myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 69, 70, 71  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2932

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To be clear. It is my opinion that this due diligence has been completed and approval is overdue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Is it any wonder that companies think twice about investing in this country?


Have you any data to back up this assertion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10267
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A new item of Catholic, apostolic and oil company faith:

Quote:
Six years to make a decision is unacceptable.


If the analytical work is done correctly, it usually takes less time. Currently, the location of the pipeline is under litigation under State law, and the collapsing price of oil makes it likely that the project will not be constructed once it does get its entitlements. Remember this--you are being asked to take on faith the promises of the oil industry--which used the arctic oil spill contingency plans, without bothering to remove the references to polar bears, for proposing drilling in the gulf. Have we all forgotten the BP spill and the hand of the previous vice president in cutting corners for pig oil? Mrgybe would like us to.

It will pass and be stopped by litigation and economics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2932

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac

This has been in the works for a decade with review after review from agency after agency. At some point I would ask this question..."if the reviewers cannot complete their jobs in this time frame and offer a definitive up or down that is not politicized, what is the point of a defined review process?"

I am working on a project in a very sensitive location. Rockfall, avalanches, unstable slopes and wetlands are all design considerations. the owner has hired the best consultants available to evaluate and design his project. We have gone through rigorous review including multiple public meetings in addressing impacts to the community.

The project was delayed for a season because of nothing more than the local council, deciding after all approvals were completed, to "hear" the project one more time. Really? Tens of thousands in fees that could have been forfeited. This should have occurred on day one! Fortunately, the project survived on its merits.

I am all for this rigorous review process. But, we need to define the process, with deadlines on the reviewers also, to provide a reasonable framework for investment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The pipeline is local in hundreds of communities, which derive no benefit at all.
Both GOP and No politics people oppose the pipeline in their town.
The foreigners building it know this, but can't lie directly because of the EPA so they get guys like Gybe to do it. The pipe is a fantastic good thing for our country and will benefit all those communities, right Gybe?

There are two Indian tribes who refuse to allow it to cross their land.
Which political party do Indians belong to, Gybe?

The big cost to the project so far has been the millions spent to buy any pols for sale.
The score so far is that GOP Congressmen have been bought off almost fifty to one over Dems.
Three key facts to remember, unless you are Gybe who prefers to forget.

The oil doesn't go to the US. They plan to ship it out on foreign vessels because oil is sold too cheap in this country. That's why they don't want to refine it in the northern US. That oil is sold in the US.
America does not benefit from this pipe.

The pipeline is owned by foreigners, big player Saudi Arabia. Building Keystone does not get us away from foreign oil, or Mideast interests.

The ten thousand long term jobs is a flat lie. Check in the docs filed by the pipeline builders themselves . They say three thousand short term jobs and about a hundred long term.


Last edited by keycocker on Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
uwindsurf



Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why was the review delayed in April of this year? Because the route of the pipeline has not been finalized due to litigation in Nebraska. It is difficult to review and approve a project when you don't know where it will be located.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2932

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A realignment is cause for review of only that aspect of the pipeline...not the political merits of the entire project.

Keycocker. If we require any project, in any industry, to prove that it benefits a small number of people near the project, we cannot do anything for the greater good.

Many of us argue that it is O.K. for us to cause some financial inequality to advance healthcare for all and then support NIMBYism on projects in industries we do not care for. Frankly, I don't see much difference.

Define the design parameters, scrutinize and review, and deny or approve based on those parameters. Don't change the game. That's what most of us in the development industry desire.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 4442

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:
The pipeline is owned by foreigners, big player Saudi Arabia. Building Keystone does not get us away from foreign oil, or Mideast interests.

Citation please.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 10267
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB--I worked the development side, and I know well that both regulators and interested parties can be unreasonable. I was brought in after folks with attitudes like mrgybe's had poisoned the well, to get big projects entitlements. I used a very different style than mrgybes, and very different than my willingness to be combative on this forum, to do so.

The difficulty with a pipeline this long and controversial is that it affects sensitive habitat, with high protective standards, in hundreds of places. It requires review under the Clean Water Act, which has standards that require a search for alternatives, and the Endangered Species Act. Stream crossings and wetland fill are areas where the oil industry does not have a very good record, so it is necessary to search for the least damaging alternatives, and effective mitigation, before approval. I don't know how many of the remaining objections are well founded and how many are not. But I've been through this screaming match enough times to know that the developers are frustrated, in part because they didn't do their homework well enough, and are flexing their political muscle. They poured many millions into the mid-term elections to try to get this result.

By the way, under NEPA and the treaty that I think governs the Department of State, they have to find that there is a public interest in the whole of the project. Thus a problem with a portion of the alignment creates a problem. Maybe the supporters will be savvy enough to fix that in their legislation. We'll see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3598

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am in the development industry myself,in someone else country, and agree that taking out the human component would make every project much easier.

A project extending through hundreds of communities can not be analyzed in a simple engineering way. Be a lot easier if it could.

The builders have shown little benefit to the country they are putting at risk for foreigners to profit.
Each local area who figures that out must be convinced to take a hit for the benefit of foreigners like the Saudis, not for the greater good of Americans.
Hard sell.
Buying national politicians to roll over all the little guys has not worked so far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 33, 34, 35 ... 69, 70, 71  Next
Page 34 of 71

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group