If you still think they are not hostile to modernity

Just read along. In a blatantly obvious move to pander to their insane green constituents, the Obama Administration has yet again made a decision to prevent us from getting more resources to keep energy prices from going higher. Here’s the meat of the issue

The Obama administration said Friday that a massive pipeline carrying oil across much of the United States must remain shut down until federal regulators are satisfied that it can operate without future leaks.

TransCanada’s Keystone pipeline leaked twice last month, fueling opposition to a pending expansion of the project, which is undergoing a wide-ranging federal review.

Let’s also prevent people from driving cars, riding trains, or flying planes, just to name a few, until we can make sure there are not going to be future accidents in any of these endeavors as well! It’s not as if giving us details of these leaks would have helped us understand the problem either, huh. What caused them? How big were they? How fast were they repaired? Is it again much ado about nothing or just the Obamanauts using this as an excuse to yet again stifle our energy resources?

And what caused these leaks is very important to me? I wouldn’t be surprised it was done by some environmentalist wacco that wanted just this result. These people are not just insane, they are evil. They pull stunts like this constantly and the media never reports on them.

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a “corrective action order” Friday informing TransCanada that it must take a series of steps before resuming normal operations at the pipeline, which runs from Canada to Oklahoma.

How much you want to bet that these “corrective actions” are flat out insane if not outright impossible, and that what we have here is simply an attempt to shut this down for as long as possible? And don’t argue with me that the Obama Administration would have to be insane to do yet another thing that hurts the economy so close to an election. They care little about the economy, jobs, or the people that won’t vote for them anyway. This is flat out a political payment to their green constitutency.

“After evaluating the foregoing preliminary findings of fact, I find that the continued operation of the pipeline without corrective measures would be hazardous to life, property and the environment,” Jeffrey Wiese, PHMSA’s associate administrator for pipeline safety, said in the order.

PHMSA is mandating that TransCanada provide a detailed “restart plan,” conduct “mechanical and metallurgical” testing, and analyze the pipeline components that failed

Why no details of what went so “horribly” wrong from this fella? I for one would love to know whose “life” and “property” was put in danger by a pipe that supposedly runs in the middle of nowhere. Methinks nobody was in danger of losing life or property, and that this was all about the third part of this moron’s statement, “the environment”, and then, not in the sense that these people worried about the environment, but about the insane morons that worship Gaia and their votes.

These green retards don’t want Canadians going after shale oil, of which there is so much in Canada that it makes the Saudi reserves look like a small piddle, because access to this oil would undermine their efforts to kill the sue of oil completely. And since the Canadian government isn’t insane enough to cut its economic jugular by ending this lucrative, job creating enterprise, they are doing it by preventing them access to the consumers. Want proof?

In addition, the order instructs TransCanada to conduct a review of its entire pipeline system within 60 days, among other things.

The order comes at a politically sensitive time for TransCanada. The company is seeking federal approval to expand its Keystone pipeline to carry Canadian oil sands from Alberta to Texas.

Texas! The Keynesians and Gaia worshippers are basically hoping to stop delivery to the consumers in Texas. It’s a double victory if they pull it off. First they stop the Canadians from getting the shale oil. Then one could even argue that they might be inclined to think they scored a win because of how they impact the Texas economy. Would you be surprised to find out that these idiots did something like this so they could then make the shitholes the left has run into the ground – like California or Michigan – more palatable? I certainly wouldn’t after these last 3 years.

In this horrible economy the left is putting agenda and their Gaia religion in front of jobs and access to energy yet again. I am sure that when job numbers again show negative or negligible growth, and energy prices go up, that they will be baffled at it and claim it is all unexpected.

Comments are closed.

  1. Mississippi Yankee

    Was there an American governor that help this TransCanadian pipeline become a reality?

    Nothing vindictive here… just move along folks, nothing to see…

    Thumb up 0

  2. Kimpost

    A bit speculative, no? ;)

    Anyway. The Keynsians and Gaia worshippers have approved the pipeline.

    The Transportation Department has given TransCanada Corp. permission to restart its Keystone oil pipeline, just a day after blocking resumption of operations on the line that has suffered two recent leaks.

    The department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), in a letter Saturday, told the company that it had approved its restart plan and that the restart could commence today.

    “PHMSA’s decision follows a thorough evaluation of the company’s proposed plan, and safety activities required under the plan. As required by the Corrective Action Order, restart of the pipeline will be under restricted conditions and closely monitored by PHMSA,” the agency said in a statement Sunday.

    The 1,300-mile line that runs from Canada to Oklahoma leaked roughly 400 barrels of oil in North Dakota on May 7, prompting a weeklong shutdown.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT *

    Actually Kimpost, they only approved it only because they got hammered after they tried to deny TransCanada Copr. permission to get the pipeline up & running again. And they got hammered because people found out about the issue despite the MSM’s attempted blackout on the issue. I guess Obama is starting to realize that the American people are no longer buying into the Hopey-Changey shit when unemployment & inflation are going up, and job prospects are going down.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Wow Alex you sure don’t let facts, or a lack of them, get in the way of a good narrative do you. This seems to happen in almost every post you write. There’s almost no evidence to support the conclusions you reach. And, shock horror, ALL your narratives confirm what you already ‘know’. I hope you have a good doctor, it must be very stressful to keep gettting so worked up all the time.

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT *

    Wow Alex you sure don’t let facts, or a lack of them, get in the way of a good narrative do you.

    Please provide details of where this happened.

    This seems to happen in almost every post you write.

    Would it be remiss of me to ask for you to cite examples? And make sure we are talking facts, not what you want them to be, which I suspect is the issue here. You don’t like the way I point out the bullshit on the left.

    There’s almost no evidence to support the conclusions you reach.

    You want to tell me you believe the government reviewed the plan and thuroughly inspected the pipe in a few days, as they claim, then gave permission to start it up again? Maybe you have been watching too much TV and actually are misinformed about how fast governments do anything from shows like CSI or 24. Not me.

    Really? Look at the original article where the fed was going to play games, then look at the many people pointing this move out, then look at when the Feds decided to allow the pipeline to go on.

    How about you look at the ludicrous 180 where they demand a massive action plan and no more accidents, then a week later when the shit hits the fan claim they inspected everything and are A-OK with it. Heh.

    Here are the facts you say I dispute from the first article:

    The Obama administration said Friday that a massive pipeline carrying oil across much of the United States must remain shut down until federal regulators are satisfied that it can operate without future leaks.

    That was Friday 6/3, worst case Friday 5/27. This new article saying the Feds approve the plan comes out Sunday 6/5. Here is the idiotic claim by the Feds in the second article:

    “PHMSA’s decision follows a thorough evaluation of the company’s proposed plan, and safety activities required under the plan. As required by the Corrective Action Order, restart of the pipeline will be under restricted conditions and closely monitored by PHMSA,” the agency said in a statement Sunday.

    Now they either pulled this off in 5 work days or over the weekend. You might be stupid enough to buy that and even defend it, but me, I am not.

    And, shock horror, ALL your narratives confirm what you already ‘know’.

