Biden may cancel Keystone XL pipeline permit as soon as his first day in office: source

[placeholder]

36 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

The point still is, the killing of the pipeline is symbolic.  The oil is still going to get shipped either by rail or truck.  Notice it says that truck is worse than a pipeline.  It isn't coming by boat out to get to Texas.  Further, other studies show that pipelines are the safest, so pick your expert. 

https://auduboncompanies.com/study-shows-pipelines-are-safest-way-to-transport-oil/

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-transport-oil-more-safely-1442197722

 

http://glslcrudeoiltransport.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Green_safety-in-the-transportation-of-oil-and-gas-pipelines-or-rail.pdf

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-safest-way-to-transport-oil/2015/02/20/0486ba94-b7bf-11e4-bc30-a4e75503948a_story.html

The first link is to an fossil fuel company, the third is to a reprint of that fraser institute report, and the fourth is from some private citizen. Which leaves the second from the Wall Street Journal, a very fine media source. Their evaluation is a lot different from what you apparently believe it to be.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been reported and removed. 

 

[Slip]

12 minutes ago, RobFord said:

Now google American tribes *suing* Keystone XL and see the result. What’s your point? 

It's a waste of bandwidth to have to explain this, but my point was that member placeholder was absolutely correct in his comment that this search term generated zero hits on google. 

 

The implication was that the troll who responded to the 3rd party in the posts looks a bit of a nob because there were no hits in the actual search that he accused we other members of not bothering to read. 

 

I'm not sure how your google suggestion is in any way relevant, but I presume that is because you didn't get a) my point or b) my implication.

 

I can't think of an ending that doesn't come across as sarcastic so, I will leave it th

Edited January 19, 2021 by Slip
infer/imply meh

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

there are some hits.  not many, but some.

 

Keystone XL pipeline project : Natural Law Energy to acquire 12% stake for $763m

https://www.oilandgasnews365.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-project-natural-law-energy-to-acquire-12-stake-for-763m/

 

Indigenous group to invest in Keystone XL as Biden set to determine pipeline fate

https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/111720-indigenous-group-to-invest-in-keystone-xl-as-biden-set-to-determine-pipeline-fate

 

Canadian indigenous deal with KXL oil pipeline took years, aims to unlock long-term wealth

 

Natural Law Energy’s (NLE) planned investment was billed by TC as the biggest-ever indigenous investment in an oil project, highlighting how some communities are seeking to share in the industry’s profits while others oppose it.

Adding indigenous support may help efforts by Canada and TC to convince U.S. President-elect Joe Biden not to revoke the permit of the $8-billion Keystone XL when he takes office as he has promised.

If they are successful, millions of dollars will flow over a generation into indigenous communities to help youth afford university or pay for business investments, said Chief Alvin Francis of Nekaneet First Nation in Saskatchewan, one of five involved in NLE.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/tc-energy-keystone/canadian-indigenous-deal-with-kxl-oil-pipeline-took-years-aims-to-unlock-long-term-wealth-idUSKBN28A1I7

 

 

I don't know if they qualify as "Native Americans".  Not sure if the American in Native American refers to the North American Continent, the 2 American continents, or to the USA. If the last, then they're not native American. And since they don't seem to have a genuine territorial interest, it looks like more of a transparent PR ploy with a big payday in the offing for members of this tribe.

[ChouDoufu]

36 minutes ago, Slip said:

I note that a poster claims there are hits on this and a troll used that to do what he does best.  Here's my result:

 

 

do you know how the googles works?  if you use the quotation marks, mr googles looks for that exact quotation, and valhalla!, it finds only a link to this very forum.

 

you gotta do a little more than a surface skim, experiment with other combinations of words, try (without quotations) "indigenous support xl pipeline" or "native xl pipeline invest" if you're not specifically looking for "proof" of absence.

 

point is that indigenous people are not one massive block that always agree on everything.  some individuals, groups, tribes, and communities do in fact support the pipeline.  whether a (alleged) troll uses the facts for nefarious purposes doesn't negate the reality.

