Bill on Keith Olbermann!

News — 350.org Team August 24, 2011 at 12:25 am
  1. PresSupporter says:

    I see your point, Im all about saving the environment, but, this pipeline could ultimatley help the U.S. in the long run. We are in the largest deficit the nation/world has ever seen, If this pipleline goes through not would it create some jobs it would increase the oil reserve which in turn could lower gas prices. Also if we increase the oil reserve we might just be able to sell some oil to other countries and lessin our debt. The road to non-oil dependency IS going to be a long and hard one but until then we are still going to need our oil. So until you or some one else comes up with a better more viable allternative for energy and power, and a new fuel source which could be used in todays vehicles, no need to redesign and transition over which 80% of the population could not afford, just let it go, and stop saying Obama isnt doing enough for the environment, stop blaming the pres on the faults of the people, he is not a magician he cannot stop the national environmental issuse in one term, no one can, what ever he “could have” done wouldnt even be noticable by todays generations. Like I said Im all for saving the environment but we need oil, its just the way it is, so we are going to have to deal with it.

    • human says:

      As long as we have gas that costs little per gallon, we aren’t going to change. And we are addicted to it. Your argument is essentially, “just give me one more hit.” In countries where oil costs more, people conserve. Not here. We drive huge cars, have inefficient houses, and build our towns in ways that require oil dependence. We are past the time where we need to make hard choices and start doing hard work–all of us, the President included. We are changing the chemistry of the planet in a way that is harmful to life. That is a much larger problem even the human construct of a deficit. There will always be an argument to delay, it just isn’t as good as the argument to start addressing the problem in earnest.

    • Anonymous says:

      After Germany’s economic crash following WWI, Adolf Hitler mobilized the entire country to gear up for war. Thousands of jobs were created as they built highways, munitions, tanks, extermination facilities, etc so that when WWII came around, they would be able to start the largest man slaughter the world has ever seen.

      But at least he solved their economic crisis!

      We shouldn’t so blindly sacrifice our environment for oil– even if it does temporarily boost our economy. Even saying that, the potential benefits are not all that impressive. You explain that our country will be able to “sell” some oil to other countries, but our country isn’t mining the oil– a private company is; the money will be going to them, not our government. It is for the same reason gas prices are not likely to see a noticeable drop: why supply America for a less profit when you could sell to the highest bidder around the world?

      Just “dealing with it” is too easy of a way out. Our economy is bad but our environment is even worse. We need to transition to a healthier alternative to fossil fuels soon or we will all be suffering the consequences. If the president denied the permit it would be colossal step forward to this transition.

    • Thanes says:

      You are unaware of what the climate scientists are saying. I’m not surprised, as the anti-science campaign has been so successful. This is not about personal choices, or recycling, or any of that nebulous “I’m all for saving the environment, but…” bullshit. It looks like we have about ten years to get a real solution up and running, and if we get into the Tar Sands, according to James Hansen, like Brer Fox we will be stuck forever in this mess, maybe extinct. Go read what the climate scientists are saying, and stop reading the worthless journalism we have now which makes pretend match-ups between real science and denialist propaganda. We don’t have time for this. You need to do better than reading the made-up controversy and putting down the paper saying to yourself, “Gee, I like the scientist a little more, maybe I should drink less bottled water.
      Carbon Tax. Cap and trade. Carbon ban. Or deus ex machina we stumble across spray-pain solar cells or cold fusion in three years. Other than that, we might all be dead.

    • Mikem1257 says:

      In this case President Obama does have the final say as to whether this disaster moves forward as it crosses international borders and must be approved by the State Dept. and signed off by the President. As far as this project creating American jobs, this issue has been drastically overstated. You just need to look at the fact that many of the materials being proposed for the project would be sourced from India. Also, if this project was to move forward, all it’s purpose is to allow TransCanada to send their filthy tar sands product to Texas, where there are refineries that can process this goo. Before it can be put into the US Strategic Reserve we would have to purchase it, which would not help our trade deficit. The only place that the final product is going to go is probably China

    • Bbr says:

      The whole reason for this pipeline is so that Canada can find other markets outside North America. It will contribute nothing to our “energy security” nor will it cause lower prices for anything in the US. What it will do is re-affirm “gasism” as the new regime.