    Can’t help it if I can run circles around libs like you bud. Hate the game, not the player.

    I hope you have a good doctor, it must be very stressful to keep gettting so worked up all the time.

    Projecting?

    Thumb up 0

  6. Kimpost

    Damned whatever they do, huh? :)

    One would think that you would be happy that they listened to reason (assuming that the side who won represents reason in this case, of which I have no idea). Instead you are focusing on their lack of backbone (“they only approved it after they got hammered”), or something of the likes. A bit unreasonable, don’t you think?

    Thumb up 0

  7. CM

    Can’t help it if I can run circles around libs like you bud. Hate the game, not the player.

    I mock the player because the player seems to think opinion and fact are completely interchangeable. They’re not. You don’t get to create your own facts. Sorry. If things were as bad as you make out, you wouldn’t have to indulge in hyperbole all the time.

    Thumb up 0

  8. AlexInCT *

    I mock the player because the player seems to think opinion and fact are completely interchangeable. They’re not. You don’t get to create your own facts. Sorry.

    The only one with problems distinguishing facts from opinion is you CM. I posted above facts. They came out and said they wouldn’t allow the pipeline to go live using a long and arduous process, likely based on spurious and ephemeral criteria, only to then when they were hammered for it, over the weekend never the less, reverse their position with the ludicrous claim that they had done that demanded/required in dept analysis of a plan that didn’t exist and certainly wasn’t pout together in a few hours, and a complete inspection. You may pretend this isn’t what happened, but if you are going to do so, disporve my points with actual facts, please. I am waiting for you to dispute the facts for a change, instead of posting these vague character assassination attempts.

    If things were as bad as you make out, you wouldn’t have to indulge in hyperbole all the time.

    I am afraid things are far worse than I say they are, but again, you provide zero proof of your accusations that the problem is with me, other than this sort of generalized pap. Thanks for playing.

    Thumb up 0

  9. CM

    I posted above facts

    Where? You posted a narrative.

    likely based on spurious and ephemeral criteria

    If you believe this is fact then provide the evidence. Otherwise you’re just speculating.

    Let’s also prevent people from driving cars, riding trains, or flying planes, just to name a few, until we can make sure there are not going to be future accidents in any of these endeavors as well!

    WTF? Who is claiming anything even remotely of the sort?

    And what caused these leaks is very important to me? I wouldn’t be surprised it was done by some environmentalist wacco that wanted just this result. These people are not just insane, they are evil. They pull stunts like this constantly and the media never reports on them.

    So how do you find about them? How do you verify the accuracy of what you hear?

    How much you want to bet that these “corrective actions” are flat out insane if not outright impossible,

    WTF? Based on what?

    and that what we have here is simply an attempt to shut this down for as long as possible?

    Based on what (other than your imagination)?

    This is flat out a political payment to their green constitutency.

    Where is your evidence of this fact? Again, you don’t seem to realise that dreaming up an opinion isn’t the same as having proof (let alone evidence).

    Keynesians and Gaia worshippers

    What Kimpost said.

    It’s a double victory if they pull it off. First they stop the Canadians from getting the shale oil. Then one could even argue that they might be inclined to think they scored a win because of how they impact the Texas economy. Would you be surprised to find out that these idiots did something like this so they could then make the shitholes the left has run into the ground – like California or Michigan – more palatable? I certainly wouldn’t after these last 3 years.

    Pure speculation.

    In this horrible economy the left is putting agenda and their Gaia religion in front of jobs and access to energy yet again

    Simply your opinion. You’ve provided zero evidence of that.

    And yet suppose this leak had not taken place when a crew just happened to be on site to turn the wrench or hit the button that shut off the flow. Suppose more than three seconds had passed between the time the gasket blew, the time someone noticed, and the time someone with the right-sized wrench showed up to perform a manual shutdown. In just two hours, that pump station could have thrown 240,000 gallons of oil—over 5700 barrels—into the air and onto the ground. And that’s less than one sixth of the Keystone pipeline’s current pumping volume.

    But your general response to that:

    Let’s also prevent people from driving cars, riding trains, or flying planes, just to name a few, until we can make sure there are not going to be future accidents in any of these endeavors as well!

    It’s all a bit silly, and very very weak. There were/are legitimate reasons to be concerned. It doesn’t need to mean anything else. The fact that you can make stuff up doesn’t prove anything other than your own clear lack of objectivity.

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    In response to your narrative that Obama makes decisions “to prevent us from getting more resources to keep energy prices from going higher”, what do you make the information in these pieces, which seem to completely contradict what you claim?

    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/03/09/207624/drill-baby-drill-fails-oil-prices-soar-production-obama-barbour-blame/

    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/may/22/michael-williams/michael-williams-says-gas-prices-are-2-obama-becam/

    The relevant links are provided within each one.

    Thumb up 0

  11. AlexInCT *

    I don’t think much of any of that. I like to listen to what Obama himself has said. Check this YouTube vide: here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Tmi_fpUHs&feature=related.

    If you still want to waste my time arguing this bullshit however, check this one out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M&feature=related

    Obama clearly states his energy policy is to cap CO2 emissions and that will mean sky rocketing rates that only the elites can afford. If you still fail to see the connection with how that affects his energy policy, I must basically conclude it’s not because the facts have not been presented CM, but because you simply do not want to see it. Of course, considering how some of the other discussions we are having have been going, my bet is simply that it is the later: you refuse to accept the obvious, because it doesn’t square with your liberal fantasies. Don’t worry and keep posting more of your lib nonsense. At a minimum it gives me a good laugh, and it also helps others see the desperation.

    Google Obama wants energy policy bud, but don’t let your disappointment when I am proven right repeatedly get you down.

    Thumb up 0

  12. AlexInCT *

    Where? You posted a narrative.

    OK CM, now I am no longer thinking you might have reading comprehension problems, but that you are plainly a liberal moron. You really want to make the case that me pointing out that the spokesperson for the Obama Administration putting out a presser on a Friday night saying they are stopping the pipeline until they get the company to show them a comprehensive plan guaranteeing no more accidents and every part of the pipeline undergoes METALURGICAL ANALYSIS to prove it is safe, and then when they get exposed & start taking heat a couple of days later, on a Sunday nevertheless, puts out another presser claiming that they have reviewed the plan, done the thorough analysis they demanded and went over it, and now are giving the go-ahead, is a narrative? What are you going to tell me next? That the laws of gravity are also a narrative?

    If you believe this is fact then provide the evidence. Otherwise you’re just speculating.

    Ah yes, a nice deflection. Ignore the fact that they had an agenda and when it got exposed did a double take, and divert attention by yet again demanding “facts” as if the point wasn’t already proven by the very 180 done by the WH. Not going to bother, because you will then just ignore that too and pretend you still have a valid argument when you don’t.

    WTF? Who is claiming anything even remotely of the sort?

    Oh man, talk about your straw man arguments. Are you seriously this dumb, desperate, or shameless CM? Did you purposefully miss the part where that was my commentary on the request by the WH for TransCanada guarantee no more accidents? Well let me paste it right here for you again:

    The Obama administration said Friday that a massive pipeline carrying oil across much of the United States must remain shut down until federal regulators are satisfied that it can operate without future leaks.

