the manufacturing leaders of the world again.

We will laugh all the way to the bank until we are frozen over.

We live on a planet not a continent. Oil is a dead end street for us just as it was the dinosaurs that created after the ice age.

God help future generations they are doomed to become fossil fuel for a greedy generation some day in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the fact that China, with all of their environmental issues can have it. It's a filthy dirty product that takes way to much processing (what's to be done with the by products from the processing?.)

 

The environmental impact is a big issue with this issue.

 

Of course, it's not in our backyards so what do we care, right?

 

You are correct running neck and neck with coal tar sands are one of the highest pollutants being produced today.

 

 

WHAT ARE THE TAR SANDS?

The tar sands in northern Alberta have emerged as one of the largest and most destructive energy projects in the world, and Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas pollution. Meanwhile, oil companies are recklessly developing the tar sands, with plans to increase production to a dangerous level of five million barrels per day or more by 2030, a 1500 per cent increase since 1999.

Tar Sands by the Numbers

There are approximately 176 square kilometres (68 square miles) of toxic tailings ponds in Alberta.

In 2011 the oil companies used 170 million cubic metres of water from the Athabasca River, about the same as 68,000 Olympic size swimming pools. Virtually none of it is returned to the ecosystem from which it came.

If Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.

Each day more than 300 million cubic feet (91 million cubic metres) of natural gas is used to extract the oil in the oil sands. That’s enough to heat more than 3 million Canadian homes.

The second-largest dam in the world, second only to the Three Gorges Dam in China, was built to hold toxic waste back from flowing from the tar sands to the Athabasca River.

http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/tarsands/

Edited by CitizenCain
Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 1, 2013, the U.S. Department of State released a Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS) on Keystone XL that reaffirmed “there would be no significant impacts to most resources along the proposed Project route.”

 

http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/

Edited by yathink?
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You are correct running neck and neck with coal tar sands are one of the highest pollutants being produced today.

 

 

WHAT ARE THE TAR SANDS?

The tar sands in northern Alberta have emerged as one of the largest and most destructive energy projects in the world, and Canada’s fastest-growing source of greenhouse gas pollution. Meanwhile, oil companies are recklessly developing the tar sands, with plans to increase production to a dangerous level of five million barrels per day or more by 2030, a 1500 per cent increase since 1999.

Tar Sands by the Numbers

There are approximately 176 square kilometres (68 square miles) of toxic tailings ponds in Alberta.

In 2011 the oil companies used 170 million cubic metres of water from the Athabasca River, about the same as 68,000 Olympic size swimming pools. Virtually none of it is returned to the ecosystem from which it came.

If Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.

Each day more than 300 million cubic feet (91 million cubic metres) of natural gas is used to extract the oil in the oil sands. That’s enough to heat more than 3 million Canadian homes.

The second-largest dam in the world, second only to the Three Gorges Dam in China, was built to hold toxic waste back from flowing from the tar sands to the Athabasca River.

http://www.dirtyoilsands.org/tarsands/

It is amazing what lengths they will go to, to make sure the money always goes into the same pockets. I am sure that there are threats if it does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the big issue is. It's a pipeline that will be underground. It's jobs for a bunch of people and I am sure we can get Canada to foot a lot of the cost to build it.

 

The way I see it the environmental impact would be little to known and the only reason people are against it is because they are against the oil companies yet have no problem putting money in the oil companies pocket with the gas they put in their car and the energy they use to heat/cool their homes.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what the big issue is. It's a pipeline that will be underground. It's jobs for a bunch of people and I am sure we can get Canada to foot a lot of the cost to build it.

 

The way I see it the environmental impact would be little to known and the only reason people are against it is because they are against the oil companies yet have no problem putting money in the oil companies pocket with the gas they put in their car and the energy they use to heat/cool their homes.

That and propaganda by the environmentalists. You know the folks who still believe in global warming.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the fact that China, with all of their environmental issues can have it. It's a filthy dirty product that takes way to much processing (what's to be done with the by products from the processing?.)

 

The environmental impact is a big issue with this issue.

 

Of course, it's not in our backyards so what do we care, right?

 

 

"The bottom line, crude oil pipelines are the most energy efficient, safest and least impactful on the environment

compared to alternative transportation modes. That is why about 80% of all crude and petroleum oil are routinely

transported via pipelines within the continental U.S. today."

 

 

http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/270736/benefits-blocking-keystone-xl-pipeline-facts-or-myths

 

 

8)

Edited by mrshoward
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"The bottom line, crude oil pipelines are the most energy efficient, safest and least impactful on the environment

compared to alternative transportation modes. That is why about 80% of all crude and petroleum oil are routinely

transported via pipelines within the continental U.S. today."