[ChouDoufu]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't know if they qualify as "Native Americans".  Not sure if the American in Native American refers to the North American Continent, the 2 American continents, or to the USA. If the last, then they're not native American. And since they don't seem to have a genuine territorial interest, it looks like more of a transparent PR ploy with a big payday in the offing for members of this tribe.

 

should that be filed under "no true scotsman"?  i would expect the issues would be similar for "indigenous peoples" on both sides of an artificial political border.  that one group can come to an understanding, for money even, shouldn't disqualify them and they don't count.

[Slip]

14 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

do you know how the googles works?  if you use the quotation marks, mr googles looks for that exact quotation, and valhalla!, it finds only a link to this very forum.

 

you gotta do a little more than a surface skim, experiment with other combinations of words, try (without quotations) "indigenous support xl pipeline" or "native xl pipeline invest" if you're not specifically looking for "proof" of absence.

 

point is that indigenous people are not one massive block that always agree on everything.  some individuals, groups, tribes, and communities do in fact support the pipeline.  whether a (alleged) troll uses the facts for nefarious purposes doesn't negate the reality.

I do indeed understand how google works.

 

I searched for the specific phrase that was suggested, so I put it in quotes, and as Placeholder said it returned no hits.  You may be right that you can search around the phrase to get different results, but that was not the matter at hand. 

 

Point is, you may indeed have a point, but my post is not the vehicle with which you should drive it.  I suggest you review.

Edited January 20, 2021 by onthedarkside
flame comment removed

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

should that be filed under "no true scotsman"?  i would expect the issues would be similar for "indigenous peoples" on both sides of an artificial political border.  that one group can come to an understanding, for money even, shouldn't disqualify them and they don't count.

I think if they came to an understanding based on an offer of access to a huge amount of money, it clearly should disqualify them.

[Credo]

On 1/18/2021 at 2:11 PM, Credo said:

And replace them with some road & bridge repairs.  

 

Because we need roads and bridges.  We don't need another pipeline.

 

[Scott]

I suggest members keep it civil and stop trolling.

 

[spidermike007]

16 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

not at all.  trump was preoccupied with overturning any and every obama policy he could, and tearing down anything the prior regime had built.

 

that he sometimes coincidentally made the right decision, for the wrong reasons, doesn't in the long-term lead to maga'ing.

 

i don't see biden as being vindictive in this instance, but rather rewarding some of his supporters.  politics as usual.

 

to be truly vindictive, joe would have to revoke the approval for the vaccines currently being distributed because.......trump.

The reality is, Biden has appointed more talent in 6 weeks time, than Trump did in four years. And the little bit of talent (he nearly always seemed to pick from the bottom of the barrel, and nearly all of his selections were for the wrong reasons) he did manage to attract or appoint, either resigned or were fired, due to presence of integrity, honor, or honesty. They just did not fit in with the other 14 foot crocodiles in the administration, and the head dragon. I think Biden will make a good president. The only fear I have, is that he may be too noble for the job. He always has Kamala to rely on, with that end of things. 

[ChouDoufu]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

I think if they came to an understanding based on an offer of access to a huge amount of money, it clearly should disqualify them.

 

you may find this of interest.

 

No True Scotsman

https://www2.palomar.edu/users/bthompson/No%20True%20Scotsman.html

 

no "real" indigenous group would come to a monetary agreement with an oil conglomerate.

 

[SymS]

22 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Its probably the most unsafe transport method, and also makes the cost of the fuel more expensive. 

Oops. I actually agree... I meant "than rail" instead of "by rail"... So the pipeline should be cheaper and safer.

[Thomas J]

On 1/19/2021 at 9:29 PM, placeholder said:

The first link is to an fossil fuel company, the third is to a reprint of that fraser institute report, and the fourth is from some private citizen. Which leaves the second from the Wall Street Journal, a very fine media source. Their evaluation is a lot different from what you apparently believe it to be.

