F**k you Canada....

F**k you Canada.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MercTech -> Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 11:55:53 AM)
Keystone.... The pipeline already runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil companies wanted to extend the pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston Texas so Canadian Crude could have access to an all year port to ship their oil internationally. Since it crosses state boundaries (interstate commerce) it requires permission from the federal government. Kind of like a federal building permit. Nothing in the plans calls for public money. But, the current administration has decided not to allow construction because it does not create enough American jobs nor provides any benefit to the strategic oil reserves. Soooo, the administration replies with a hearty f**k you, Canada over the issue after taking seven years to dither. Yes, he is more PC about it but that was the take away from the press conference. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the selfish ones? Heaven forbid; it would be the U.S. oil companies making money off the transportation fees after the pipeline was built with the oil company's money. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/06/obama-set-to-reject-keystone-xl-project-citing-climate-concerns/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=0

Hillwilliam -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 12:08:33 PM)
Here is my take on the pipeline. Why should the government condemn the private property of American citizens and hand it over to a foreign corporation so they can get richer? Americans will never burn a drop of that petroleum as it is slated for export. Conservatives should have been the ones to kill it as they are SUPPOSED to be looking out for the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It took a liberal to do what Conservatives SHOULD have done long ago. That's right, Obama isn't saying "Fuck you Canada". He's saying "Fuck you Canadian corporation that wants us to seize the private property of American citizens to sate your foreign corporate greed".

DaNewAgeViking -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 12:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Keystone.... The pipeline already runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil companies wanted to extend the pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston Texas so Canadian Crude could have access to an all year port to ship their oil internationally. Since it crosses state boundaries (interstate commerce) it requires permission from the federal government. Kind of like a federal building permit. Nothing in the plans calls for public money. But, the current administration has decided not to allow construction because it does not create enough American jobs nor provides any benefit to the strategic oil reserves. Soooo, the administration replies with a hearty f**k you, Canada over the issue after taking seven years to dither. Yes, he is more PC about it but that was the take away from the press conference. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the selfish ones? Heaven forbid; it would be the U.S. oil companies making money off the transportation fees after the pipeline was built with the oil company's money. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/06/obama-set-to-reject-keystone-xl-project-citing-climate-concerns/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=0 Obama Derangement Syndrome. [sm=binky.gif]

thompsonx -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 1:02:55 PM)
ORIGINAL: MercTech Keystone.... The pipeline already runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil companies wanted to extend the pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston Texas so Canadian Crude could have access to an all year port to ship their oil internationally. Since it crosses state boundaries (interstate commerce) it requires permission from the federal government. Kind of like a federal building permit. Nothing in the plans calls for public money. But, the current administration has decided not to allow construction because it does not create enough American jobs nor provides any benefit to the strategic oil reserves. Soooo, the administration replies with a hearty fk you, Canada over the issue after taking seven years to dither. Yes, he is more PC about it but that was the take away from the press conference. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the selfish ones? Heaven forbid; it would be the U.S. oil companies making money off the transportation fees after the pipeline was built with the oil company's money. What is the advantage to the u.s. ?**

Lucylastic -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 1:07:49 PM)
Hill is right.its not fuck you canada...its fuck you transcanada.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 1:36:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: MercTech Keystone.... The pipeline already runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil companies wanted to extend the pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston Texas so Canadian Crude could have access to an all year port to ship their oil internationally. Since it crosses state boundaries (interstate commerce) it requires permission from the federal government. Kind of like a federal building permit. Nothing in the plans calls for public money. But, the current administration has decided not to allow construction because it does not create enough American jobs nor provides any benefit to the strategic oil reserves. Soooo, the administration replies with a hearty fk you, Canada over the issue after taking seven years to dither. Yes, he is more PC about it but that was the take away from the press conference. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the selfish ones? Heaven forbid; it would be the U.S. oil companies making money off the transportation fees after the pipeline was built with the oil company's money. What is the advantage to the u.s. ?** Not a damn thing. That's why the Conservatives should have done their job and nixed it in the first place instead of counting on a Liberal to come along and do it.

MercTech -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 1:42:09 PM)
Sorry, but eminent domain would not apply unless local governments get into the act. This isn't like the federal eminent domain used for the railroads or the Manhattan project. It is more akin to the electrification initiatives of the1930s where transit rights for crossing private property were negotiated. A pipeline doesn't take anything away from a property owner but inhibits his use for a period of time during construction for which the property owner should be equitably compensated. If you have a 5000 KVa electric line crossing your property; you or a previous owner sold transit rights to the electric company. Natural gas pipelines work the same way. If there is to be a testing station or relief station on the property a pipeline crosses; the owner leases the small footprint of property along with transit rights for a maintenance crew. (often a 99 year lease). Nope, that dog don't hunt. Transcanada and their U.S. partners were not being handed land by eminent domain on U.S. soil but were to be given a building permit so they could negotiate transit right with state government, local government, and property owners. I do know in some of the Western and Midwestern states, mineral rights are held by local government and you don't actually own ground below a certain depth. Originally that was part of "water rights" as divorced from property ownership. That could lead to some eminent domain action if a majority wanted pipeline transit payments and there were a couple of holdouts. One old friend farms. When the natural gas pipeline came across his fields; he hit them up for three times the average profit from his fields as a transit fee then took a cruise while they worked. Everyone was happy with that.

thompsonx -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 1:48:37 PM)
ORIGINAL: MercTech Sorry, but eminent domain would not apply unless local governments get into the act. This isn't like the federal eminent domain used for the railroads or the Manhattan project. It is more akin to the electrification initiatives of the1930s where transit rights for crossing private property were negotiated. A pipeline doesn't take anything away from a property owner but inhibits his use for a period of time during construction for which the property owner should be equitably compensated. If you have a 5000 KVa electric line crossing your property; you or a previous owner sold transit rights to the electric company. Natural gas pipelines work the same way. If there is to be a testing station or relief station on the property a pipeline crosses; the owner leases the small footprint of property along with transit rights for a maintenance crew. (often a 99 year lease). Nope, that dog don't hunt. Transcanada and their U.S. partners were not being handed land by eminent domain on U.S. soil but were to be given a building permit so they could negotiate transit right with state government, local government, and property owners. I do know in some of the Western and Midwestern states, mineral rights are held by local government and you don't actually own ground below a certain depth. Originally that was part of "water rights" as divorced from property ownership. That could lead to some eminent domain action if a majority wanted pipeline transit payments and there were a couple of holdouts. One old friend farms. When the natural gas pipeline came across his fields; he hit them up for three times the average profit from his fields as a transit fee then took a cruise while they worked. Everyone was happy with that. What is the advantage to the u.s.?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 2:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Sorry, but eminent domain would not apply unless local governments get into the act. This isn't like the federal eminent domain used for the railroads or the Manhattan project. It is more akin to the electrification initiatives of the1930s where transit rights for crossing private property were negotiated. A pipeline doesn't take anything away from a property owner but inhibits his use for a period of time during construction for which the property owner should be equitably compensated. If you have a 5000 KVa electric line crossing your property; you or a previous owner sold transit rights to the electric company. Natural gas pipelines work the same way. If there is to be a testing station or relief station on the property a pipeline crosses; the owner leases the small footprint of property along with transit rights for a maintenance crew. (often a 99 year lease). Nope, that dog don't hunt. Transcanada and their U.S. partners were not being handed land by eminent domain on U.S. soil but were to be given a building permit so they could negotiate transit right with state government, local government, and property owners. I do know in some of the Western and Midwestern states, mineral rights are held by local government and you don't actually own ground below a certain depth. Originally that was part of "water rights" as divorced from property ownership. That could lead to some eminent domain action if a majority wanted pipeline transit payments and there were a couple of holdouts. One old friend farms. When the natural gas pipeline came across his fields; he hit them up for three times the average profit from his fields as a transit fee then took a cruise while they worked. Everyone was happy with that. Among your property rights are the "Right of exclusion" Eminent domain can be for local projects. It can also be used for state or federal projects like interstate pipelines. If you had bothered to read any of the articles that abound, one of the problems is landowners that are refusing to grant a ROW to the pipeline company during the negotiation phase. Your friend was apparently happy with the offer by the company and took it so condemnation was not necessary. For instance, here is an article showing that the governor of Iowa backs using Eminent Domain to run a pipeline. Kinda shoots the shit out of your argument doesn't it? http://whotv.com/2015/11/02/governor-backs-eminent-domain-for-pipelines/ If Eminent domain wasn't necessary for pipelines, why would the governor of Iowa be supporting it? You're right that they could negotiate transit rights with governments and property owners but negotiate doesn't mean that a given property owner is willing. In that case, Eminent Domain must be used by the local, state or FEDERAL govt. The federal government has these powers for projects that cross state lines. It was not used until 1876 when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kohl vs The United States. It has been used a multitude of times since. According to the US constitution, Eminent domain can be used for projects that are for the "public good". A pipeline owned by a foreign company that will not be supplying the American public with any commodity does not qualify and is Unconstitutional. Want more examples? There's hundreds.