 

 

http://theenergycollective.com/jemillerep/270736/benefits-blocking-keystone-xl-pipeline-facts-or-myths

 

 

8)

LOL

 

Ebola is only transmitted by contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person who is symptomatic.

 

Funny how some facts you like and some you don't.

 

Most anything seems safe until it becomes a direct threat to the one for whom it is a consideration, just as that thing may be 'least impactful' on the environment - until something happens that makes it otherwise.

 

Problem is, by then it's usually too late.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

 

Ebola is only transmitted by contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person who is symptomatic.

 

Funny how some facts you like and some you don't.

 

Most anything seems safe until it becomes a direct threat to the one for whom it is a consideration, just as that thing may be 'least impactful' on the environment - until something happens that makes it otherwise.

 

Problem is, by then it's usually too late.

Human beings are safe till they become a direct threat to someone, problem is by then it's usually too late.

 

 

 

See what I did there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Environmentalists are a pain in the ass, always have been. Especially when they get a pimple on their butt.

 

I like you. ;)

 

 

 

You have a problem with clean air and water ?

 

I can't answer for Lucky, but I like clean air and water. SOME guidelines are necessary to prevent us from being like China, where air pollution is vastly worse than here. But my issue with environmentalists comes when they go from wanting basic common sense goodness for the earth and our quality of life to running our entire lives.

 

As far as pipelines go, the maps above paint an excellent picture. I remember when the Alaska pipeline was being discussed, oh, it's gonna kill all the caribou. Oh, turns out, the caribou don't mind it, and their numbers have vastly increased. Here is a very nice study from the University of Michigan on the effect of the Alaska Pipeline on the environment: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section003_group001/home

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like you. ;)

 

 

 

 

I can't answer for Lucky, but I like clean air and water. SOME guidelines are necessary to prevent us from being like China, where air pollution is vastly worse than here. But my issue with environmentalists comes when they go from wanting basic common sense goodness for the earth and our quality of life to running our entire lives.

 

As far as pipelines go, the maps above paint an excellent picture. I remember when the Alaska pipeline was being discussed, oh, it's gonna kill all the caribou. Oh, turns out, the caribou don't mind it, and their numbers have vastly increased. Here is a very nice study from the University of Michigan on the effect of the Alaska Pipeline on the environment: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/section003_group001/home

I agree with you as to the Alaska Pipeline but I have to ask if that pipeline is used to move sand tar?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's really the difference as both are transported via an enclosed pipeline?

Sand tar is a filthy source and I don't agree with transporting it over our country. Until I find out where it is going to be refined and what is going to happen to all the by products of this filthy fuel my opinion will remain unchanged.

 

The fact that you are not questioning this is sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you as to the Alaska Pipeline but I have to ask if that pipeline is used to move sand tar?

 

No, it only moves crude oil. As will the Keystone Pipeline, as shown on their web site: http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/

 

As I'm learning, extracting oil from tar sands is done pretty much on site (either by mining, or hauling the sands to an extraction plant nearby). The only thing transported via the Keystone Pipeline will be crude oil and bitumen which has been diluted with lighter oils: http://keystone-xl.com/does-the-oil-to-be-shipped-on-keystone-xl-contain-benzene-what-chemicals-are-added/

 

Here's another piece on transporting heavy crude oil and bitumen: http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=11

 

Here's an excellent piece from the Encyclopedia Brittanica about what bitumen is and what it's used for: FTA: By far most refined bitumen is used in paving asphalt and roofing tiles, as is a large amount of natural bitumen. However, most of the bitumen extracted from Canada’s oil sands is upgraded into synthetic crude oil and sent to refineries for conversion into a full range of petroleum products, including gasoline.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it only moves crude oil. As will the Keystone Pipeline, as shown on their web site: http://keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/

 

As I'm learning, extracting oil from tar sands is done pretty much on site (either by mining, or hauling the sands to an extraction plant nearby). The only thing transported via the Keystone Pipeline will be crude oil and bitumen which has been diluted with lighter oils: http://keystone-xl.com/does-the-oil-to-be-shipped-on-keystone-xl-contain-benzene-what-chemicals-are-added/

 

Here's another piece on transporting heavy crude oil and bitumen: http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/ONG/OilsandsHeavyOil/Overview.asp?page=11

 

Here's an excellent piece from the Encyclopedia Brittanica about what bitumen is and what it's used for: FTA: By far most refined bitumen is used in paving asphalt and roofing tiles, as is a large amount of natural bitumen. However, most of the bitumen extracted from Canada’s oil sands is upgraded into synthetic crude oil and sent to refineries for conversion into a full range of petroleum products, including gasoline.

 

OMG, you do research? :db:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...