Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, November 23, 2017

Nebraska regulators have approved the Keystone XL pipeline, clearing the way for the controversial and long-delayed project to progress. Commissioners voted 3-2 in favor of the project, which will link Canada's oil sands to US refineries. Commissioners voted 3-2 in favor of the project, which will link Canada's oil sands to US refineries. The decision comes days after a leak in the existing Keystone network spilled 210,000 gallons in South Dakota. ... Former President Barack Obama had rejected the project in 2015 on environmental grounds, but President Trump reversed the decision earlier this year.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Let the games continue...

#1 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-21 09:19 PM | Reply

Dummkopts.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 09:35 PM | Reply

I don't see much activity on construction until the oil price picks up.

Moderate Mid-East border war would probably do it.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-21 10:11 PM | Reply

You got to wonder who do the Commissioners who voted in favor of the pipeline work for? How does the state of Nebraska benefit from this, what compensates Nebraska for the risk to their water supply? I smell bribes.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-23 07:53 AM | Reply

According to Thom Hartmann, this is all about the Koch brothers. They have a refinery in Texas that only refines this heavy, dirty crude, which they have been getting from Venezuela. They want to pipe this stuff from Canada to their refinery instead which would yield them about $1 Billion/year additional profit. Bribes? I think so.

#5 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-11-23 08:24 AM | Reply

I hate it that the country is so divided. This back and forth isn't getting anything done. I'm glad they are putting in the pipe, but it's asking to much for the Democrats to see how much this would benefit the country.

The vote was 3-2, which shows how partisan this is.

#6 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-23 08:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I hate it that the country is so divided. This back and forth isn't getting anything done. I'm glad they are putting in the pipe, but it's asking to much for the Democrats to see how much this would benefit the country.

The vote was 3-2, which shows how partisan this is.

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-23 08:56 AM | Reply

You have no cognitive ability to understand how bad this is or how it doesn't benefit the USA. You need better educated upon the subject matter.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-23 09:02 AM | Reply

www.forbes.com

"Crude oil is moving around the world, around our country, around pristine wilderness, around our cities and towns. It's going to keep moving, will undoubtedly increase during our new energy boom, so what is the safest way to move it?

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that's only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it's truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it's boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail."

Can't have a green-ish energy grid without that oil.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-23 10:16 AM | Reply

It's called diversification. Buffet bought up all trains so he didn't want a pipeline. Now he's invested in the pipeline so it's all good. We ants shouldn't concern ourselves with the goings on of the elephants.

#9 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-11-23 11:11 AM | Reply

"I hate it that the country is so divided. This back and forth isn't getting anything done. I'm glad they are putting in the pipe, but it's asking to much for the Democrats to see how much this would benefit the country. "

Because id does not benefit the country in any way, it does though jeopardize the water supply for millions of Americans so that a Canadian company can profit, so that the Koch brothers, who own refineries in Texas which can't get crude from Venezuela can operate at full capacity and profit the Koch brothers.
Your complaint about division is hilarious considering you are one of the most extreme examples of divisiveness who posts here.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-23 11:54 AM | Reply

"but it's asking to much for the Democrats to see how much this would benefit the country."

I'm not a Democrat and I think you sound like a sucker who repeats whatever lies he's been told no matter how obvious they are.

You couldn't possibly explains how this is a net benefit for the country and you won't try because the people who fed you this nonsense knew they didn't even have to flesh out the lie for you.

What part of "Canadian" don't you understand anyway?

#11 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-23 01:19 PM | Reply

... Koch brothers, who own refineries in Texas ...

Best I can determine, Koch's Texas refinery is in Corpus Christie which is about 300 miles from the Keystone terminus.

... which can't get crude from Venezuela ...

The latest data says the US is importing about 550K barrels per day from Venezuela. www.eia.gov

If you want to p--s and moan about something at least use reasonably accurate information.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2017-11-23 03:16 PM | Reply

Extracting oil from sand uses more energy than it's worth.


The average "energy returned on investment," or EROI, for conventional oil is roughly 25:1. In other words, 25 units of oil-based energy are obtained for every one unit of other energy that is invested to extract it.

But tar sands oil is in a category all its own.