    You do understand that’s a ludicrous and impossible request right? And you do understand the concept of risk as well right? We know accidents happen. People get killed in cars, planes, and trains, and yet, we do not demand anyone stop driving cars, ridding trains, or flying planes until they have “fixed” the system to guarantee no accidents. I feel like I am trying to have a debate with an insane person. Shit.

    So how do you find about them? How do you verify the accuracy of what you hear?

    Well that’s what I asked didn’t I? Where are the details? And I verify them by checking with other sources whose bias I know and can then filer for.

    WTF? Based on what?

    Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps the demand by the WH that TransCanada guarantee no future accidents/spills, an insane and impossible request if I ever heard one, maybe? How fucking seriously would you take someone that told you that you are no longer allowed to drive a car unless you can guarantee never to have an accident again? Me, despite the fact I have not had one in over a decade, would know their request for the impossible was clearly bullshit intended to prevent me from driving my car, and I would then tell them to fuck off. You? Well, you are arguing with me while pretending this ludicrous request wasn’t first made, along with even more insane and impossible ones like that metallurgical verification that no part of the pipeline could have an accident, a demand these losers speaking for the WH then claim was not just met in less than 2 days, but verified by the bureaucratic machine that makes turtles look like they are moving at near light speed, of all things, isn’t insane. Shit, I do not know whether to feel sorry for you or simply point out you have the common sense and logical reasoning abilities of a rock.

    Based on what (other than your imagination)?

    Where is your evidence of this fact? Again, you don’t seem to realise that dreaming up an opinion isn’t the same as having proof (let alone evidence).

    Well, considering how fast – not even two fucking days! – the PHMSA spokesperson seems to have had his organization not just get all their demands for thorough metallurgical analysis, inspections, and a plan to prevent any future leaks period, met, and his people then did the analysis to verify this was all kosher, then cleared Trans Canada to get the pipeline back online, you might want to pay more attention to my imagination. It seems to have been right.

    What Kimpost said.

    After that factual beatdown, I simply must concede… Heh!

    Pure speculation.

    Really? Why? Because you refuse to see the obvious? Seriously, at least Moogoo was fun in all his insanity. You make me feel like I am arguing with someone that is mentally challenged and keeps saying “I know you are, but what am I?”.

    Simply your opinion. You’ve provided zero evidence of that.

    Google Obama’s energy policy. Have a look at what Obama himself has to say. Check out this YouTube link where he admits his agenda is the control of CO2, which means he needs to curtail any and all fossil fuel energy production: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNSZ62xiD4M&feature=related

    And yet suppose this leak had not taken place when a crew just happened to be on site to turn the wrench or hit the button that shut off the flow. Suppose more than three seconds had passed between the time the gasket blew, the time someone noticed, and the time someone with the right-sized wrench showed up to perform a manual shutdown. In just two hours, that pump station could have thrown 240,000 gallons of oil—over 5700 barrels—into the air and onto the ground. And that’s less than one sixth of the Keystone pipeline’s current pumping volume.

    But your general response to that:

    Let’s also prevent people from driving cars, riding trains, or flying planes, just to name a few, until we can make sure there are not going to be future accidents in any of these endeavors as well!

    Well CM, let me turn your illogic right back on you. Your point here then is that you feel some oil spilling out and hurting poor Gaia is more important of a concern than lives lost in a car/train/plane accident? Its’ not like they can not and are going to HAVE TO clean that oil spill up when it happens, either. The dead person(s)? No way to fix that. You leftists are just too fucking easy.

    It’s all a bit silly, and very very weak. There were/are legitimate reasons to be concerned. It doesn’t need to mean anything else. The fact that you can make stuff up doesn’t prove anything other than your own clear lack of objectivity.

    Says the silly guy still ignoring the most important aspect of the story – the 2 day turnaround after they caught massive flack from people now paying through the nose for gas and angry at this AGW cultist bullshit – while having no recourse other than a blatant lie that I am the one that am making up stuff.
    Seriously, why the fuck do you keep ignoring the 2 day turnaround unless it destroys your narrative huh?

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    I don’t think much of any of that. I like to listen to what Obama himself has said. Check this YouTube vide: here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Tmi_fpUHs&feature=related.

    How does that in any way negate the factors outside his control, or the amount of drilling that is going on?

    If you still want to waste my time arguing this bullshit however

    Waste your time? Surely you’d want to have an opinion which takes into account as many relevant facts as you can gather? No?

    Obama clearly states his energy policy is to cap CO2 emissions and that will mean sky rocketing rates that only the elites can afford

    So then address the points made at those links. How is that energy policy consistent with the facts?

    If you still fail to see the connection with how that affects his energy policy, I must basically conclude it’s not because the facts have not been presented CM, but because you simply do not want to see it.

    I would argue that your opinion is seriously flawed because you’ve been very selective about what you’ll take into account.

    Of course, considering how some of the other discussions we are having have been going, my bet is simply that it is the later: you refuse to accept the obvious, because it doesn’t square with your liberal fantasies.

    You mean the other discussions where I also ask you questions?
    Where have I demonstrated ‘liberal fantasies’? I’m not the one writing one emotive ideological rant after another, based entirely on joining dots together to make the picture I want.

    Don’t worry and keep posting more of your lib nonsense. At a minimum it gives me a good laugh, and it also helps others see the desperation.

    Ah I see – questioning you is ‘lib nonsense’.
    Clearly you realise your posts are paper-thin – your response is to ignore anything to the contrary, and abuse people for daring to question you.

    Google Obama wants energy policy bud, but don’t let your disappointment when I am proven right repeatedly get you down.

    You made the statement. Back it up with evidence of how his policies are preventing you from getting your own resources. Start with rebutting the fact that higher oil prices are influenced by factors other than Obama (as the US Energy Information Administration has made clear many times), and that US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade, and that, as a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade. How is that consistent with your narrative?

    As the Financial Times reported (from my first link):

    The revival of US production has been made possible by a rush of small and mid-sized companies into onshore regions such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota, the Permian Basin in west Texas and the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas.

    North Dakota’s production has doubled since 2008, reaching 355,000 b/d in November. Extraction of oil reserves in these regions was thought to be uneconomic, but has been made commercially viable by the transfer of techniques successfully used to extract shale gas; in particular, long horizontal wells and “fracking”, pumping water under high pressure to crack the rock and enable the oil to flow.

    Dave Hager, vice-president for exploration and production at Devon Energy, one of the companies pioneering the development of the new onshore fields, said new technology had transformed production economics at its mixed gas and oilfields in north Texas.

    Like it or not, Obama actually campaigned on opening up oil production in the Bakken shale, so he is delivering on a campaign promise there.

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT *

    How does that in any way negate the factors outside his control, or the amount of drilling that is going on?

    Are you kidding me CM? Did you really just ask how the PRESIDENT of the United States, whom believes in that Gaia worshipping nonsense and admits that his priority to reduce CO2 emissions, is going to impact costs – because his agenda is without any doubt going to limit the use, and hence the exploration and consumption as well – will impact prices, drilling, and anything else that creates the type of energy he objects to, drastically? Energy policies , like the decision to drill or not BTW, are totally within the president’s purveyance. But this guys is playing word games, just like you.

    Waste your time? Surely you’d want to have an opinion which takes into account as many relevant facts as you can gather? No?

    My opinion is already taking into account relevant information, CM, and my conclusion, despite anything you have presented or argued period, remains the same. These people are Gaia worshipping big government leftists and hostile to carbon fuels. They work hand in hand with the enviroweenies to block any attempt to get more oil energy to us, as anyone willing to do the research can easily find. Lip service, as that post clearly shows is the norm, always loses to facts and actions, or lack there off.

    So then address the points made at those links. How is that energy policy consistent with the facts?

    So your argument is that unless I am prepared to do a fully footnoted dissertation, despite Obama’s own claim that his energy policy is driven by the requirement that CO2 emissions be capped and lowered, on this topic, that I should not point out he has said that his priority is capping CO2 emissions, which is contrary and impossible to do while also pushing drilling for oil? Do you apply this standard to those that favor your conclusions as well? Don’t bother answering. It’s quite obvious the answer isn’t just no, but hell no.

    BTW, did you ever read the Soviet Union’s constitution? What about that of Cuba? Do you think those promises were kept? There is a parallel with Obama’s claims and what actually is being done.

    I would argue that your opinion is seriously flawed because you’ve been very selective about what you’ll take into account.

    You mean facts I can verify and not the propaganda from the left?

    You mean the other discussions where I also ask you questions?

    No, I mean every time, like the idiotic observation I need to address points I already did? Maybe you think you are furthering discussion with questions/demands/insinuations where you basically are asking that unless I am ready to do a dissertation to prove my point, even after I provide indisputable proof, over and over, like Obama sayings his priority is exactly what I said it was – controlling CO2 emissions – and hence his energy policy is going to be furthering that agenda, and you simply ignore or dismiss what doesn’t fit the conclusion you want to reach, by demanding more, but I don’t. I see your “attempts at furthering discussion” as a desperate attempt to dismiss the obvious, probably in the hopes that I might simply lose patience and decide its not worth replying at all, so you then can leave that as the last comment on the issue.

    Where have I demonstrated ‘liberal fantasies’? I’m not the one writing one emotive ideological rant after another, based entirely on joining dots together to make the picture I want.

    Your inability to process facts that dispute the liberal narrative, coupled with the strategy of simply saying ignoring any what facts are presented and pretending your concern wasn’t addressed, are indisputable. You are a liberal. Even worse, you have now posted 5 times that I have not given you facts, when I have demolished you with them, so you can keep the ridiculous notion that Obama’s energy policy isn’t obviously anti-fossil fuels, and then claimed this is being done to “further” the discussion. You know the definition of insanity right? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

    As for your attempt to yet again personally attack me by claiming I my posts are just emotional ideological rants, I have to admit you got it half right. I make no bones about being a conservative and espousing conservative values. I have nothing to be ashamed about, like liberals and the crimes they have visited upon humanity do (the ravages of communism and Hitler’s socialist Germany are the proof of that),in the name of “social justice”, “saving the planet”, or whatever other nonsense du jour passes for your motivations. And remember that it is liberalism that is all emotion. But I digress.

    Ah I see – questioning you is ‘lib nonsense’.

    No CM, asking for proof, then pretending it wasn’t given, so you can “keep asking” the same thing is lib nonsense.

    Clearly you realise your posts are paper-thin – your response is to ignore anything to the contrary, and abuse people for daring to question you.

    No CM, your attempts to dispute my points, as has been your contribution to this entire comment thread, is what is paper thin.

    BTW, I notice that you are still completely and totally avoiding the defining and contradicting press releases issued by the PHMSA – one on a Friday basically saying it will be years before these people get the pipe back up, because we are going to look at them with a microscope and deny their request until we have the assurance there will be no accidents again, which was then followed that same Sunday, with one making the obviously ludicrous claim they had done all that work and now where giving TransCanada the go ahead – that more than make my point that the WH tried to prevent the oil from flowing, only to be attacked over it and quickly reversing their stance, to avoid a harsh lash back from angry people affected by that original decision.

    I bolded & indented that to make sure it stands out.

    Like it or not, Obama actually campaigned on opening up oil production in the Bakken shale, so he is delivering on a campaign promise there.

    Really? Maybe those campaign videos were only shown in NZ, because here in the US he campaigned on a “Cap & Tax” policy targeted at reducing CO2 emissions, and admitted that he wanted to reduce and limit coal, gas, and oil while drastically increasing the cost of fossil fuel energy to the average consumer. In fact, it blew up in his face and the media had to cover for him and say what he really meant was that he was for alternative energy before he did that: another empty promise, if not outright lie.

    And unlike people like you, I will consider Obama’s promises about the Bakken Shale oil met when they actually are extracting oil and selling it on a grand scale. That’s my emotive ideological views on display there because. I remain unconvinced by words from a used car salesman.

    Thumb up 1

  15. sahrab

    I bolded & indented that to make sure it stands out.

    Can you make it a bigger font as well? want to be sure CM doesnt miss it

    *Note (for those not aware) yes i know it is already a larger font, its called sarcasm

    Thumb up 1

  16. CM

    OK CM, now I am no longer thinking you might have reading comprehension problems, but that you are plainly a liberal moron.

    I’ll leave the personal abuse up to you.

    You really want to make the case that me pointing out that the spokesperson for the Obama Administration putting out a presser on a Friday night saying they are stopping the pipeline until they get the company to show them a comprehensive plan guaranteeing no more accidents and every part of the pipeline undergoes METALURGICAL ANALYSIS to prove it is safe, and then when they get exposed & start taking heat a couple of days later, on a Sunday nevertheless, puts out another presser claiming that they have reviewed the plan, done the thorough analysis they demanded and went over it, and now are giving the go-ahead, is a narrative?

    You’re basing your narrative on two reports on a single blog. However even from those we can tell that there is more information than we’ve been given.

    What are you going to tell me next? That the laws of gravity are also a narrative?

    You’ve already made it clear elsewhere that you don’t accept scientific laws.

    Ah yes, a nice deflection. Ignore the fact that they had an agenda and when it got exposed did a double take, and divert attention by yet again demanding “facts” as if the point wasn’t already proven by the very 180 done by the WH. Not going to bother, because you will then just ignore that too and pretend you still have a valid argument when you don’t.

    Asking for evidence isn’t a deflection. You think they have an agenda and that’s fine. But saying that this is agenda-driven and it’s a fact require proof.

    The original ‘corrective action order’ is here:
    http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/files/2011/06/320115006H_CAO_06032011.pdf

    It requires them to meet 14 conditions. It’s highly likely that the company were already working on what they knew they’d be asked for, particularly a ‘failure analysis’ on the failed pipe components. They’d also obviously have their own internal system, regardless of what they’d be required to demonstrate to the authorities. It woudn’t be surprising to anyone that they’d undertaken repairs and testing already, before this order was issued.