  2. greased out says:

    The Tar Sand Pipeline is a disaster in the makeing. These Politicians, and the Sheeple who believe them, want you to think that Gasoline prices are based on Supply and Demand. Not so wake up. Prices are based on the Wall Street speculators. Its Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley who are controlling the prices. Every American needs to wake up and understand what a nightmare this pipeline will cause. Gas prices won’t mean a thing to you when your air, land, and drinking water are toxic. You won’t be able to go to a job and work with your headaches, nosebleeds, respitory distress. skin rashes, nausea, vomiting, and internal bleeding. To let you know in advance all you Holy Oilers. When the disaster strikes. You will be lied to by the Corporations, and your Government. Any loses you may have, will not be compensated fairly. It all will be covered up. Believe someone who knows.
    Gulf of Mexico Bp Oil Disaster Survivor
    Alabama Gulf Coast

  3. Tjatnb says:

    http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/616940/page-1.html
    Lengthy PDF of Canada’s Oil Sands, Opportunities and Challenges through 2015:

    http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/NE23-116-2004E.pdf

    Testing Reclamation Ponds for Oil Sands:

    http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/reuters/MTFH74469_2010-08-26_15-54-48_N26198136.htm

    REFILE-Shell tests method to reclaim oil sands waste
    money.cnn.com
    CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) – Royal Dutch Shell Plc said on Thursday it was starting up a demonstration project to test a new method of speeding up reclamation of toxic waste ponds at oil sands operations, a source of tension between oil companies, environmentalists and regulators.

    We happen to have a Ginormous waste pond right now!
    Definition of Oil Sands – Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
    Oil sands – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org
    Oil sands, extra heavy oil, bituminous sands, or tar sands, are a type of unconventional petroleum deposit. The sands contain naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, water, and an extremely dense and viscous form of petroleum technically referred to as bitumen. Oil sands are found in large amoun…

    Redundant, but again BP discovers GIANT oil:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a44RUTBIl_3Q

    BP Makes ‘Giant’ Oil Discovery in Gulf of Mexico (Update4) – Bloomberg
    http://www.bloomberg.com
    BP Plc, Europe’s second-largest oil company, reported a “giant” discovery at the Tiber Prospect in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico that may contain more than 3 billion barrels, after drilling the world’s deepest exploration well.
    Louisiana Oil Sand Discovered:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-discovery-under-shallow-gulf-waters-estimated-to-be-biggest-find-in-decades-2010-1

    Oil Discovery Under Shallow Gulf Waters Estimated To Be Biggest In Decades
    http://www.businessinsider.com
    Two exploration companies see their stock prices shoot up 25% Tuesday morning.

    Oil Sands discovered off the coast of Houston:

    http://www.maerskoil.com/en/News/PressReleases/2009/Pages/USAOildiscoveryindeepwaterGulfofMexico.aspx?lst=All
    USA: Oil discovery in deepwater Gulf of Mexico
    http://www.maerskoil.com
    Chevron has today announced an oil discovery in the Buckskin exploration well which Maersk Oil America has a 20% interest in. The discovery is located in Keathley Canyon Block 872, some 190 miles southeast of Houston in the deepwater US Gulf of Mexico.

    ‎99 Percent is sent to the U.S. Midwest Refineries:

    http://www.energytomorrow.org/canadian_oil_sands.aspx

    Canadian Oil Sands
    http://www.energytomorrow.org
    April 14, 2009: Jane Van Ryan speaks with David Collyer, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, about Canada’s abundant deposits of oil sands and why they are important to the United States. More >>
    Kirby Oil Sands Development in Alberta – joint venture with BP:

    http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7060559

  4. Good to see this on Olbermann’s show. I just sent the following email to Rachel Maddow’s show asking why she hasn’t been covering it. MSNBC seems to have an ongoing problem covering energy issues…

    I thought maybe I had missed your coverage of the mass civil
    disobedience happening at the White House over the keystone tar sands
    pipeline. But when I searched your MSNBC site I got “no results
    found.”

