Im still waiting for an answer to my questions asked on 11-23-2011. No takers eh?

robot_dude: they already exist i.e. solar, wind, hydro, biological (algae, plant based fuels, etc), and new battery technology...my job is to protect the resources; the others in my department deal with the energy research...Solyndra is one company that failed, and it does not represent all solar technology...

"Our money should be focused on greener technologies."
-
Then come up with one, Einstein. If you don't we will all die. Um. No pressure.

This tactic seems so typical of the left. They use the aquifer as an excuse to spike the pipeline deal because they don't want to say the real reasons they oppose it. They want smaller supply. They want to inhibit consumption by driving the price higher. That way, they can continue to demonize corporations in general and oil companies particularly. They know the tar pits are going to be developed anyway, so they realize that the global warming carbon will still be released and that there is almost no risk to the aquifer beyond what already exists. This is strictly a political calculation by politicians who see class warfare as their only hope for maintaining power using environmentalism as an excuse.

I dont understand peoples logic on here...you want the pipeline scrapped....what good does it do? Will it make you feel better knowing the United States wont use the oil? This wont shut down the tar sands....for those that dont know, it is getting bigger and bigger, supported by the Canadian government. If we dont use the oil it will still get used but have to be shipped to China (yeah across the ocean, burning MORE fuel) where it will be refined using far less sophisticated pollution scrubbing equipment that is used here. Im sorry, but until the rest of the worl signs on to "saving the planet" the U.S. is falling behind the eight ball on energy solutions that need to be solved today with existing technology. If we can come up with something better and/or cleaner, great! Except that it will more than likely be MANY years off until that tech could be utilized to an extent to replace petro. Until then we need to utilize what is available and support our neighbors to the North rather than our enemies in the Middle East.

@patarican1-"our money should be focused on greener technologies"-like Solyndra???? Again I ask-how many jobs did Obama create by pissing away more than $500 million on this debacle??? And the problem now with "greener technologies" is that they are too expensive for most people and are not cost effective.And just as RAF pointed out when you stop using any and all products that are derived from petroleum please let us all know! What hypocrisy on your part!

partarican1 there is far more everyday uses from petroleum than just energy.

When you stop using it then feel free to tell others they should too...

Tar sands extraction is a bad deal for the environment...this pipeline is a farce, and should be scrapped all together...petroleum is not the way to go here. Our money should be focused on greener technologies. They already exist, now cut the subsidies for coal, gas, and oil to level the playing field so these new, greener fuels and technologies can compete.

@panama-where did I ever say that environmental concerns should not be paid attention? The absurdity of your statement is that this project had cleared every environmental concern out there-but you choose to ignore that little fact-the truth is liberals use the environment as a reason to block everything-wind mills? kill too many birds.Oil? to much pollution. Coal? Ditto.Natural gas? Ditto."Clean coal"? a total oxymoron-What will be good enough for you-returning to cave man days?How many jobs have not been created by Obama because of his ban on not only deep water drilling but shallow water exploration? How many jobs were created by his "shovel ready" stimulus package? How many jobs were not created by pissing away over $500 million on Solyndra? How many jobs are not created by ignoring the possibilities of natural gas as an interim way to wean us off our dependence on foreign oil while we develop cleaner fuels that can actually be cost effective and people can actually afford?

Obama is a joke, He should have been recalled after his first year! I intend to use my vote to get him the heck out of Washington!

So in your view bebe, we should overlook environmental concerns for job creation that would lead us to trade jobs for water we can’t use and farmland that can’t grow crops; just another example of flawed Conservative rationalizing. (The same rationale that lead to tax cuts while spending billions to fight two wars.) How many jobs were created by BP drilling for oil in the Gulf? How many MORE jobs and livelihoods were destroyed by the BP oil spill in the Gulf? Sorry bebe, we can’t afford any more of your defective Conservative reckoning.