MrRodgers -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 6:47:36 PM)
This is what I've been writing for a year now. This all about narrow, for-profit private interests...ONLY !! Doesn't do a damn thing for the price of oil as the market has already discounted the supply. All it does, is expose American land owners with the environmental risks while relieving Canadian owners the same and make the Koch brothers among others...more million$. (they own 2 million acres up there)

epiphiny43 -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 10:32:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is what I've been writing for a year now. This all about narrow, for-profit private interests...ONLY !! Doesn't do a damn thing for the price of oil as the market has already discounted the supply. All it does, is expose American land owners with the environmental risks while relieving Canadian owners the same and make the Koch brothers among others...more million$. (they own 2 million acres up there) Truth. Only, it's a lot worse than that. An objective economic analysis concluded that the project actually would Raise gasoline and energy prices in the West. There isn't enough available refinery capacity for the Oil Sands crude and the needs of the West away from the coast. So who gets shorted, and charged more for 'not enough'? Not the foreign market they are trying to gain market share of. The not mentioned cost that so many land owners are fighting is the inevitable ecological, economic and social damage of pipe line breaks and oil spills. The Canadian Oil Sands Crude is the dirtiest oil source currently being exploited. Canadian environmentalists and sustainable fresh water and farming interests have been fighting tooth and nail against it, but having no success against a National and Provincial governments in the pocket of the large energy companies. Obama actually did not only the people of the nearby states a favor, but most Canadians as well. Each new study of the Oil Sands projects finds more new environmental horrors ignored by previous studies or predicted by scientists but denied by project advocates. The current economic situation has already mooted the tar sands as fracking has removed much of the market and the explosive growth of solar and wind internationally obviously gut the long term market for high extraction cost, high transportation cost refined oil products. That it's still on drawing boards says too much about the way profiteers use short term profits to use the stock market to gain from projects that have no long term hope or projections. No way the Koch brothers and such keep owner ship a day past when they think the price of the stock peaks. They sell out as fast as possible without destabilizing the market (damaging their stock's price) and move on to a new manipulation to gain from the even more shortsighted greed of others. MercTech: If you have no grasp of how legal principles work or are practiced in the 20th and 21st Century, Don't post? At least read something useful, like a Wikipedia article or Something on Eminent Domain and how it's used at every level of govt. NO major project across the landscape even begins before there are in place agreements to use the process to strong arm individual land owners under Govt. auspices. And almost always, giving govt. level protection against future liability against entirely predictable short and long term damage from likely accidents. Even large scale protection from complete incompetence or malfeasance is granted. There Are no real negotiations. The appearance of such are only within narrow pre-deterimined 'market' values and those refusing to 'bargain' get their land taken and a judge gives them what the powers that be say is 'equitable'. Which is always a short term valuation of the land in terms of it's immediate income potential, never any consideration of Why people live there and work on a property, for a lifestyle, independence and a family inheritance of values impossible to put a dollar sign on. All of which our phony 'Conservatives' profess lifelong dedication to, except any time these values conflict with some large business's profit. Most forced out owners never regain any semblance of the land and future they had for themselves and family. The neighbors to the route often get nothing but the backwash from the disruption of the construction and long term effects of the project the builders ignore. These exploiters are the Modern Vikings, in truth. They arrive with valuables they don't own in sight. Armed not with steel weapons, but with legal privilege and bands of lawyers, bribers and lobbyists, they strip the land (instead of the homes and churches) of everything portable that sells, pay a pittance in 'compensation' and get out fast before everyone realizes what's been lost. It's standard practice for forest, ocean and mineral/energy extraction on the international corporate level all over the planet. We are lucky in North America, news cameras follow at least some of the action. Most places armed guards or national troops prevent any oversight or interference in the eviction, slaving or murder of the original inhabitants. It's how much of that 'healthier' palm oil is provided for all those products in First World supermarkets.

