November 5, 2014
Following an election night (click here) that saw anti-Keystone Democrats replaced by pro-Keystone Republicans, the oil-sands pipeline project now appears to have at least 60 supporting votes. That means legislation forcing approval of the long-delayed project may be headed to President Obama. Before the election, at least 57 senators could be counted on to support pro-Keystone legislation, but that was never enough to beat a filibuster from the project's opponents....
Now before the Democrats go on defense and disputing a 60 vote margin, there is a far deeper truth that seems to escape the conversation.
This isn't domestic oil. This isn't Light Sweet American Crude. The Republicans previous to this election has been ranting about "No foreign oil." This is foreign oil. Now, if the Republicans want to say, "It is only over the border in Canada and with the USA's dearest ally, then what is Saudi Arabia, yesterday's left overs?"
This is Bush giving the Prince a kiss on the cheek. Excuse me?
The Home Drilled oil and gas the right wing covets as their own (and who else would, really) was to avoid foreign entanglements. Canada seems to have as terrorists as well. Does that mean when we take Canadian tar sands oil, the USA is open to terrorists attacks? Because that is what is implied by the statement, "No foreign oil." According to the Republicans foreign oil comes fully equipped with al Qaeda and downed buildings. So, Canada is different?
February 28, 2014
By Elizabeth McGowan
Following an election night (click here) that saw anti-Keystone Democrats replaced by pro-Keystone Republicans, the oil-sands pipeline project now appears to have at least 60 supporting votes. That means legislation forcing approval of the long-delayed project may be headed to President Obama. Before the election, at least 57 senators could be counted on to support pro-Keystone legislation, but that was never enough to beat a filibuster from the project's opponents....
Now before the Democrats go on defense and disputing a 60 vote margin, there is a far deeper truth that seems to escape the conversation.
This is Bush giving the Prince a kiss on the cheek. Excuse me?
The Home Drilled oil and gas the right wing covets as their own (and who else would, really) was to avoid foreign entanglements. Canada seems to have as terrorists as well. Does that mean when we take Canadian tar sands oil, the USA is open to terrorists attacks? Because that is what is implied by the statement, "No foreign oil." According to the Republicans foreign oil comes fully equipped with al Qaeda and downed buildings. So, Canada is different?
February 28, 2014
By Elizabeth McGowan
...The proposed 36-inch-diameter pipeline, (click here) the controversial Keystone XL, is part of an infrastructure designed to pump up to 900,000 barrels per day of heavy crude oil from the tar sands mines in the province of Alberta to refineries along the Gulf Coast.
"They came out here with an offer and we said no," Lynn told SolveClimate News in an interview about TransCanada's quest for the legal right to cross part of her property, known as an easement. "This land was left to us kids. When somebody comes in and tells us they're going to take our land, well they're barking up the wrong tree."
Oklahoma attorney Harlan Hentges filed the legal challenge on behalf of Lynn and the other children and grandchildren of the late A.L. and Dollie White at the state district court in Durant.
"The prospect of a foreign company using the U.S. law to take land from U.S. citizens, this is problematic," he said in an interview.
"I think we have a strong case but the deck is stacked against the individual and in favor of the fossil fuels industry," continued Hentges, a lawyer since 1992. "That industry has invested a lot into making sure things are in their favor since the beginning of statehood."...
I had to do a double take on this one. The USA State Department and/or US States were willing to provide 'Right of Way' to a foreign company. This is a right wing issue both in allowing the pipeline and protecting the country from foreign interests.
First, the USA isn't going to accept any foreign oil and then next thing the right wing is siding up to foreign oil in Canada. First the USA is to be a sovereign nation without any foreign impingement, then it is okay to sell vast amounts of land as an easement to a Canadian company. That is talking out both sides of your mouth by the right wing.
That isn't even the frosting on the cake. The real issue is the length of the pipeline, it's destination and ultimately the destination of the tar. There is also the ability of any pipeline to maintain it's integrity with 50% naphtha flowing inside it. There is also the PRIMARY issue of the climate crisis. But, for simplicity, which seems to be the Republican talent, let's just look at the foreign oil and right of way issues.
How is it Republicans turned on a dime to state Canadian oil is the same as American oil? It isn't. And how did the Republicans gloss over any indication American land was going to a Canadian right of way. And it isn't simply a small short jog to a port somewhere, it is right down the middle of the USA to refineries in Texas. And how is it, the refineries in Texas are even a part of a scheme to transport Canadian tar sands all over the world?
I would think Canada would see this as their resource and that of generations of Canadians and if the time ever comes where they need it, it would be there. Additionally, why aren't Texas Oil Men building a refinery in Canada? Why don't Texas Oil Men value a sovereign USA as much as it's citizens do? Why endanger a precious aquifer at all?
The Democrats should have been all over this thing in elections making more noise than anyone else, especially realizing how people like A.L. and Dollie White's decedents are staunchly opposed to losing an inch of their land? Are the Dems on the payroll for TransCanada, too?
There were a lot of people that are also voters standing against this mess coming across the country and they are absolutely correct. All one needs to do is point to the aquifers in California and what happened there to make the case for protecting sovereign American farm land.
I am sure no one is going to like this, but, the DNC needs a chairperson from a red state, not California.