@Panama-yeah keep obstructing those good paying jobs for the 99%-typical ridiculous liberal rationalizing as always.

Chuck should get his facts in order. It's those who favor building the pipline that sold out. Here is a link that will clarify the position of those opposed to the Keystone XL pipeline. If 1% of our population can control our economic and tax policy then now is the time for a different 1% of the population to be heard – those negatively impacted by the planned pipeline.

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the...

(This comment was piped in from Alaska by the site staff)

kersty..interesesting and thanks! Happy Thanksgiving. Keep us posted.

SuperDave: We are down for Thanksgiving and trucks arent moving due to weather so most things are quiet until things move again. On the other hand, these pieces were supposed to be moved in early spring and summer but the environmentalists filed a federal lawsuit and the whole project was delayed because of it. There are so many hoops we have to jump through now in terms of safety protocals that it has gotten a little rediculous to even do the work that is needed. The locals from what I understand like the fact that money is flowing through the are, but dont like that the equipment is flowing through the area with that money. Ill post back as things develop. PanamaRed: I dont know if you saw the other posts, the aquifer is a moot point, a re-route has already been offered yet it is still being delayed by the high and mighties in Washington....election season must be coming eh? The alternate route also has the blessing of the EPA last I knew, but since its an International project, el presidente needs to signoff on the darn thing!

"The reality is this is a manufactured concern based upon an ideology."
-
Really Ezoner? The potential for polluting an aquifer that represents 30% of the nations water used for irrigation AND provides 82% of the people who live within its boundaries with drinking water is a MANUFACTURED concern? So what in your opinion represents a REAL concern. Mayber if YOUR drinking water were threatened? According to http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Oc-Po/O... "The future economy of the High Plains depends heavily on the Ogallala Aquifer, the main source of water for all uses. The Ogallala will continue to be the lifeblood of the region only if it is managed properly to limit both depletion and contamination."
-
The number of temporary jobs created by building the pipeline is nothing compared to the economic devastation that would result from an event permanently contaminating the aquifer. What happens to all the farmers, ranchers and families living in the 8 states that depend on clean water for their livelihood? I'm sure they can be mollified by the fact their gas is 10 cents cheaper. There is nothing "made up" about the potentially disastrous results should an oil spill occur within the aquifer boundaries.

-The pipeline will get approved regardless of what the impact report finds.-

Then why has it not already been approved. The studies are done.

LOL... it was just a 'delay' to review potential risks. Obama is in the pocket of big oil like the rest of them. The pipeline will get approved regardless of what the impact report finds.
--
Get real, folks, this pipeline will do nothing to reduce the cost of gas at the pump.The commodities exchange sets oil prices... not supply and demand. I wish I had $100 mil to 'buy in'.

Panama -- you still didnt address the concern... There is no more concern for this t han for the other existing potential contamination elements. The reality is that we continue to be driven by political and environmental ideologies that are in conflict with our financial and national independence and defence. Look around you, there is a potential hazard every step or direction. The reality is this is a manufactured concern based upon an ideology. Its cost us dearly..

It's lost, the oil is going to China. Where it will be burned without heed to the environment, causing more pollution than if it came here. Keystone offered to go around the aquifer, but was promised more years of study for a new route. I used to be behind environmentalist's every cause until I figured out they really have no idea what they are doing. So shortsighted, never looking at the big picture reality.

Anything you care to share. Most of us here in the Midwest know little about the situation in Washington/Alberta. And yes I would agree that s-bags are a little over the top!

SuperDave: Specifics as to what? Just wondering what from what I have observed you would like me to be more specific about. If its for the protestors, some are mad that oversize loads are moving through the area because they dont want us there with the traffic...fair enough. Its the protestors that are requiring a police presence (escort) for the entire lenght of the trip to Alberta. We arent allowed to interact with them or the media. We have been shutdown due to bad weather in the mountains and such. The worst instances were the fecal matter bags that struck the vehicles...I mean, really people?

@kersty52: I would like to hear more of your experience there. Please comment again, with as many specifics as possible.

How's the hopey changey thing working out for you folks? Obama's no leader, he''s a campaigner in chief!

Well, from an inside view (Im in Washington hauling modules to the Kearl oil sands in Ft Mckay, AB for this project)the environmetalist people are a nuisance. Handcuffing themselves to the loads, laying in the roads, throwing crap (literally) at our escort vehicles...you vile SOBS can go to hell. I have heard that this pipeline issue has already made the company we are working for say to hell with the U.S. as it has been communicated that even with a re-route a decision just cant be decided upon by our great government. Sounds like China will be getting the majority of this oil shipped to them, more American job casualties to an overseas competitor, not to mention decreasing energy security. If you want to argue what I see or have heard here, come on out to Pasco, WA or Lewiston Idaho.

For many their claim to opposition of the pipeline was removed when the company declared they would move the proposed line away from the aquifer, but not unsuspectingly the opposition was still there; while many of these same people make up other reasons for opposition.

I wonder where all these people, who are against oil (drilling/shipping) found keyboards not made from petroleum to post their views?

panama..haven't the Canadians now started to plan on running the pipeline in a different route away from the aquifier? If so what is the problem now? You must admit he does need to bow to the environmentalists wishes for them to support him in the election. It's all politics. Latest Obama scandal:asking consultants to fudge the jobs number new anti coal regulations would affect. Again, it's all slippery politics to get his agenda rammed through. Transparency?

I thought you had greater sense, Ezoner, than to believe the pipeline poses less of a threat because it runs above ground or that Obama is pandering to the "hippie" vote. What do hippies represent, maybe 1/1000000% of voters? You obviously don't understand the magnitude of devastation that would follow IF that aquifer were to be contaminated. No amount of job creation could begin to compensate for that loss of potable water millions of Americans depend on for their survival. This wouldn't be some "oops" moment that could be contained then forgotten. Citizens that live in the affected area, not just "hippies", were the ones responsible for petitioning the White House to delay the project, including Neb. Republican Governor Dave Heineman,. How's that for "total idiocy and hypocrisy" bebe.

Is this the same Kraut that said Newt was finished in April? This guy gets weirder with every article. Another one for Chuck, you can't wait? WHo is going to knock Obummer out? I certainly hope the Republicants have the courage to nominate the right candidate, Roemer or Paul! No one in the front now has a shallow chance in hell of winning, and you all mus know it.

What a joke this President is-we p#ss away over $500 million on a solar panel plant that had no hope of producing any significant number of jobs but we "delay" a project that would have created 20-30 THOUSAND jobs plus more in ancillary support/services. And the libs complain about our governor???? What total idiocy and hypocrisy!

Panama -- once again - you show that you do not understand. It is a sellout to environmentalist, hippie vote. Obama cannot afford to lose one vote because he has lost so many already. Oh and the pipeline does not run THROUGH the aquifer. The pipeline runs over the aquifer, which is underground. There are miles of pipeline already there and this adds no additional threat. This is purley a political or ideological decision. I promise you that if the construction company for the pipeline wre a huge Obama donor they would have come up with a way to proceed and would have gotten a government grant.

@vatoloco: How about Ronald Reagan? How about many of the Tea Party candidates? How about any Libertarian candidate?

FOTH: to quote the legendary Montgomery Brewster...NONE OF THE ABOVE!!

So it is OK for Obama to delay or wipe out 200k new, good paying jobs that will reduce the cost of oil because other politicians are interested in re-election.

Got it.

As an aside, I wonder when the media will be talking to any of those unemployed middle-class 99% people that will now not have a job because of Obama's political calculations. I bet 60 minutes and all the major networks are working on that right now.

"Well said. This administration is clearly motivated by one thing, and that is re-election."

What politician is not motivated to just get relected?

