It's funny how someone can just type a few words without doing any extensive research and the local anti-Obama crowd will just follow along because it's the fun thing to do. I want the jobs just as much as anyone else because I hate to see people unemployed but it's important to see how much politics or other factors play into this. I won't post this at the VA because it'll get butchered by those that don't read and who are much more comfortable with their hate radio talking points. Yes, the case can be made that we have 2 million miles of pipelines carrying crude oil and another 170,000 miles of pipeline carrying petroleum products without incidents. I accept that argument but that doesn't mean that I’m not nervous about a pipeline going over our drinking water.
I just got through reading an article in Austin American Statesman from its editorial board who informed their readers that this project will be delayed but it will NOT be stopped. They explain that the pipeline does have some environmental concerns because of the route that was chosen. It crosses the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer which supplies water to 60 Texas counties. Fights over property rights and eminent domain are at the forefront. This fight is not about liberals or President Obama. It started with the State Department because Canada is involved. It does involve politics at the national front because republicans want to force the president's hands before the project is deemed safe and the concerns of the states are satisfied. Nebraska initially complained about the pipeline route passing over their environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region, under which lies the Ogallala Aquifer. It's funny how people value clean water. If rerouting is a solution, the February 21 deadline the republicans gave the president is not enough time to investigate all the options. There's a lot of territory between Nebraska and Texas. TransCanada can submit another application after Nebraska approves a new pipeline route.
Texans must consider the tradeoffs because extracting bitumen ore from oil sands requires a process similar to strip mining which uses a great deals of energy and water, to process it into transportable form. It does destroy the forests and contributes to climate change. Of course for those who think climate change is a hoax, it shouldn't bother them at all. Under investigation is the excessive amount of heavy metals being used like mercury polluting the Arctic Ocean destroying the salmon.The extra asphalt from the refining process will find a way to get on our roads and into our surface waters?
It looks like everyone fell for the 20,000 jobs a year but most of those jobs would be temporary and a TransCanada executive told CNN that the permanent jobs would only be in the hundreds.
Another argument is also false because this pipeline will not relieve our dependence on oil from the Middle East. Much of the oil will be refined in East Texas but it will be sold overseas.
President Obama did not cancel the Keystone pipeline; he’s just sticking what he'd said all along, he wants more time to consider the alternate routes. I don't know what wrong with due diligence, it would seem that we want to consider all the options before pulling the trigger. Didn't we learn from Iraq, the 2008 financial crisis, and the BP spill?
That's how I see it...Am I missing something? I 'll be more than happy to read other sources or consider another viewpoint.