MrRodgers -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/8/2015 11:51:35 PM)
In fact, there is now a move in congress to allow the export of crude repealing the post-embargo federal limitations. That too will spike the price of domestic oil and gas. The US is already the world's largest gas exporter, so hey...let's sell our own oil too and really spike the price there and make killing hey?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 2:16:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thread Topic Fk you Canada...** I'm on board with that. Michael

thishereboi -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 2:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Here is my take on the pipeline. Why should the government condemn the private property of American citizens and hand it over to a foreign corporation so they can get richer? Americans will never burn a drop of that petroleum as it is slated for export. Conservatives should have been the ones to kill it as they are SUPPOSED to be looking out for the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It took a liberal to do what Conservatives SHOULD have done long ago. That's right, Obama isn't saying "Fuck you Canada". He's saying "Fuck you Canadian corporation that wants us to seize the private property of American citizens to sate your foreign corporate greed". Conservatives are the ones who are supposed to be looking out for the Constitutional rights of American citizens? And the liberals aren't? If you are going to bitch that it took the right this long to act, then why aren't you equally mad that it also took the left this long? I always thought both sides had pretty much the same responsibilities when it came to the job. silly me.

zombiegurlsos -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 2:57:53 AM)
When I lived in Canada all the Canadian's considered tar sand oil to be a boon doggle, but it is oil and regardless of reduced profits it still has a profit margin that in Canada makes it useful. So my take on it is leave the oil in Canada or be happy you made it as far as Oklahoma, which was way to far to begin with.... Tar sand oil is a domestic use grade oil end of story... quote: ORIGINAL: MercTech Keystone.... The pipeline already runs from Canada to Oklahoma. The consortium of U.S. and Canadian oil companies wanted to extend the pipeline from Oklahoma to Houston Texas so Canadian Crude could have access to an all year port to ship their oil internationally. Since it crosses state boundaries (interstate commerce) it requires permission from the federal government. Kind of like a federal building permit. Nothing in the plans calls for public money. But, the current administration has decided not to allow construction because it does not create enough American jobs nor provides any benefit to the strategic oil reserves. Soooo, the administration replies with a hearty f**k you, Canada over the issue after taking seven years to dither. Yes, he is more PC about it but that was the take away from the press conference. Isn't the GOP supposed to be the selfish ones? Heaven forbid; it would be the U.S. oil companies making money off the transportation fees after the pipeline was built with the oil company's money. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/06/obama-set-to-reject-keystone-xl-project-citing-climate-concerns/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us/obama-expected-to-reject-construction-of-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=0