Many of you chronic complainers complain about the lack of job creation and jump for joy when a certain governor has a set back yet you praise a President that could have put 20,000 people to work. This President didn't postpone the pipeline for additional research it was postponed because he was afraid it would anger a few voters who might not vote for him if he approved it. Politicians make decisions based on vote power nothing else. If they are losing votes they change their tune quickly. Clean air, clean water, clean this or that, it doesn't matter to them as long as they get your vote. Both sides are guilty it is just a matter as to which side you are willing to suspend your beliefs and vote for them.

tthompson: Please vote, even if it comes down to a write-in vote for Ron Paul in November, 2012.

Unless someone's statement is apathy, failing to vote is not a statement that anyone will hear. Checking every single write-in box on a ballot and writing in "None Above" would be a statement. If every single disgusted voter did this instead of skipping elections, it would indeed make a very loud statement. In many elections, it would constitute the majority vote.

"Why? Because the pipeline angered Obama’s environmental constituency."
-
Your reasoning is skewed Chuck. The fact is an overwhelming majority of Americans (not environmentalists) living in Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota and New Mexico believe the pipeline route should be relocated. Why? Because the only proposed pipeline route runs THROUGH the Ogalala aquifer from which many of those same Americans get their water. You consider the decision to postpone building the pipeline because VOTERS were speaking out against the plan, a sellout? The sellout occurred when the decision was made to run the pipeline through the aquifer. Of course government studies determined little environmental impact - isn't that why Big Oil keeps a staff of highly paid experts? Who do you think provided the information contained in the "voluminous studies"? We can survive without oil Chuck but there is NO substitute for clean water.

#1, the Ogalla aquifer is one of the worlds largest, where our bread basket gets the H20 to feed the world, and is extremely shallow. I'm sure Krauthammer spends his days sipping Fiji water at the country club, but that water source effects literally effects billions of people.
#2, TransCanada has already decided to reroute the pipeline, so either way, what people see as "environmentalists winning", is nothing of the sort. It will be built, and it will probably be approved before the election cycle.
#3, Private companies will not invest in alternative energy sources if the price of oil is low. The price of oil is kept artificially low due in large part to massive subsidies still given out by the Federal Gov., the fact that even though fossil fuel exploration is regulated, the externalized costs of pollution and long term infrastructure costs are not figured into the price of oil.
#4, the Tar Sands will be developed, the pipeline will be built, that carbon trapped in the earth will be burned, one way or another. The question about jobs and oil is not about short term fixes. The oil extracted from the tar sands is difficult to get and then still needs to be pumped 2500 miles. The only reason it's a viable project is because of the high price of oil, and newer techniques, same with the Bakken oil field. This project will not decrease the price of oil.
#5. I enjoy reading Krauthammer's propaganda pieces. They give me a good chuckle.

SuperDave: Obama has sold out my cause to Nth degree. I wouldn't take my vote back between him vs mccain, no way, but he lost my vote next year. I will not vote unless Ron Paul is the nominee. As to your campaign mode post, don't fool yourself, they ALL do it. from the link...

"Who said this? "Listen. I'm interested in one thing. I'm interested in helping people find work. I want people who want to work to be able to find a job."

It sure sounds like the rhetoric President Obama has been offering up at the town hall meetings on his three-day Midwestern bus tour.

But the statement above was spoken eight years earlier, by then-president George W. Bush, on a visit to Minnesota shortly after announcing his bid for presidential re-election.

Okay. Who said this? "Yes, we've got a deficit. We've got a deficit for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that when you're in a recession, less money is coming into the Treasury."

Again, it was Bush, in a speech on June 19, 2003 in in Livonia, New Jersey

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2...

Why does SuperDave's comment immediately bring to mind John Bender's response in The Breakfast Club, "Not even close, bub!"

Well said. This administration is clearly motivated by one thing, and that is re-election. It's sad that Mr. Obama is willing to let the nation suffer so that he personally can benefit from four more years of government by executive fiat. Such is the Chicago way!