    U.S. regulators have allowed a Canadian company to restart its Keystone oil pipeline after completing repairs and safety tests.

    Oil from the 1,300-mile pipeline that extends from Canada to Oklahoma and Illinois could begin flowing as soon as Sunday under a revised order from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The agency approved the revision on Saturday.

    The pipeline has been closed since May 29, when workers reported a 10-barrel leak in Kansas. That followed a leak of 400 barrels of oil in North Dakota on May 7.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/04/keystone-oil-pipeline-repair-restart_n_871403.html

    So the order was revised the following day. The most obvious explanation is that when they received the order the company responded immediately and satisfied them that the original requirements of the order were not necessary.

    Oh man, talk about your straw man arguments. Are you seriously this dumb, desperate, or shameless CM? Did you purposefully miss the part where that was my commentary on the request by the WH for TransCanada guarantee no more accidents? Well let me paste it right here for you again:

    You highlghted the relevant part. The regulators were required to be “satisfied that it can operate without future leaks”. That’s not remotely the same as you are claiming. No requirement to guarantee. Just a threshold that regulators need to be “satisfied” that it CAN operate without future leaks. Future leaks might still occur. The language allows for that. You’re doing your binary thing again here Alex.

    People get killed in cars, planes, and trains, and yet, we do not demand anyone stop driving cars, ridding trains, or flying planes until they have “fixed” the system to guarantee no accidents.

    Planes, trains and automobiles still need to pass safety tests to satisfy the relevant authorities that they can operate in a safe manner. Without killing people.

    Well that’s what I asked didn’t I? Where are the details? And I verify them by checking with other sources whose bias I know and can then filer for.

    You say that there are all these stunts pulled constantly by environmental nutjobs but that they aren’t reported. So how do YOU find out them, and how do you then verify whether the reports are true or not? I don’t understand how checking it on an additional blog can assist in that. Filter the bias and you’re still left with an unverified claim.

    Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps the demand by the WH that TransCanada guarantee no future accidents/spills, an insane and impossible request if I ever heard one, maybe?

    Again, that’s a misrepresentation.

    How fucking seriously would you take someone that told you that you are no longer allowed to drive a car unless you can guarantee never to have an accident again? Me, despite the fact I have not had one in over a decade, would know their request for the impossible was clearly bullshit intended to prevent me from driving my car, and I would then tell them to fuck off. You?

    Irrelevant – that’s not what was required.

    Well, you are arguing with me while pretending this ludicrous request wasn’t first made, along with even more insane and impossible ones like that metallurgical verification that no part of the pipeline could have an accident, a demand these losers speaking for the WH then claim was not just met in less than 2 days, but verified by the bureaucratic machine that makes turtles look like they are moving at near light speed, of all things, isn’t insane.

    Perhaps you should read a bit more than a single blog before reaching such strong conclusions about something. Clearly the company responded immediately to the order and satisfied them that they should be able to resume under “restricted conditions”.

    A day after refusing to allow Calgary-based TransCanada Corp., to restart its massive Keystone pipeline, the U.S. government gave the company the green light Saturday, saying the line carrying oil from Alberta into the States can resume under “restricted conditions” as early as this weekend.

    The U.S. Department of Transportation indicated in a statement that the company had addressed at least some of the government’s concerns.

    http://www.canada.com/technology/gives+restart+Keystone+pipeline/4894928/story.html

    Again, logic would suggest that the company had probably already done the work required to satisfy the conditions.

    “Restart of the pipeline will be under restricted conditions and closely monitored.”

    The administration said it had met submitted metallurgical testing results of the failed pipe components and met another condition as well.

    Spokesman Terry Cunha said Friday the company remained hopeful Keystone could “deliver all of our obligations for the month of June.”

    If you read the original order, many of the conditions are about monitoring and reporting back.

    In fact, if you research further, it seems that the assessments were already underway when the order was issued. This story is from the day the order was issued (Fri 3 June):

    Calgary-based TransCanada, which had earlier said only that it expected the 591,000 barrel a day export line to resume flowing “in the coming days”, said on Friday that it was awaiting approval of a plan to restart the line from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

    http://ca.news.yahoo.com/keystone-oil-pipeline-restart-hinges-regulators-180901572.html

    They were ALREADY awaiting approval of their restart plan. I.e. as I said, they’d already done much of the work required by the order before the order was issued.

    “After they have completed their thorough and prudent review, we expect that PHMSA may issue an order that could identify certain conditions that will be required to restart and operate the Keystone system,” he said. “At that time, we will safely restart the Keystone pipeline system and gradually ramp up throughput to fulfill commercial obligations.”

    Google Obama’s energy policy. Have a look at what Obama himself has to say. Check out this YouTube link where he admits his agenda is the control of CO2, which means he needs to curtail any and all fossil fuel energy production

    His actions are somewhat different (as I outlined).
    And why is he stealing oil from Libya if he doesn’t want to create any more CO2?

    Your point here then is that you feel some oil spilling out and hurting poor Gaia is more important of a concern than lives lost in a car/train/plane accident? Its’ not like they can not and are going to HAVE TO clean that oil spill up when it happens, either. The dead person(s)? No way to fix that..

    No, as usual you miss my point entirely. You’ve missed the point of pretty much everything associated with this story.

    Says the silly guy still ignoring the most important aspect of the story – the 2 day turnaround after they caught massive flack from people now paying through the nose for gas and angry at this AGW cultist bullshit – while having no recourse other than a blatant lie that I am the one that am making up stuff.
    Seriously, why the fuck do you keep ignoring the 2 day turnaround unless it destroys your narrative huh?

    Already dealt with. As I said, you should improve the quality of your research. Not relying on a single blog would be a good start. If there are questions, the most obvious thing to do is search elsewhere to see if they’ve already been answered. Not attempt to join the dots in order to concoct your own narrative, in order to try and support your ideology.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    Are you kidding me CM? Did you really just ask how the PRESIDENT of the United States, whom believes in that Gaia worshipping nonsense and admits that his priority to reduce CO2 emissions, is going to impact costs – because his agenda is without any doubt going to limit the use, and hence the exploration and consumption as well – will impact prices, drilling, and anything else that creates the type of energy he objects to, drastically? Energy policies , like the decision to drill or not BTW, are totally within the president’s purveyance. But this guys is playing word games, just like you.

    US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade….

    As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

    Presidents can’t do anything to lower gas prices in the short term. The United States doesn’t have a lot of control over prices because oil is an international commodity, fungible commodity, traded on international markets.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration calls the price of crude oil the “main contributor to the general increase in retail gasoline prices since the start of 2009.” Its March 22 post lists several factors affecting the price of crude oil including political events in the Middle East and North Africa, shifts in inventory levels, gradual improvements in the economies of the world and bumps in profits taken by gasoline refiners.

    But I’d love to know how future energy prices are going to be affordable if we don’t work on developing reasonable-cost alternatives now. You can take the ‘love of Gaia’ thing away completely and it still makes sense to start moving towards a future that doesn’t depend so heavily on oil. Putting on a price on carbon is also a pro-market action, as it’s attempting to correct a market distortion (the effects of carbon are a huge negative externality that the market has ignored for centuries).

