keystone pipeline doesnt have to use american steel

[BengalHawk62]

Thank God!  I don't want any of that rusted out shitsburgh steel anywhere near my pipe. 

[GMDino]

I don't want to start another thread about the pipeline.

http://standwithstandingrock.net/victory-standing-rock-sioux-tribe-court-finds-approval-dakota-access-pipeline-violated-law/

Quote:Tribe, Court Finds That Approval of Dakota Access Pipeline Violated the Law

Ruling: Trump administration shortcut environmental review; Court seeks additional briefing on whether to shut down pipeline

Washington, D.C. —

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe won a significant victory today in its fight to protect the Tribe’s drinking water and ancestral lands from the Dakota Access pipeline.

A federal judge ruled that the federal permits authorizing the pipeline to cross the Missouri River just upstream of the Standing Rock reservation, which were hastily issued by the Trump administration just days after the inauguration, violated the law in certain critical respects.

In a 91-page decision, Judge James Boasberg wrote, “the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.” The Court did not determine whether pipeline operations should be shut off and has requested additional briefing on the subject and a status conference next week.

“This is a major victory for the Tribe and we commend the courts for upholding the law and doing the right thing,” said Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II in a recent statement. “The previous administration painstakingly considered the impacts of this pipeline, and President Trump hastily dismissed these careful environmental considerations in favor of political and personal interests. We applaud the courts for protecting our laws and regulations from undue political influence and will ask the Court to shut down pipeline operations immediately.”

The Tribe’s inspiring and courageous fight has attracted international attention and drawn the support of hundreds of tribes around the nation.


The Tribe is represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, which filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers for issuing a permit for the pipeline construction in violation of several environmental laws.

“This decision marks an important turning point. Until now, the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe have been disregarded by the builders of the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Trump administration—prompting a well-deserved global outcry,” said Earthjustice attorney Jan Hasselman. “The federal courts have stepped in where our political systems have failed to protect the rights of Native communities.”

The Court ruled against the Tribe on several other issues, finding that the reversal allowing the pipeline complied with the law in some respects.

The $3.8 billion pipeline project, also known as Bakken Oil Pipeline, extends 1,168 miles across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Illinois, crossing through communities, farms, tribal land, sensitive natural areas and wildlife habitat. The pipeline would carry up to 570,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to Illinois where it links with another pipeline that will transport the oil to terminals and refineries along the Gulf of Mexico.

Read the decision.

[Dill]

(06-18-2017, 08:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't want to start another thread about the pipeline.

http://standwithstandingrock.net/victory-standing-rock-sioux-tribe-court-finds-approval-dakota-access-pipeline-violated-law/

This is a job killer. The pipeline would create 15,000 jobs in the first year of construction and 50,000 more to clean up spills over the next ten years.

[GMDino]

(06-19-2017, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: This is a job killer. The pipeline would create 15,000 jobs in the first year of construction and 50,000 more to clean up spills over the next ten years.

[GMDino]

Quote:Developer might not build Keystone XL pipeline?subject=TheHill.com%3A%20Developer%20might%20not%20build%20Keystone%20XL%20pipeline&body=From%20TheHill.com%3A%20%0A%0A%0A%0Ahttp%3A//thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/344383-developer-might-not-build-keystone-xl-pipeline

The company that obtained a permit to build the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline might decide not to build it.

A TransCanada Corp. executive told investors Friday that it is still assessing interest in Keystone among the oil companies that would pay to use the Canada-to-Texas line, as well as seeking remaining regulatory approvals, and it will likely decide in November or December whether to build.

The disclosure means that one of President Trump’s signature energy policy promises — to approve Keystone and get it built — may fall victim to commercial pressures and not get done.

Trump approved Keystone’s permit to cross the border with Canada in March. It ended a significant chapter in the decadelong saga, ending years of delay under former President Barack Obama — and a rejection of the permit in late 2015 — that the oil industry and Republicans frequently criticized.

But Paul Miller, president of TransCanada’s liquid pipelines business, told investors in a quarterly earnings call that Keystone XL is far from certain.

He said the Canadian company is launching an “open season” to actively seek out contracts for the $7 billion pipeline with a capacity of 830,000 barrels, through September. The company also needs approval from Nebraska for its route through that state.

“Our assessment of these factors will really drive our investment decisions when we get into that November-December time frame,” he said.

“In the event that we do decide to proceed with the project, we still need probably six to nine months to do some of the staging of the construction crews, etc. And that would be followed by about a two-year construction period.”

Miller said TransCanada is hoping for a “significant” level of contracts and declined to say if less than full capacity would be acceptable.

The executive said that it lost some potential customers with Obama’s 2015 rejection of the pipeline, though many have come back with the new approval.

“We have had good conversations with our existing shipper group as well as new entrants as they work their way through their analysis and documentation,” he said.

Keystone XL was planned to bring significant new capacity to oil extraction in Alberta’s oil sands and the Bakken region in the United States, which have seen massive growth in production over the last decade.