    A cynic might think that MSNBC’s inadequate coverage of this major
    story has something to do with all the ads oil companies are running
    on the network. Why is it that the only thing I hear about the issue
    on MSNBC is when a company runs ads in favor of the pipeline?

    This protest is a historic moment for the environmental movement. I’m
    sure MSNBC has someone sitting around in the White House press room
    who can step outside to interview Bill McKibben and other protesters.
    I can assure you that young people and environmentalists see this as
    one of the top stories of the week even if MSNBC news execs don’t. If
    even you won’t cover this issue on your show then who will?

    I wonder what impact Martin Luther King Jr. could have had if the
    major networks of his day ignored civil disobedience like cable news
    channels do today?

  5. John Doyle says:

    I usually support the environmental movement but I feel like the leaders of the movement are being a little misleading in their messaging on this issue. They are making it sound as though if President Obama denies the permit then the oil sands won’t be developed. The Vice President of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers spoke to our class and told us that they are already beginning to be developed and if we don’t approve the pipeline then Canada will just build a pipeline to the Pacific Coast of Canada and ship it on tankers to China whose oil demand is growing rapidly. If that’s the case, and the oil sands are going to be developed regardless, then we should be thinking about the benefits that would come from us importing it rather than some other country. I fully support decreasing the total amount of oil we consumer (20 million barrels a day) – but there’s no reason we can’t reduce our total consumption and just use the tar sands oil from Canada to replace some of the oil we import from countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Mexico. Canada is a close ally, our biggest trade partner, and we would be meeting our demand using regional resources (a general principle of sustainability). Instead the enviro. movement is trying to make it sound as though we have the power to stop the development of the sands altogether. I’m not sure where I come down on the issue, but I wish a more honest debate was occurring.

    It’s also misleading to say tar sands oil produces 3x as many greenhouse gases (a figure I often hear). That is about right for the extraction process but 80% of the lifecycle emissions of a gallon of gas comes during combustion, not extraction.

    • Kook Watchdog says:

      John, I had to pick on one of these to reply to, yours seemed eminently reasonable.
      I have been involved in various ways with Alberta Oil Sands for my entire career and I am 56 now, I have friends who are engineers who graduated with me who have spent their entire careers perfecting ALL of the processes INCLUDING lessening its impact on the environment.
      There is almost a tone (in these posts and this group’s messages) that suggests this is somehow ‘new’, the only thing that is new is additional pipeline capacity into the States.
      The town of Fort McMurray had a population of 5000 when I first went there in 1975 and now I believe in is over 100,000 including a University and an active arts scene. The place is darn cold in the winter, no doubt and some of the best testing and research on providing building spaces to work and live in cold climates have been perfected in Canada and in Fort McMurray where its residents have to be innovative to keep their living expenses at a reasonable level. It may seem odd but residents there get no break on the price of fuel or plastics or any of the derivatives of oil (which the activists continue to disregard), they pay more per liter because much of it is refined 300 miles south in Edmonton.
      When I moved to Edmonton in 1975 it was already known that the oil reserves there and in several other major pockets in areas a few hundred miles from Fort Mac exceeded the Middle East, the problem then was the cost barrel. Now engineers have brought the price barrel down to lower or about equal that of Middle East Oil plus it can be pipelined vs shipped over the oceans to the refineries.
      During the 80’s and 90’s the capacity to mine the oil has grown steadily and there are astonishing plans to expand further with a 1000 year lifespan being considered IF they increase production by over 100 TIMES! At present I believe they mine 1.1 Million Barrels per day and I think that former company Great Canadian Oil Sands was producing 10,000 Barrels per day in 1975.
      Oil is needed in so many parts of our lives ASIDE from burning it for energy. To keep padding the bank accounts of dictatorial misogynistic Sheiks and Mullahs is beyond the pale in terms of accountability to society, these activists are on such a narrow and misguided track, I am deeply saddened by their misdirection. Perhaps in a few hundred years sun and wind might provide for us but today, the costs would render the entire industrialized world dirt poor and the poor nations would surpass us because they wouldn’t self impose suicide by environmental insanity.