    My opinion is already taking into account relevant information, CM, and my conclusion, despite anything you have presented or argued period, remains the same. These people are Gaia worshipping big government leftists and hostile to carbon fuels.

    Well that’s fine, you’re welcome to your opinion of course. The whole ‘Gaia worship’ argument does suggest your opinion comes from your ideology though, not from an objective assessment of the evidence. It’s also inconsistent with Obama stealing oil from Libya. Why steal something you’re hostile to?

    They work hand in hand with the enviroweenies to block any attempt to get more oil energy to us, as anyone willing to do the research can easily find. Lip service, as that post clearly shows is the norm, always loses to facts and actions, or lack there off.

    So is he stealing oil in Libya or not? And why is US oil production the highest level in almost a decade? And why is the US the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009 and on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade? Why is that happening if he’s working with the enviroweenies to block ANY attempt to get more oil energy to you? My bet is that you’ll continue to ignore all that.

    Where, in your first link, is the evidence that US environmental groups are working ‘hand in hand’ with the Obama administration? Again, you’re claiming your links say something when they don’t.

    So your argument is that unless I am prepared to do a fully footnoted dissertation, despite Obama’s own claim that his energy policy is driven by the requirement that CO2 emissions be capped and lowered, on this topic, that I should not point out he has said that his priority is capping CO2 emissions, which is contrary and impossible to do while also pushing drilling for oil?

    No fully footnoted dissertation required. Just consider all the facts. Don’t cherry-pick.

    Do you apply this standard to those that favor your conclusions as well? Don’t bother answering. It’s quite obvious the answer isn’t just no, but hell no.

    I have no problems with people critiquing what I claim, and pointing out that I’ve stated something as fact when it’s opinion.

    I’ll cover the rest later.

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    BTW, did you ever read the Soviet Union’s constitution? What about that of Cuba? Do you think those promises were kept? There is a parallel with Obama’s claims and what actually is being done.

    How is he different from any other Western leader? You don’t need to start making silly comparisons when non-silly ones will do.

    No, I mean every time, like the idiotic observation I need to address points I already did?

    Repeating your extremist opinion isn’t addressing anything. It’s just repeating.

    Maybe you think you are furthering discussion with questions/demands/insinuations where you basically are asking that unless I am ready to do a dissertation to prove my point, even after I provide indisputable proof, over and over, like Obama sayings his priority is exactly what I said it was – controlling CO2 emissions – and hence his energy policy is going to be furthering that agenda, and you simply ignore or dismiss what doesn’t fit the conclusion you want to reach, by demanding more, but I don’t. I see your “attempts at furthering discussion” as a desperate attempt to dismiss the obvious, probably in the hopes that I might simply lose patience and decide its not worth replying at all, so you then can leave that as the last comment on the issue.

    No dissertations required. If you want to show that you’ve only considered one side of the argument, be my guest. Rather than work backwards from an ideology, I’d personally rather look at all the available facts and make a judgement. Inevitably it’s not going to be a binary judgement one way or the other, because reality is almost always something in the middle.

    Your inability to process facts that dispute the liberal narrative, coupled with the strategy of simply saying ignoring any what facts are presented and pretending your concern wasn’t addressed, are indisputable.

    I don’t care about the liberal narrative. I’m looking to see if you can support YOUR ideological narrative. Over and over and over again you fail. What have I ignored? I’m aware of what Obama said in a speech.

    You are a liberal. Even worse, you have now posted 5 times that I have not given you facts, when I have demolished you with them, so you can keep the ridiculous notion that Obama’s energy policy isn’t obviously anti-fossil fuels, and then claimed this is being done to “further” the discussion.

    You’ve ‘demolished me’ with facts? LMAO. That’s just awesome.
    So which are the facts which demonstrate that the “Obama Administration has yet again made a decision to prevent us from getting more resources to keep energy prices from going higher” with respect to Keystone? When it was pointed out that the pipeline was operational again you said that Obama has obviously realised that people are seeing through him. But now you’re back to him being anti-fossil fuels again. And yet apparently he’s invaded Libya illegally to steal their oil. And you clearly decided to rely on a piece of poor reporting and go off on an emotional whiney rant instead of checking any other sources to see what they/you might have missed. Where are your other facts? A youtube video of Obama? Is that it?
    Yeah, I feel so demolished……pffffffttt!

    You know the definition of insanity right? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

    Right back at you.

    As for your attempt to yet again personally attack me by claiming I my posts are just emotional ideological rants, I have to admit you got it half right. I make no bones about being a conservative and espousing conservative values. I have nothing to be ashamed about, like liberals and the crimes they have visited upon humanity do (the ravages of communism and Hitler’s socialist Germany are the proof of that),in the name of “social justice”, “saving the planet”, or whatever other nonsense du jour passes for your motivations. And remember that it is liberalism that is all emotion. But I digress.

    No problems with being a conservative. I agree with some conservative positions. I understand many many more of them. The problem is that you seem to be a complete (or pure) ideologue. You seem to want to convert anything you come across as some sort of evidence that your extreme ideological position is justified. Seeking constant confirmation for some reason.
    Yeah to you guys I would be a liberal. I think I’m fairly centrist. In New Zealand I certain am (I think the current centre-right government is doing a pretty good job, and I prefer them to the current centre-left alternative). I don’t adhere to any ideology – as I already said I think ideology (and I mean pure ideology here) is dangerous and irrational and usually only attractive to weak-minded people, and/or those that are already at the extremes of society but wish to feel part of something.

    I’m no communist, or socialist. Not even remotely close. I’m a supporter of regulated capitalism. Trying to say that I have anything in common with Hitler or Stalin just suggests that you’re not rational.
    Saying that liberalism is “all emotion” also provides further evidence that you’re an irrational extreme ideologue. A reasonable person of any political persuasion is able to see the logic and rationality in the political beliefs of those that they disagree with. It is possible to have beliefs that are different from yours without being a supporter of Hitler or Stalin. Or wanting higher taxes. Or just having a cause de jour. The fact that you cannot conceive of how anyone could legitimately have a different point of view is some strong evidence that you’re operating at an extreme end, where assessing anything objectively is completely impossible.

    No CM, asking for proof, then pretending it wasn’t given, so you can “keep asking” the same thing is lib nonsense.

    Ok I’ll go looking again for all this evidence that adds up to proof.

    No CM, your attempts to dispute my points, as has been your contribution to this entire comment thread, is what is paper thin.

    Mostly I’ve asked you to support your points with evidence. Clearly on the main issue (Keystone) you didn’t bother looking any further than one blog story. You didn’t even know that they resumed operation. And then you just relied on that again without investigating or considering how that could have happened (that they company had already been working with the regulators).
    If you don’t want me to keep calling you out on your ideological-stance on every single little thing, then perhaps stop trying to claim that everything is the fault of liberals.