But other pipelines, as well as oil transported over railroads, have been filling the void in Keystone’s absence.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/344383-developer-might-not-build-keystone-xl-pipeline

[CageTheBengal]

Captain Planet saves the day again!

[Vlad]

(03-03-2017, 02:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He sure does lie through his teeth.

Please, because a promise was made and the attempt to fulfill that promise failed does not mean "he lied through his teeth".
You're smarter than that.

I'll tell you what a lie is. Its when Obama promised if elected he would make his administration the most transparent ever then turned around and did the exact opposite.

You want more?

A lie is when Obama said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, then does a 180 after he was elected.

[Vlad]

(06-18-2017, 08:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't want to start another thread about the pipeline.

http://standwithstandingrock.net/victory-standing-rock-sioux-tribe-court-finds-approval-dakota-access-pipeline-violated-law/

What a surprise. An Obama appointed liberal judge.

His decision based on the violation of a law?

“the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial"

So what is the law that was violated? "Environmental justice"? LMAO

This clown is as lame as the other Obama appointee in Hawaii who decided against Trumps travel ban for fear it will offend the feelings of Muslims.

[NATI BENGALS]

(07-29-2017, 01:51 PM)Vlad Wrote: What a surprise. An Obama appointed liberal judge.

His decision based on the violation of a law?

“the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial"

So what is the law that was violated? "Environmental justice"? LMAO

This clown is as lame as the other Obama appointee in Hawaii who decided against Trumps travel ban for fear it will offend the feelings of Muslims.

Lol stupid environment. Should get a lawyer and some money if it wants to be protected. We all know oil companies have every right to endanger any environment they want.

[Belsnickel]

(07-29-2017, 01:51 PM)Vlad Wrote: What a surprise. An Obama appointed liberal judge.

His decision based on the violation of a law?

“the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial"

So what is the law that was violated? "Environmental justice"? LMAO

This clown is as lame as the other Obama appointee in Hawaii who decided against Trumps travel ban for fear it will offend the feelings of Muslims.

Projects of this nature cannot proceed without an adequate study done of their environmental impact. Hell, smaller scale projects that don't involve transportation of a material that would pollute the land and water if it were to spill out require such studies. That would likely be the law to which he was referring, that there needs to be a thorough environmental impact study done.

[*Nately120*]

(07-29-2017, 01:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: Please, because a promise was made and the attempt to fulfill that promise failed does not mean "he lied through his teeth".
You're smarter than that.

I'll tell you what a lie is. Its when Obama promised if elected he would make his administration the most transparent ever then turned around and did the exact opposite.

You want more?

A lie is when Obama said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman, then does a 180 after he was elected.

So what you are saying is that we've elected two gigantic liars back to back to run this country?  Ouch, we deserve this. But seriously, I often hear people wishing politicians weren't such liars but their voting record speaks louder than these empty wishes, doesn't it?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(07-30-2017, 04:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So what you are saying is that we've elected two gigantic liars back to back to run this country?  Ouch, we deserve this.  But seriously, I often hear people wishing politicians weren't such liars but their voting record speaks louder than these empty wishes, doesn't it?

I think it's more a case of...

Republican Primaries:
Liar Repub A
vs
Liar Repub B

Democratic Primaries:
Liar Dem A
vs
Liar Dem B

Election:
Liar Repub Winner
vs
Liar Dem Winner

- - - - - -- - - - - - -

The candidates who don't lie likely don't have the financial backing and supporters (hence the lack of need for lying) to ever become a legitimate candidate. Money doesn't win the election, but it sure as hell gets you down to the final 2 choices.

We won't have honest candidates with a legitimate chance at winning until we completely overhaul our campaign fundraising/finance/Super PAC laws, and our lobbying laws... and since the people who CAN change those laws are making millions and tens of millions of dollars, while staying in power, off of how it currently is... good luck.

[Benton]

(07-29-2017, 01:51 PM)Vlad Wrote: What a surprise. An Obama appointed liberal judge.

His decision based on the violation of a law?

“the Court agrees that [the Corps] did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial"

So what is the law that was violated? "Environmental justice"? LMAO

This clown is as lame as the other Obama appointee in Hawaii who decided against Trumps travel ban for fear it will offend the feelings of Muslims.

Boasberg ordered Clinton's emails to be turned over and against the IRS, leading to him being carried through the streets by Republicans chanting "Boasberg is the bestberg!". There was a reason he was approved 96-0.

[Benton]

(07-29-2017, 06:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Projects of this nature cannot proceed without an adequate study done of their environmental impact. Hell, smaller scale projects that don't involve transportation of a material that would pollute the land and water if it were to spill out require such studies. That would likely be the law to which he was referring, that there needs to be a thorough environmental impact study done.

Which takes years in some cases.