Lucylastic -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 3:47:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Here is my take on the pipeline. Why should the government condemn the private property of American citizens and hand it over to a foreign corporation so they can get richer? Americans will never burn a drop of that petroleum as it is slated for export. Conservatives should have been the ones to kill it as they are SUPPOSED to be looking out for the Constitutional rights of American citizens. It took a liberal to do what Conservatives SHOULD have done long ago. That's right, Obama isn't saying "Fuck you Canada". He's saying "Fuck you Canadian corporation that wants us to seize the private property of American citizens to sate your foreign corporate greed". Conservatives are the ones who are supposed to be looking out for the Constitutional rights of American citizens? And the liberals aren't? If you are going to bitch that it took the right this long to act, then why aren't you equally mad that it also took the left this long? I always thought both sides had pretty much the same responsibilities when it came to the job. silly me. hm since the house and senate are both republican... you havent been following this have you. A statement released by U.S. President Barack Obama put the blame on Congressional Republicans, who inserted a 60-day deadline for a decision on the pipeline in a December 2011 bill to continue U.S. payroll tax cuts. "The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said in the statement. What's next? Before TransCanada submits a new pipeline application, it will have to iron out the alternate route the U.S. government had asked for last November for the part of the pipeline that passes through the environmentally sensitive Sandhills region of Nebraska. The area contains the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies eight states with water for drinking and irrigation, and concern about the impact a possible oil spill would have on the aquifer was one of the main reasons behind opposition to the pipeline. The company is already in talks with the Nebraska government about possible alternatives but will have to do further environmental assessments once it establishes a new route. "My view is that the U.S. government doesn't want to move forward with a plan until they have all their 'i's dotted and their 't's crossed, which they don’t have at this time," said Geoff Ready, a Calgary-based oil and gas industry analyst with Haywood Capital Markets. The company's new application will also have to address other concerns raised by the U.S. government, such as the solidity of the pipeline itself. "There is some concern from the U.S. over how corrosive [the oil is]," Ready said. "They believe that oil from Canada is more corrosive than general light oil from other places, so they want to make sure that the pipeline specs … [are] sufficient to meet what they believe to be harsher, more corrosive oil." Ready and other analysts agree that it would be premature for the company to abandon the pipeline because of Wednesday's decision since it seemed to have more to do with U.S. politics than the merits of the project. "[U.S. President Barack] Obama doesn't want to make a decision here right now, because he's got conflicting parties on it," Ready said. "He's got support from labour unions that want it to go through, and he's got environmental groups that don't want it to go through, and if you definitely pick one side or the other, then he's going to alienate some supporters in advance of a presidential election. "So, politically, he wants to defer the final decision under the premise that they want to gather more information, which keeps him safe in both interests' views until after the election." By Kazi Stastna, CBC News "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." Even before the State Department made the announcement, Republican congressmen criticized the decision, saying Obama had chosen to "create jobs in China" rather than the U.S., as Canada turns to Asia for energy exports. "The president's policies are making the American economy worse, rather than better," House Speaker John Boehner said, vowing Wednesday's announcement wasn't the end of the fight. Back from 2012 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/keystone-xl-pipeline-proposal-rejected-for-now-1.1179618 theres lots of info out there.

joether -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 9:13:15 AM)
The pipeline doesn't give anything to America or her citizens. Why should America take on all the liability and none of the profits? I recall a Democrat posting a bill that would require all the oil that came from Canada to be sold for only US sales points. It was totally destroyed by the GOP/TP. That's right, the GOP/TP works for foreign corporations.... The GOP/TP have been giving total lies about the benefits of the pipeline. It will not produce jobs. If there is a breach, the federal government will have to clean it up. Has the GOP/TP set aside resources to handle such a process? No of course not; that would be like 'forward thinking' and that's just liberal to do....

MercTech -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 5:39:39 PM)
Route for Keystone XL extension of the existing Keystone Pipeline... http://keystone-xl.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-overall-route-map/ Now, what is the objection to a privately funded project whose liability will lie with the owner/operating corporation? The issue still strikes me as greedy politicians blocking a project because it doesn't include enough pork barrels. A moot point at this point as TransCanada is funding a pipeline totally on Canadian soil as the U.S. waffled then blocked an extension to the existing pipeline system that would have given some advantages and profits to U.S. companies.

thompsonx -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 5:41:22 PM)
ORIGINAL: MercTech Route for Keystone XL extension of the existing Keystone Pipeline... http://keystone-xl.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-overall-route-map/ Now, what is the objection to a privately funded project whose liability will lie with the owner/operating corporation? The issue still strikes me as greedy politicians blocking a project because it doesn't include enough pork barrels. What does the usa get out of it?

joether -> RE: Fk you Canada.... (11/9/2015 5:46:05 PM)
Who do we send the bill for damages when there is a problem? Some terrorist blows holes in the pipeline sending a crap load into a neighborhood or wildlife area? Is it: A ) The US Government B ) The Canadian Government C ) A Third Party Whom Flees The Nation Ever tried cleaning up after an oil disaster? They are not fun, easy, or low costing. Not to mention it could containment areas rendering them unsuitable for anything (thus costing more just to fully clean it up). All of this requires manpower and dollars. So the taxpayer will foot the bill until the courts finally find someone guilty to pay damages. An that entity will simply go bankrupt, so the taxpayer ends up paying the full cost. Again why are we handling all the liability and none of the profits again? Doesn't sound like a very 'capitalistic' idea to me.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625