You always selectively dismiss anything that does not match with your own opinion of "what is the truth"  The truth is only from sources your agree with and you dismiss all others as false. 


The fact remains the oil will still get to the USA so cancelling the pipeline is only making the oil more expensive and at the very least is more likely to spill using trucks, and according to numerous others in the industry NOT YOU.  Even rail is more likely to spill.  The issue never was about the likelihood of spills. 

[pixelaoffy]

12 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You always selectively dismiss anything that does not match with your own opinion of "what is the truth"  The truth is only from sources your agree with and you dismiss all others as false. 


The fact remains the oil will still get to the USA so cancelling the pipeline is only making the oil more expensive and at the very least is more likely to spill using trucks, and according to numerous others in the industry NOT YOU.  Even rail is more likely to spill.  The issue never was about the likelihood of spills. 

Your opinion isn't facts! Pipeline would have caused huge environmental damage. And the USA needs to get its head out it's ass and look at alternative energy on a larger scale ! Gas guzzling and coal burning will destroy any future for future generations! Joe Biden made a start.. whether it's too late and enough Americans will accept it remains to be seen 

Edited January 21, 2021 by pixelaoffy

[Thomas J]

On 1/20/2021 at 10:41 AM, spidermike007 said:

he reality is, Biden has appointed more talent in 6 weeks time,

IN YOUR OPINION 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You always selectively dismiss anything that does not match with your own opinion of "what is the truth"  The truth is only from sources your agree with and you dismiss all others as false. 


The fact remains the oil will still get to the USA so cancelling the pipeline is only making the oil more expensive and at the very least is more likely to spill using trucks, and according to numerous others in the industry NOT YOU.  Even rail is more likely to spill.  The issue never was about the likelihood of spills. 

I do selectively dismiss obviously biased sources. Whereas you on the other hand apparently believe that selectivity in such circumstances is a bad thing.

And at least the power of eminent domain won't be wielded for a project the benefits of which are dubious.  As that WSJ article explained.

[Thomas J]

Just now, pixelaoffy said:

Your opinion isn't facts! Pipeline would have caused huge environmental damage. And the USA needs to get its head out it's ass and look at alternative energy in a larger scale ! Gaz guzzling and coal burning will destory any future for future generations! Joe Biden made a start.. whether it's too late and enough Americans will accept it remains to be seen 

It is not "my opinion"  As stated the oil has and continues to be sent to the USA.  So the only thing that has been accomplished is for them to make the oil more expensive.  You can argue whether the pipeline or rail transport causes more environmental damage.  As for alternative sources, fine.  But guess what.  They aren't there yet.  So cutting off oil before you have any alternatives is just plain foolish. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Thomas J said:

IN YOUR OPINION 

Lots of us are actually grateful that Trump couldn't attract first class talent. The incompetence of his administration in drafting rollbacks is a major reason why so many were overturned. Thank you, Mr. Trump.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I do selectively dismiss obviously biased sources. Whereas you on the other hand apparently believe that selectivity in such circumstances is a bad thing.

And at least the power of eminent domain won't be wielded for a project the benefits of which are dubious

Yes you do.  You have what is known as selective bias.  You believe sources only that agree with you, and dismiss any opinion other than you.  The studies may have been done by those in the oil industry.  Who do you think who study the subject.  The hair dressers association?   The fact remains.  Those that are in the oil business do not want spills.  They are costly.  They certainly are more knowledgeable than you. 

 

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Lots of us are actually grateful that Trump couldn't attract first class talent.

Again, selective bias.  Your opinion.  Not fact.  You say the person is talented is certainly not a validation that they are, nor is your opinion that Trumps appointments lacked talent anything more than your biased opinion. 

 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Yes you do.  You have what is known as selective bias.  You believe sources only that agree with you, and dismiss any opinion other than you.  The studies may have been done by those in the oil industry.  Who do you think who study the subject.  The hair dressers association?   The fact remains.  Those that are in the oil business do not want spills.  They are costly.  They certainly are more knowledgeable than you. 

 

Do you actually understand what selective bias is? No doubt the pipeline will save them money. But your assertion that the saving will come from reduced oil spills is nonsense. 

And I used the WSJ as a source because it has a distinguished record of fair reporting. Thank you Rupert Murdoch for not tampering with that. l don' have nearly as much use for oil industry shills. Were any downsides of pipelines addressed in their articles?

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you actually understand what selective bias is?

I notice you only refute what others say that you do not agree with, change the subject when I point out the oil will still get there.  So I challenge you.  Show me your studies that show that transport by truck and rail is safer than pipeline.  I said, so don't misquote me.  Oil companies don't want spills.  They are costly. Look at the Exxon Valdez,  Look at the Deepwater Gulf spill.  No company is going to utilize methods that will subject them to lawsuits and damages.  It will be environmentalists who stop the pipeline who will then point to any spill when an oil tanker truck or rail car overturns and then blame the oil company when in fact "maybe" those spills would have been prevented with the pipeline.  The fact remains and you seem to want to ignore it.  The oil has been shipped for decades from Canada.  The only impact of stopping the pipeline is more expense to the US consumer and that the oil comes by rail or truck. 

[spidermike007]

31 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

IN YOUR OPINION 

Well, with the exception of scientifically vetted information, I would say 99% of what is on here, is opinions. But, I am curious. Name five talented members of the past administration. Can you?

[Jeffr2]

41 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

IN YOUR OPINION 

In every experts opinion.

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Well, with the exception of scientifically vetted information, I would say 99% of what is on here, is opinions. But, I am curious. Name five talented members of the past administration. Can you?

 

What would be the point.  You would just call them not talented.  I can certainly point to Pete Buttigieg whose only experience in Transportation is that he can drive a car.  And I am from Michigan so I know Jennifer Granholm well.  She is now Secretary of Energy.  What is her background in energy?  The fact that she hates the oil, gas, and coal industry.  She has zero experience in the field. 

Trump also had people who lacked the requisite experience Such as Betsy DeVos.  However your statement that Biden's are great and Trumps were lousy is just opinion based solely on your prejudice.  

 

[Jeffr2]

17 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I notice you only refute what others say that you do not agree with, change the subject when I point out the oil will still get there.  So I challenge you.  Show me your studies that show that transport by truck and rail is safer than pipeline.  I said, so don't misquote me.  Oil companies don't want spills.  They are costly. Look at the Exxon Valdez,  Look at the Deepwater Gulf spill.  No company is going to utilize methods that will subject them to lawsuits and damages.  It will be environmentalists who stop the pipeline who will then point to any spill when an oil tanker truck or rail car overturns and then blame the oil company when in fact "maybe" those spills would have been prevented with the pipeline.  The fact remains and you seem to want to ignore it.  The oil has been shipped for decades from Canada.  The only impact of stopping the pipeline is more expense to the US consumer and that the oil comes by rail or truck. 

How about going green and getting out of oil? It's going to have to happen eventually. No way around it.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Jeffr2

[Thomas J]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

In every experts opinion.

Oh you must consider yourself to be the only expert.  Or you select only those "experts" you agree with. 

 

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

 

What would be the point.  You would just call them not talented.  I can certainly point to Pete Buttigieg whose only experience in Transportation is that he can drive a car.  And I am from Michigan so I know Jennifer Granholm well.  She is now Secretary of Energy.  What is her background in energy?  The fact that she hates the oil, gas, and coal industry.  She has zero experience in the field. 

Trump also had people who lacked the requisite experience Such as Betsy DeVos.  However your statement that Biden's are great and Trumps were lousy is just opinion based solely on your prejudice.  

 

And your opinion shows your prejudice.

[Jeffr2]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Oh you must consider yourself to be the only expert.  Or you select only those "experts" you agree with. 

 

Nope. Just the majority. I ignore those on the fringes.