I helped with getting a children's art center built in my home town. It took about 10 months for the environmental stuff, which I thought was silly since it was on a lot where a grocery store used to be. Then during dirt work they found a few skeletons and it held up the process another year while it was determined who they were, where they should be relocated, etc.

[Vlad]

(07-30-2017, 04:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So what you are saying is that we've elected two gigantic liars back to back to run this country?  Ouch, we deserve this.  But seriously, I often hear people wishing politicians weren't such liars but their voting record speaks louder than these empty wishes, doesn't it?

No. We elected one gigantic liar. Twice.

After promising something but not succeeding after an honest attempt is not lying. Promising to do something then ignoring or refusing taking action on that promise would be lying.
Baffling that this has to be explained.

You don't hate Trump because you think he's a liar, you the hate him so you call him a liar.

[GMDino]

(07-31-2017, 11:28 AM)Vlad Wrote: No. We elected one gigantic liar. Twice.

After promising something but not succeeding after an honest attempt is not lying. Promising to do something then ignoring or refusing taking action on that promise would be lying.
Baffling that this has to be explained.

You don't hate Trump because you think he's a liar, you the hate him so you call him a liar.

I've asked a lot a people, even tweeted the POTUS, what part of his plan that was going to cost less and provided better coverage made it into the bills being discussed?  He said he had a plan.  What was/is it?

What part of his plan to shut down ISIS in the first 30 days has been implemented?

Pick any other campaign promise made...what has HE implemented?  

As to the comic: Which parts were attempted and blocked by a GOP controlled congress that has shown itself unable to to pass things of their own?

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2017, 11:28 AM)Vlad Wrote: No. We elected one gigantic liar. Twice.

After promising something but not succeeding after an honest attempt is not lying. Promising to do something then ignoring or refusing taking action on that promise would be lying.
Baffling that this has to be explained.

You don't hate Trump because you think he's a liar, you the hate him so you call him a liar.

Now, I know what the response will be to my posting this, but here goes: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Obama had some lies, Bush had lies, Clinton had lies, every elected official has lies. The funny part about the comic is that some of those aren't accurate, and maybe not the entire list from the NYT is, but to deny that Trump is a liar is naivete of the highest degree.

[Vlad]

(07-31-2017, 01:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, I know what the response will be to my posting this, but here goes: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Obama had some lies, Bush had lies, Clinton had lies, every elected official has lies. The funny part about the comic is that some of those aren't accurate, and maybe not the entire list from the NYT is, but to deny that Trump is a liar is naivete of the highest degree.

Actually, I anticipated the response I would get and yours was the one.... flip flops and petty barroom talk from a non-politician. Obamas lies shaped policy and affected lives.

And why no NYT article entitled "OBAMA LIES!"

I'm sure you can finally agree that the MSM is liberal biased right?

Regardless, my initial point was not debate who's the biggest liar (even though it was Obama), it was to point out liberal hatred...these simpleton knee jerk "Trump is a liar" remarks only because of some agenda that he was unsuccessful at implementing.

Have fun with 4 pages of this:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

[Belsnickel]

(07-31-2017, 03:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: Actually, I anticipated the response I would get and yours was the one.... flip flops and petty barroom talk from a non-politician. Obamas lies shaped policy and affected lives.

And so did many of Trump's. Denying it is naive.

And Trump became a politician the moment he announced his candidacy. He was a political insider before that because of his contributions to candidates and parties. Stop trying to make him out to be a populist outsider because he is anything but.

(07-31-2017, 03:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: And why no NYT article entitled "OBAMA LIES!"

I don't know, ask them. Maybe because he wasn't as frequent a liar.

(07-31-2017, 03:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: I'm sure you can finally agree that the MSM is liberal biased right?

I would say that the editorial board of the NYT is liberally biased.

(07-31-2017, 03:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: Regardless, my initial point was not debate who's the biggest liar (even though it was Obama), it was to point out liberal hatred...these simpleton knee jerk "Trump is a liar" remarks only because of some agenda that he was unsuccessful at implementing.

Trump is called a liar because he is. Flat out.

(07-31-2017, 03:27 PM)Vlad Wrote: Have fun with 4 pages of this:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/?page=2
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/?page=2

You should compare scorecard to scorecard. I look at Politicfact a good bit, so I'm familiar enough with it to know what is available on it. But let's compare.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Combination of False and Pants on Fire percentages:
Trump: 48%
Obama: 14%

I don't know if you want to try using Politifact to back up your claim that Obama was the bigger liar.

[Benton]

(07-31-2017, 03:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  


You should compare scorecard to scorecard. I look at Politicfact a good bit, so I'm familiar enough with it to know what is available on it. But let's compare.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Combination of False and Pants on Fire percentages:
Trump: 48%
Obama: 14%

I don't know if you want to try using Politifact to back up your claim that Obama was the bigger liar.

The "true/mostly true" is — to me — even more telling. Trump is only true/mostly true 17% of the time.

83% of the time, he's — according to them — telling you something at least less than half true. That's almost unbelievable.