    BTW, I notice that you are still completely and totally avoiding the defining and contradicting press releases issued by the PHMSA – one on a Friday basically saying it will be years before these people get the pipe back up, because we are going to look at them with a microscope and deny their request until we have the assurance there will be no accidents again, which was then followed that same Sunday, with one making the obviously ludicrous claim they had done all that work and now where giving TransCanada the go ahead – that more than make my point that the WH tried to prevent the oil from flowing, only to be attacked over it and quickly reversing their stance, to avoid a harsh lash back from angry people affected by that original decision.

    Again, try dealing with the facts (and look further if you can’t find them in a single blog post). Don’t just fill in the gaps yourself. The above paragraph bears no relationship to what happened.
    * They didn’t say or imply it would be years
    * They didn’t say they would deny them until there was an assurance there would be no more accidents
    * They didn’t claim to have done all that work within 2 days

    Really? Maybe those campaign videos were only shown in NZ, because here in the US he campaigned on a “Cap & Tax” policy targeted at reducing CO2 emissions, and admitted that he wanted to reduce and limit coal, gas, and oil while drastically increasing the cost of fossil fuel energy to the average consumer. In fact, it blew up in his face and the media had to cover for him and say what he really meant was that he was for alternative energy before he did that: another empty promise, if not outright lie.

    Clearly the support and encouragment of alternative energy is the basis of his policy – it would be downright negligible if he didn’t pursue a position based on all the facts. And the facts are that climate change is already happening, and will keep going, and that oil is a non-renewable resource, and that alternative energy needs are going to increase and increase. It would negligible for any President to not acknowledge that. But recognising that (to you) is somehow being ‘hostile to modernity’. Not sure what sort of ‘modernity’ you’re talking about. Perhaps modernity as it applied in 1960.

    And unlike people like you, I will consider Obama’s promises about the Bakken Shale oil met when they actually are extracting oil and selling it on a grand scale. That’s my emotive ideological views on display there because. I remain unconvinced by words from a used car salesman.

    So you seem to rely heavily on a youtube video of what Obama said as conclusive evidence on one hand, but what he said elsewhere as unconvincing. Where is a consistency? Which speak louder – words or actions?

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT *

    How is he different from any other Western leader? You don’t need to start making silly comparisons when non-silly ones will do.

    Erm, not sure I get your point CM. Mine was that like the consitution of Cuba and the USSR, Obama is full of awesome promises, great good, and beautiful promisses of man’s eauality, but the reality works out to be something very, very differntly and bad.

    Repeating your extremist opinion isn’t addressing anything. It’s just repeating.

    Dismissin a fact by pretending it is an opinion, just because you refeuse to acknowledge it as such, isn’t going to make this true CM. As I told you before, you do not get to turn facts into opinion so you can dismiss them.

    No dissertations required

    .

    That sounds rich. Either it is a double take, or… Lets just pretend it’s not what it clearly looks like.

    If you want to show that you’ve only considered one side of the argument, be my guest. Rather than work backwards from an ideology,

    Erm, if they guy’s own words are not enough to convince you that’s what he is doing, then how is anything else going to do the job? Besides, I have considered that side of the argument that has proof to back it up. Obama says his concern isn’t energy but CO2 emissions. The PHMSA’s associate administrator for pipeline safety, speaking for the WH, says that they will not only not grant TransCanada’s request for the pipe to go back on line, but that they want a full inspection, including metallurgical analyses of every part of a several thousand mile long pipeline, and then promise a vetting process that will take years – look at how it’s going for Yucca Mountain for example – in what is obviously pandering to the environmental lobby, but then, not even a couple of days later, which is firmly in one and only one party’s corner, when they realized once the people found out they were doing this shit would cause them massive flack, make the unbelievably ridiculous claim they have conducted a thorough inspection and verified all their initial demands have been met, and are reversing themselves.

    To me the two are inextricably linked. The original presser was the CO2 agenda: no fossil fuels allowed until some ephemeral criteria are met. The second one, not even two days later, which you seem to have fixated on to make the point there is no such agenda, proves exactly the contrary. I have brought it up repeatedly. Others have called you on it. You continue to ignore it.

    I’d personally rather look at all the available facts and make a judgement.

    So Obama saying his agenda is controlling CO2 emissions and then behavior that obviously shows exactly that, followed after they realize the possible damage it will cause them in the coming election year, resulting on a complete 180 degree turn around with the ludicrous claims they actually were able to this massive and cumbersome inspection process it’s due diligence, in but two fucking days, is judgment? Man, you are something else.

    Inevitably it’s not going to be a binary judgement one way or the other, because reality is almost always something in the middle.

    Ah, now – in addition to basically dismissing the facts and what they clearly tell any reasonable person as “judgment”, and bad one at that or we wouldn’t be having this argument – you are moving the goal posts? I think I won the argument.

    So you seem to rely heavily on a youtube video of what Obama said as conclusive evidence on one hand, but what he said elsewhere as unconvincing. Where is a consistency? Which speak louder – words or actions?

    Double right back to my question about seeing what the constitutionof Cuba or the USSR promised/said, and what reality turned out to be. Obama slipped when he admitted his agenda was CO2 emission control. Most of the other statements are attempts to correct that mistake. His actions speak louder than those words. Want another example? Look at how he tells Jewish audiences that he is a friend of Israel, and then asks them to open their paychecks and sign over some serious cash. But when push comes to shove, his actions are to demand Israel return to the indefensible 1967 borders that would put her existence at risk, while avoiding any dismissal of the insane right of return demand by the Palestinians. There are many more of these.

    AGAIN: look at the actions, not the bullshit talk.

    Thumb up 0

  20. CM

    Erm, not sure I get your point CM. Mine was that like the consitution of Cuba and the USSR, Obama is full of awesome promises, great good, and beautiful promisses of man’s eauality, but the reality works out to be something very, very differntly and bad.

    My point is Obama is no different to any other politician. Some of what they say doesn’t match the action they take. The constitutions of Cuba and the USSR have no relevance. They only reason you’re attempting to draw such a long bow is because you’re always desperate to make Obama seem like communist or a socialist. Just like when Bush was in power and some people constantly bent over backwards to try and say he was like Hitler. Newsflash dude: Obama ain’t a socialist or a communist, Bush was nothing even removely like Hitler.
    But you’re not even consistent. I notice you’ve completely ignored the fact that you think Obama has gone to steal oil in Libya. Apparently he’s willing to engage in military action for oil even though his policy is that oil is bad. Which is it? You can’t really push both narratives.
    Additionally: first you claim that it’s a fact that the Obama administration does all it can to stop you getting all those oil resources (and are in bed with the environmentalists) and then when they ok resumption after very little delay you criticise them for that. Um, what happened to doing all they can to stop the oil flowing? If they were doing all they can to stop it, allowing resumption after a few days sure is strange. And yet all your can come up with is some lame excuse that “they got hammered” for it. Because apparently people are waking up and Obama now realises it. Even though you’re not back to suggesting that Obama realising it doesn’t matter. Or something.
    This is all very obviously desperate reactionary scrambling Alex.

    Dismissin a fact by pretending it is an opinion, just because you refeuse to acknowledge it as such, isn’t going to make this true CM. As I told you before, you do not get to turn facts into opinion so you can dismiss them.