Tar sands retrieved by surface mining has an EROI of only about 5:1, according to research released Tuesday. Tar sands retrieved from deeper beneath the earth, through steam injection, fares even worse, with a maximum average ratio of just 2.9 to 1. That means one unit of natural gas is needed to create less than three units of oil-based energy.

Hall, who wasn't involved in Hughes' study, thinks the EROI for oil sands would fall closer to 1:1 if the tar sands' full life cycle -- including transportation, refinement into higher quality products, end use efficiency and environmental costs -- was taken into account.

insideclimatenews.org


Oil sands are just a way for the oil corporations to keep you hooked on their products.

Anything to make a buck.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-11-23 03:52 PM | Reply

you Dems act like the oil is coming because there is no pipeline.........it's coming by Rail. A much more unsafe and dangerous way of transporting oil than a pipeline

#14 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-11-24 10:55 AM | Reply

A much more unsafe and dangerous way of transporting oil than a pipeline

Now you're gonna get Laura all worked up...

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-24 11:01 AM | Reply

I hate it that the country is so divided. This back and forth isn't getting anything done. I'm glad they are putting in the pipe, but it's asking to much for the Democrats to see how much this would benefit the country.
The vote was 3-2, which shows how partisan this is.

#6 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Actually, it's going to benefit Canadian oil companies who can no unload their product in the international markets rather than the United States and thereby increase the cost of oil/gas in the US by giving the Canadian companies other options at reduced priced.

But if there is an oil spill (like the one that just happened on this pipeline), the United States gets to suffer the damage and cost of clean up.

Thanks Republicans. You're all idiots and the worst negotiators ever.

#16 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 11:59 AM | Reply

Actually, it's going to benefit Canadian oil companies...

Like Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, PetroChina, Total, BP, Imperial Oil, Husky Energy, Chevron, and a few dozen others?

Every oil company in the world has their fingers in that pie.

#17 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-24 12:10 PM | Reply

"I hate it that the country is so divided."

Then stop acting divisively.

"I'm glad they are putting in the pipe..."

Why? Why are you glad? What does it do for you personally?

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-24 02:17 PM | Reply

Why? Why are you glad? What does it do for you personally?

#18 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2017-11-24 02:17 PM

it will pollute his water and drive up gas prices by bypsasing the midwest refineries they are sending it to now. In addition a dew Canadians will get richer

#19 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-11-24 02:37 PM | Reply

Like Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, PetroChina, Total, BP, Imperial Oil, Husky Energy, Chevron, and a few dozen others?
Every oil company in the world has their fingers in that pie.

#17 | POSTED BY REDIAL

With oil from....Yep, up north.

The pipeline just made it easier and cheaper to send the oil abroad rather than keep it here.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-11-24 02:42 PM | Reply

With oil from....Yep, up north.

Yes, including places like the Bakken frakkiing regions of Montana and North Dakota.

#21 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-24 03:38 PM | Reply

Your a liar. How quickly you forget your OWN post when you admitted pipelines were safer then rails. I don't even know why I bother with agenda driven libs

#22 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2017-11-24 06:01 PM | Reply

20 so what? So now you're against free trade?

#23 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2017-11-24 06:02 PM | Reply

You're opposed to having a national energy policy?

Don't feel bad, letting the energy companies drill our natural resources for their profit has bipartisan support.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-24 06:09 PM | Reply

Does anyone know what D the W is all wound up about?

#25 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-24 06:33 PM | Reply

24 who said I was against that? Let me guess, you!!

#26 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2017-11-24 07:50 PM | Reply

Does anyone know what D the W is all wound up about?

#25 | Posted by REDIAL

Maybe his wife gave the turkey giblets to the dog.

#27 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-24 07:58 PM | Reply

Does anyone here do anything but gnash their teeth and run in circles when they are told what to think?

If you had spent a little time learning about this "approval", you would have easily found out that it completely re-routes the pipeline, which will delay the Keystone project for at least 5 years while it gets new approvals and fights with a new set of landowners who refuse to sell to them.

Sometimes when you lose, you win...but you need to use a little bit of brain power to figure that out.

You are welcome.

#28 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-11-24 08:17 PM | Reply

"you would have easily found out that it completely partly re-routes the pipeline, which will delay the Keystone project for at least 5 years while it gets new approvals the price of oil and Bakken production is low.

#29 | Posted by REDIAL at 2017-11-24 08:31 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort