A place for me to pour out my rants without clogging the inboxes of my friends and family. Also a place to give info on myself and Mary, our family news and events.
No Oil for Lube
Published on February 4, 2012 By Rightwinger In US Domestic

Since the 1970s, an endless parade of government officials and candidates has campaigned on how we must act now, to get free of Middle East oil.
Yet, here we are, forty years later, still tied to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and others, and every time some angry Muslim (is there any other kind?) throws a rock, our gas prices jump.
Why?
We only get approximately 14% of our oil from the Mideast, anyway; the rest comes from domestic drilling, Canada and Mexico.
Yet, it seems to be Arab oil production on which the petroleum industry bases its prices.
I’m sure there’s some solid, logical reason for this, but beyond the fact that it probably makes it cost more, I can’t come up with one.
Now, here’s our Dear Leader, the ever-compassionate, endlessly-caring Barack the Smooth, who, like every other president since 1973, when gasoline--if you could find any--jumped to an outrageous .40 cents a gallon, campaigned against foreign energy.

He had a chance to help us get a little closer to cutting ties with the Arabs, with a nice, shiny pipeline from Canada. (Insert buzzer sound effect) Wrong answer! Canadian oil is still technically foreign, but it’s at least a little more stable than the Mideast.
The pipeline’s builders will reapply for permits, and still hope to get things pumping by 2014. Obama has said:

“This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”

“To protect the American people” from what, exactly? Paychecks that stretch a little further?

 So, it’s the Republican’s fault, because their “arbitrary deadline”—doubtless imposed to force his actually making a decision, rather than tap-dancing on it—prevented the State Dept. from getting the necessary information.

So, exactly how long have they known about this project? 2008; long enough to check things out and get informed. How about letting us drill for our own, then? Nope.
Even USA Today admits Obama “faced fierce pressure from environmentalists, who said they would be less likely to campaign for him, if he didn't block the project to move carbon-heavy oil from the tar sands of northwest Canada.”

I bet he did. Salamanders, fish, obscure--and even common—plants, animals and insects, are much more important than people, after all.

How come you never see these oil-hating tree-huggers protesting at any Middle Eastern embassies?

Understand: an oil-independent USA is exactly what the Left doesn’t want. Leftist liberalism has been laboring for 60 years-plus, to undermine and destroy the American republic, its government and culture, to replace it with their own statist, centralized, top-down vision. Radical environmentalism is just one crowbar they use.

Besides, Hungarian-born George Soros, the America-hating, leftist billionaire and owner and CEO of the Democratic Party, is heavily invested in Brazilian oil. Coincidentally, I’m sure, Brazil also just happens to be where many of our drilling rigs went, following Obama’s tragically unnecessary ban on drilling in the Gulf.
So; bottom line, Obama’s pandering to those very same “Special Interests” he so decried in his campaign; he probably worries that even typical Democrat chicanery (read: voter fraud and intimidation tactics) won’t be enough to save him in November.
Politics over people; how typical. The great Unifier, “The One”, is just another sleazy, self-serving politician, after all; in the words of Gomer Pyle: “surprise, surprise, surprise!”
Too bad there are still far too many liberal dupes out there who are still far too willing to give him far too many second chances.

 

 


Comments
on Feb 04, 2012

As you said politicians have been going on about this since 1973. I hardly see this as a result of just Democrats in this case, BOTH parties have been pandering to the people on this matter, without ever doing anything serious about it.

on Feb 04, 2012

Amen, Flakey.  But who's doing it now?

on Feb 05, 2012

Flakey101
As you said politicians have been going on about this since 1973. I hardly see this as a result of just Democrats in this case, BOTH parties have been pandering to the people on this matter, without ever doing anything serious about it.

It's mainly the Democrats who constantly pander to the environmentalists; there was no logical reason to deny that pipeline, other than sucking up to the environmental lobby, which threatened not to support him.  

Also, Soros might have been upset, and the Democratic Party can't afford to anger their monied Godfather.

Energy and jobs? I live on the Ohio River. There are three powerplants up and down the river, which the EPA has, or is forcing, to close, based on regulations that are impossible to hold to, either for prohibitively expensive monetary reasons, or because the technology doesn't even exist, which would make it possible to comply. That one has something to do with a regulation actually imposed on farming, which makes it illegal to have one farm's dust blowing onto other farms, and into other states.
There's no way to comply with that, short of enclosing every farm in a huge bubble, and they're using that rule on emissions from power plants, which was probaby the real reason it was imposed in the first place, truth be told. At any rate, hundreds of "energy jobs" in the Ohio Valley have already been lost. Add that to the closings of coal mines operating legally and safely, the thousands lost in the drilling ban, and you're not helping employment, or the economy.

on Feb 05, 2012

Rightwinger
It's mainly the Democrats who constantly pander to the environmentalists

However in the case of this issue it was the Nebraska State Government that unanimously voted against the proposal and to have the section that crossed the Ogallala aquifer (that provides drinking and agricultural water for its citizens) rerouted. BTW Their Gov is a Republican and their legislature is predominantly republican. Last time I checked their legislature was 34(R) 15(D). The "Environmentalists" in this case are the citizens of Nebraska and their elected officials. Guess you don't understand how to separate politics from the issues

Rightwinger
there was no logical reason to deny that pipeline, other than sucking up to the environmental lobby

Maybe you should ask the farmers and water drinkers of Nebraska and surrounding states who rely on the Ogallala Aquifer.

"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation."

Other than that there is approx. 1 million bbl/day surplus of pipeline capacity coming down from Canada already and another pipeline coming into service next year will make the surplus approx. 2 mill bbls/day. Why put a pipeline in that you can't fill anyway? Canadian syncrude production isn't even close to be able to fill the capacity that already exists.

Here is an article about another pipeline that was recently approved. An additional 120k bbls/day capacity over what I stated above.

http://pipelineandgasjournal.com/enbridge-wins-bakken-pipeine-project-approval

 

 

on Feb 05, 2012

Smoothseas
Maybe you should ask the farmers and water drinkers of Nebraska and surrounding states who rely on the Ogallala Aquifer.

"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation."

Other than that there is approx. 1 million bbl/day surplus of pipeline capacity coming down from Canada already and another pipeline coming into service next year will make the surplus approx. 2 mill bbls/day. Why put a pipeline in that you can't fill anyway? Canadian syncrude production isn't even close to be able to fill the capacity that already exists.

Here is an article about another pipeline that was recently approved. An additional 120k bbls/day capacity over what I stated above.
However in the case of this issue it was the Nebraska State Government that unanimously voted against the proposal and to have the section that crossed the Ogallala aquifer (that provides drinking and agricultural water for its citizens) rerouted. BTW Their Gov is a Republican and their legislature is predominantly republican. Last time I checked their legislature was 34(R) 15(D). The "Environmentalists" in this case are the citizens of Nebraska and their elected officials. Guess you don't understand how to separate politics from the issues

As I said, they've known about this project for four years; more than time enough to see problems work out a reroute, or some solution. this was not done; it was denied. by obama, by and the Dept. of State, not the Nebraska legislature. As to using the pipeline to capacity, that was not an issue. I can't speak to the wants/needs of the oil industry. All I know is, it would have created lots of jobs,andn that this has been in thw works for years, and was finally denied by a president whose party has its hands deep into the pockets of the environmental lobby.

on Feb 05, 2012

Rightwinger
As I said, they've known about this project for four years

The holdup was on the part of the pipeline company. They did not submit the necessary environmental impact report until August 26,2011.

Not to mention they still don't have right of way from a lot of private landowners yet, This project can't start until several things are done so what you saw on the boob tube is only part of the politics....nothing to do with reality.

Rightwinger
I can't speak to the wants/needs of the oil industry

You don't need to.Simply click away with your mouse and you will probably also find out about the "environmentalist" Independent Oil Refiners in the midwest who sued TransCanada because going forward with the pipeline means breaking contracts that they had in place.