Senate approves Keystone XL pipeline

[Natural Citizen]

I already pointed out that this is favoritism to a specific company. This is favoritism. It gives a certain company exclusive treatment.

Favoritism is sugar coating it. It's mercantilism. Period.

 

[William Tell]

Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it.

Yeah, and I still love both of them.

I wouldn't say that opposing the Keystone Pipeline is clearly the libertarian position.

Why? there is nothing libertarian about it. You are just using an appeal to authority and "the ends justify the means" to justify a bill that is not libertarian.

It seems to be an issue that libertarians are divided on. Arguably the small government position would be to vote "yes."

Just because some libertarians are not pure on an issue does not mean that it is debatable from a perspective of libertarianism itself.

 

[donnay]

How many peoples property will be gobbled-up by this pipeline. Kelo Vs. New London.

 

[muh_roads]

What is the big deal with a pipe going thru lands? Just let them open more legal casino's as reimbursement.

Contaminating water I think is overblown.

 

[Brett85]

I already pointed out that this is favoritism to a specific company. This is favoritism. It gives a certain company exclusive treatment.

My preference would be to pass the bill first and then go back and pass another bill after that which would allow the other companies to build pipelines as well and treat everyone more equally.

 

[Brett85]

How many peoples property will be gobbled-up by this pipeline. Kelo Vs. New London.

I think the issue should be decided by the corporations and the land owners with the courts acting as the arbitrator. I don't see why Congress should be involved. I don't see where Congress even gets the Constitutional authority to prevent a pipeline from being built.

 

[Brett85]

Why? there is nothing libertarian about it. You are just using an appeal to authority and "the ends justify the means" to justify a bill that is not libertarian.

It's libertarian to get the government out of the way, which is what this bill does.

 

[Brett85]

The Keystone Pipeline isn't libertarian?

 

[Working Poor]

Perhaps. I don't care about any of that, TC. The human position is that you don't drop a foreign (or any) tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S. That is reckless on so many levels. Eminent Domain and all of that aside.

What we have here is Growth vs Survival 101.

This is the reason I am against too. Water is far more necessary than oil.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The Keystone Pipeline isn't libertarian?

It's irrelevant.

You don't drop a tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S.

What part of that don't you get?

Would you like specific examples of why that isn't a very good idea?

 

[Natural Citizen]

This is the reason I am against too. Water is far more necessary than oil.

Seems like they want to avoid that issue in favor of presenting a half baked political debate. I don't get people. I really don't.

And beyond that, the people don't benefit in any practical or meaningful way having this foreign pipeline dropped on their lands.

 

[Brett85]

It's irrelevant.

You don't drop a tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S.

What part of that don't you get?

Would you like specific examples of why that isn't a very good idea?

I'm not sure if that's necessarily true or the case. I would imagine that there's a counter argument to your claim.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not sure if that's necessarily true or the case. I would imagine that there's a counter argument to your claim.

Well, I certainly welcome one. The terms of controversy need to be debated accordingly and a counter argument is just the ticket to get that rolling. And not relative to some libertarian this or that nonsense. What you are doing is you're introducing a libertarian position as a stalking horse. Look that up, btw. There is a wiki page. I made sure of it.

 

[Slave Mentality]

Favoritism is sugar coating it. It's fascism. Period.

FTFY

 

[Natural Citizen]

FTFY

Yes, that too. But when the actual people have their sovereignty wrecked by way of government intervention on behalf of the financial interests of a multinational or domestic corporation/industry it's mercantilism 101. And those government officials need to be voted out of office if they participate in the skullduggery.

If their doners/corporate beneficiaries of this pipeline want a pipeline then fine. Don't drop it on the largest aquifer in the nation (because that is just plain freaking stupid) and don't attack the sovereignty and property rights of those that you made an oath to represent (because that is treason. Tyranny at the very least).

 

[Brett85]

Yes, that too. But when the actual people have their sovereignty wrecked by way of government intervention on behalf of the financial interests of a multinational or domestic corporation/industry it's mercantilism 101.

But it isn't "government intervention." It's just getting the government out of the way.

 

[Natural Citizen]

But it isn't "government intervention." It's just getting the government out of the way.

Your killin me, TC. Yer freaking killin me here, man.

You don't drop a tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. I don't care if it's government doing it, a multi-national corporation or whomever. It's freaking reckless. Whatsamatter wit you?

And I just expalined what mercantilism is. Goshdarn hardhead.