  6. Harry Pigott says:

    Bill, you and Keith are two sorry white people. See how many more people you can put out of work for Obama.

  7. Trisha Springstead RN says:

    Thanks Mr Olberman,
    130,000 Claims filed on to Fineburg on Oil Spill Related Ilnesses Found lying like the people were not important. How did That Bastard Fineburg, deny these people legitimate claims on Gulf Spill ILLNESSES. JUST HOW MR Olberman. I am digusted with what the Oil Companies have done this is nothing short of Corporate Global Genocide. What about the People…..What about the Children……What about US.

  8. Kook Watchdog says:

    Wow, no shortage of nutbars on this discussion. The specific pipeline being discussed is to carry the output from the oil sands areas in Alberta to industrial facilities that look like a refinery but actually separate the components that are refined and re-blended at the site. The Tar Sands mining process effectively does 80% of the refining so what comes down the pipeline is not only easier to maintain the pipeline but also there has never been any leakage whatsoever in the any of the pipelines that now carry ‘oil sands oil’. The pipelines from Fort McMurray and the ones proposed to Texas will carry this blended partly refined product to replace some of the purchases of crude oil now coming from Nigeria, the Middle East, Venezuela and the Gulf Coast itself.

    Leaking pipelines is an incredibly rare occurrence, you can see how many are already in existence and have been for decades at http://www.osrin.ualberta.ca/en/Resources/DidYouKnow/2011/08/OilsandspipelinesbeyondGatewayandKeystone.aspx

    This website is from the University of Alberta.

    So what I’m hearing is you would rather continue to ship oil over the ocean and buy from various governments many who pay terrible wages, the profits go into the pockets of billionaire playboys and as someone mentioned some of the countries actually hate us…. but love our money.

    With this proposal, we’d be able to buy from our friendly neighbor who at least has some more respect for the environment than China, any Middle East Country and probably all the other suppliers. I realize that you hard core types won’t deal in ‘lessers’, you seem to only be willing to go for 100% ‘your way’ solutions….and bankrupt our western societies.

    This is one of the weirdest protests I’ve seen to date, are you guys financed by Middle Eastern crude producers?

    The price is set by the market and any brokerage house will buy or sell futures, even from you guys and deliver oil as the market dictates, the notion that brokerage houses control world wide commodities is only in the movies.

    • bbr says:

      Ok so do the pipeline across Canada.

      • Kook Watchdog says:

        Sorry bbr, I didn’t get to your reply. There are lots of pipelines across Canada AND the Laurention shield and Lake Superior make the journey a lot of useless miles and quite simply, the market isn’t there. As mentionned, if the USA eventually kills this additional pipeljne, investors will build one to the West Coast, probably build a super port in Prince Rupert and ship most of it to China.
        NIMBYism is now firmly entrenched in tthe radical environmental movement, when even something as incredibly logical, more GREEN and cost effective as pipelines become the target of attack.
        Like I said, regulate the hell out of these operators and owners and move forward. This movement WILL NOT change the reality that we will use oil for centuries to come, we will BURN less of it but we will use it and over the years, new replacements will emerge and some day in a 1000 years, we will do things differently.

    • Anonymous says:

      There are many falsehoods in the post above. First, there have been several major spills of tar sands oil in the past year alone, starting in Kalamazoo Michigan: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aswift/kalamazoo_one_year_later_anato.html

      The ‘refinery product’ is still highly corrosive and toxic, and includes natural gas, benzene and a number of other carcinogens. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jmogerman/meet_dilbit_a_new_word_for_you.html

      The companies that are profiting off of this pipeline are the same ones that do dirty business with the countries you name and keep us all addicted to their products. There is only one answer, and that is clean, renewable energy, which this pipeline keeps us farther from.