 

[Brett85]

http://keystone-xl.com/the-facts-on-keystone-xl-and-the-ogallala-aquifer/

When pipelines are your business, you pride yourself on ensuring the safest delivery through the communities you operate in.

TransCanada happens to be in that business, and we are using the latest in pipeline technology to make sure we live up to that expectation.

One of the realities of transporting energy across the continent is that our pipelines will have to cross bodies of water. A considerable amount of the media attention regarding the path of Keystone XL concerns the Ogallala Aquifer.

The Ogallala Aquifer provides drinking water to millions of people, plants and animals in the region. Some estimates say that the total amount of water in the aquifer could cover the continental United States in water two feet deep. The Ogallala is incredibly important to the people of the Midwest. We know this because our friends and families live and work up and down Keystone route too. We take special care building our pipelines; that’s why we’ve voluntarily agreed to add 59 additional safety and maintenance conditions. Keystone XL will be the safest and most technologically advanced pipeline built in the United States.

Our opponents would have you believe that the Keystone XL pipeline would risk this entire resource. This is not true, nor is it supported scientifically.

Dr. Jim Goeke, a research hydrologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has studied the Ogallala Aquifer for four decades.

According to Goeke, his 40 years of research and study of this unique structure have demonstrated repeatedly that the water in the Ogallala Aquifer follows gravity, and thus flows west-to-east. Take a look at the pipeline route below.

Keystone XL’s path is east of more than 80 per cent of the Ogallala Aquifer. Impact modelling conducted by the State Department and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has shown that in the very unlikely event of an incident, impacts would be localized to as little as tens of feet. That’s because the Ogallala Aquifer is a very large rock formation with layers and layers of sands, soils and rock layers. These thick layers offer a natural protection for the water below. For context, water travels through the Aquifer’s densely packed layers at a rate of two to three feet a day.

In the New York Times Professor Goeke, gives a number of explanations as to why Keystone presents minimal risk; highlighting that the depth of the water along much of the alignment of the pipeline is between 50 and 300 feet deep. Keystone would be buried four feet deep.

Any claim that the drinking water for the entire region would be affected is a gross exaggeration of the risks

And in areas where the water table sits closer to the planned pipeline depth? TransCanada has already pledged to utilize waterproof coverings on the pipeline and cement jackets during construction. Remotely operated shutoff valves will be spaced closer together and can stop the flow of oil in minutes.

Further to that, TransCanada uses high-quality carbon steel, capable of withstanding the 3.5-inch teeth from a 65-ton excavator. We also use a corrosion-resistant, fusion-bonded epoxy coating. In order to further shore up the integrity of our pipelines, we attach cathodic protection to our infrastructure. This is the same technique used on bridges, boats and cars to prevent rust from occurring.

Our safety procedures and pipeline paths are based on scientific evidence. Support from in-state academics like Prof. Jim Goeke gives us the confidence to know what we are doing is safe. The support of more than 60% of the American public gives us the support to know what we are doing is in the best interest of the country.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, when complete, will be over 2,000 miles (3,462 km) long.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah, bullshit. I want to hear the position on "science" from these people who are voting for this thing. That's what I'd like to know. I'd like for them to stand up there, tell us their position on science and then tell us how they'd lead given it's impact on legislation that affects the American people. I don't want to read some sales product pitch or PR page from the very company who is the culprit. And if the representative will not or is incapable of providing a position on science and chooses to simply repeat the company's officialdom then he or she isn't qualified to hold any kind of political office of representation in the modern world in my view. He or she should be expected to be competent to hold a position on science as a whole in way that demonstrates the ability to decipher it from industry rhetoric. And in many cases, those same companies are directly affiliated with the very doners who are affiliated with our representatives and whom spend hundreds of millions of dollars toward political pacs in return for favors so it is monumental that they are competent and willing to provide their personal position on science to the American people instead of just forwarding PR from special interests. Maybe they can explain what they know about how an aquifer works. Why it is important to humanity. From the politicians mouth. Based upon his or her scientific position. I don't want to hear special interest's scientific scribbles. They don't represent me. You think maybe?

I'll give it to you, though. You are a persistent one. I'm going to go watch cartoons. I need a break from this place. Maybe scribble up an op-ed or something productive. Or something...

 

[Working Poor]

Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it. I wouldn't say that opposing the Keystone Pipeline is clearly the libertarian position. It seems to be an issue that libertarians are divided on. Arguably the small government position would be to vote "yes."

If destroying the largest aquifer in our country is a libertarian stand than I renounce it right now. Water is way more necessary to life and health I don't care who looses money. Go Obama veto that crap.