      • Kook Watchdog says:

        There are many pipelines across Canada. US cars and trucks and homes are in the USA, where they should be. The refineries should be close to where the end product is used or consumed, Green 101.
        Refineries in Houston want to get reliable high grade crude hence this project was proposed.
        Here is where it gets tricky. Absolutely there are many pipeline spills, wack the companies hard and that will go away.
        HOWEVER the product proposed to be shipped to Houston is NOT ‘heavy crude’, the product is a mostly refined mixture and THOSE lines have had no leaks.
        There is no point in getting into the next level of disagreement on my part, oil is used for much more than energy, God bless those in the future who will figure out how to produce alternate products to replace the lubricants, plastics , coatings …literally thousands of low, medium and high tech products BUT right now THE WORLD is dependant on oil and the alternatives for energy production are widly expensive or equally damaging.
        Pushing the river as this protest is suggesting is neo-Ludditism.
        Virtually all of the energy ‘Companies’ are public so you and I own them, there are no bogeymen or Russian zillionaires buying up everything or Arab Sheiks buying up half of Rolls Royce’s production.
        You are right though to hit your own elected officials HARD, they created the BP spill, they create the climate that allows pipelines to be allowed to go into a state of disrepair with not enough of a penalty to those companies that take advantage of toothless regulators.
        Luckily, we are emerging, 98% of all the leaks of various pipelines (not the ones shipping oil sands product) are on old pipelines and I completely agree we should threaten those companies operating those 60+ years old pipelines and gaslines as well with massive crippling penalties if they don’t reinvest in modern assets.
        So, the moral of the story is get your facts straight, don’t generalize like I did when I wasn’t specific about what kind of pipelines have had no leaks. Then we can make progress, The laws to do what needs to be done exists. you want to protect the environment, then do it…. but not by stopping modern more efficient and safe pipelines being built.
        End Goal – clean environment
        Method to achieve that – Stop building new safer equipment ?????????
        You don’t like pipelines? Go after the operators of the old installed systems. Go after them HARD!

        • Anonymous says:

          Look, this is plainly false. The spill in Kalamazoo was the same mixture that will go through Keystone XL – dilbit. Splitting hairs about targets and oil mixtures is a totally inadequate response to the depth of problem we face as a nation when it comes to our addiction to oil. This pipeline is an unnecessary step backwards from a clean energy future.

          • Kook Watchdog says:

            Silly me, I didn’t buy your world view or inaccurate representation. There is a huge difference between types of pipelines, it has been one of the banes of the pipeline world…at one time the common notion (never tested) was that anything that could be made into a somewhat liquid state, including coal, chipped wood and others might be able to be moved inconspicuously underground in pipelines. Then as time went on, we learned that pipelines needed more maintenance then we first thought but we also discovered that some pipelines didn’t cause environmental disasters with animal life, the MacKenzie Valley pipeline has made ZERO difference for elk, wolf and for that matter any wildlife.
            Calling what I said “splitting hairs” tells me how insincere you are, you are simply a wannabe trouble maker. Don’t let FACTS deter your ambition for your 5 minutes of fame.
            BTW, we are addicted to air, food, water, warmth, TV, ridiculous products by Apple and many other things like that last two which are essentially useless whereas the plastics and compounds used day to day to save lives, to lubricate public transportation or even your bicycle all come from oil. You keep ignoring that and claiming some greater good or pie in the sky nonsense like “clean energy” future. We can make cleaner energy except watch out the sludge ponds left over after making components of billions of solar panels or figuring out how to lubricate your wind mills while you try to cure our addiction.
            Pipelines and bringing our own and North American oil on line makes security and cost sense and the environmental impact can be responsibly stewarded. Then over the next hundred to two hundred years we can figure out how to do clean nukes or some other way to use the sun…whatever our ingenuity and the profit motive will solve the challenge. BTW, you do realize that solar energy is endless atomic energy just not in your back yard. Go ahead and ‘polute’ the universe, just not in my your back yard.

You must be logged in to post a comment.


(c) 2014 Tar Sands Action | powered by WordPress