    Which are the facts that I am trying to turn into opinion? Come on, let’s get down to detail. You provide a quick summary (few sentences or bullet points) of the ‘facts’. Not your opinion, but fact. We’ll then see if you can differentiate between the two.

    Erm, if they guy’s own words are not enough to convince you that’s what he is doing, then how is anything else going to do the job?

    How about what he’s doing being the measure of what he’s doing.
    But not cherry-picked. Any reasonable person would only reach an objective conclusion after assessing all the relevant information.

    Besides, I have considered that side of the argument that has proof to back it up. Obama says his concern isn’t energy but CO2 emissions.

    Cherry-picking.

    The PHMSA’s associate administrator for pipeline safety, speaking for the WH, says that they will not only not grant TransCanada’s request for the pipe to go back on line, but that they want a full inspection, including metallurgical analyses of every part of a several thousand mile long pipeline, and then promise a vetting process that will take years – look at how it’s going for Yucca Mountain for example – in what is obviously pandering to the environmental lobby, but then, not even a couple of days later, which is firmly in one and only one party’s corner, when they realized once the people found out they were doing this shit would cause them massive flack, make the unbelievably ridiculous claim they have conducted a thorough inspection and verified all their initial demands have been met, and are reversing themselves.

    You still seem to be ignoring some important aspects (which you can’t get from your blog):

    1. Much of the work required to meet the conditions had already been carried out (e.g. the ‘re-start plan’ is one of the main conditions and includes items such as “steps to perform repairs”)
    2. Much of the work required to meet the conditions is monitoring/reporting.
    3. You claim they need to carry out “metallurgical analyses of every part of a several thousand mile long pipeline” but the (initial) corrective notice actually states “testing and failure analysis of failed pipe components”. This suggests that you haven’t even looked at the notice, even though I posted the link.
    4. Only the first 3 conditions are required to be met before a restart is allowed. The other conditions
    are not required to be met before a restart.
    5. To compare this to the situation at Yucca Mountain, you’d need to demonstrate that the situations were comparable. Do you have a copy of the corrective action order on that one?

    I’m still looking to see if the amended order is available online. But for god’s sake Alex, please at least read the base document that you’re attempting to explain.

    To me the two are inextricably linked. The original presser was the CO2 agenda: no fossil fuels allowed until some ephemeral criteria are met.

    Ephemeral?? WTF? It couldn’t be more explicit. Specific action was required. Which is what a corrective action notice is for.
    Where is your evidence linking a ‘CO2 agenda’ to this notice? What does a series of leaks have to do with CO2?
    Could you possibly be more ridiculous? It’s hard to work out how.

    The second one, not even two days later, which you seem to have fixated on to make the point there is no such agenda, proves exactly the contrary. I have brought it up repeatedly. Others have called you on it. You continue to ignore it.

    How does the second press statement (which we don’t have a copy of, only a report on) prove there is an anti-CO2 agenda at work? You’re missing the entire PROOF part.
    If there was an agenda at work, logic would suggest that they wouldn’t let the company resume. They’d find a problem with the re-start plan. Probably wouldn’t be too difficult, if they wanted to.

    Alex you’re clearly a big conspiracy fan. I bet you were a massive X-Files fan.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    So Obama saying his agenda is controlling CO2 emissions and then behavior that obviously shows exactly that, followed after they realize the possible damage it will cause them in the coming election year, resulting on a complete 180 degree turn around with the ludicrous claims they actually were able to this massive and cumbersome inspection process it’s due diligence, in but two fucking days, is judgment? Man, you are something else.

    Your narrative is hobbled by the fact that you haven’t even looked at (or simply don’t understand) what was required for a re-start. Even though you could have searched yourself, and even though it’s been handed to you on a platter.
    We don’t even need to get into the issue of whether there was unprofessional conduct at the PHMSA (i.e. they reversed a decision because of political pressure). There is no evidence that they did reverse any decision.

    Ah, now – in addition to basically dismissing the facts and what they clearly tell any reasonable person as “judgment”, and bad one at that or we wouldn’t be having this argument – you are moving the goal posts? I think I won the argument.

    Which facts did I dismiss?
    A sure sign that someone knows they’re well beaten is when they start actively claiming victory (or, as you did in the other thread, start desparately claiming allies).

    Double right back to my question about seeing what the constitutionof Cuba or the USSR promised/said, and what reality turned out to be.

    Irrelevant to the topic.

    Obama slipped when he admitted his agenda was CO2 emission control.

    I don’t think he did. As a basic policy direction it’s reasonable in every sense. That doesn’t mean immediately shutting anything down.

    Most of the other statements are attempts to correct that mistake.

    That’s your OPINION.

    His actions speak louder than those words.

    Yeah, a balanced assessment of ALL his actions, not a cherry-pick.
    So why are you obssessing about an Obama you-tube video?

    Want another example? Look at how he tells Jewish audiences that he is a friend of Israel, and then asks them to open their paychecks and sign over some serious cash. But when push comes to shove, his actions are to demand Israel return to the indefensible 1967 borders that would put her existence at risk, while avoiding any dismissal of the insane right of return demand by the Palestinians. There are many more of these.

    Different issues entirely and you’re misrepresented the situation there too.

    AGAIN: look at the actions, not the bullshit talk.

    I’m certainly entertainined by how far you go to come up with ridiculous conspiracy and massive fraud everywhere you look. But that’s unfortunately what the internet has delivered – people who have no qualms making unfounded and ridiculous accusations about people who have no opportunity to defend themselves. You’re a classic example.

    Thumb up 0

  22. AlexInCT *

    Your narrative is hobbled by the fact that you haven’t even looked at (or simply don’t understand) what was required for a re-start.

    Are you seriously going to go down this road CM? Do you have absolutely no shame? You did see they reversed course in LESS THAN TWO FUCKING DAYS and I guarantee you that if the only thing they needed was a signature, that would still have taken longer than that. But you can keep making a fucking fool of yourself pretending that they didn’t incredulously claim to have not just had TransCanada do a bunch of things that were incredibly rigorous & time consuming, then reviewed said requirements and singed off, in less than two non working days, it was a weekend, in what is obviously a reversal when they realized there would be hell to pay.

    Even though you could have searched yourself, and even though it’s been handed to you on a platter.

    Oh, shoot! This from the moron that refuses to see the most obvious and relevant fact about the two contradictory releases in the story, the impossibly quick turnaround, and is elevating his asshat level to new heights by ignoring the obvious? Shit, you call what you are doing debating? Because to me it looks like what you are doing is making a total fool out of yourself defending the indefensible, way past the expiration date.

    We don’t even need to get into the issue of whether there was unprofessional conduct at the PHMSA (i.e. they reversed a decision because of political pressure). There is no evidence that they did reverse any decision.

    Oh CM, thanks for not disappointing! Why don’t we need to do this? Because then you have nothing to stand on? You do realize that if I tell you that you will need to not meet an impossible list of safety criteria, but have me review them, at my leisure of course, on Friday afternoon, then suddenly release a presser on Sunday morning – the only change being that the story went viral and people freaked out, and you then realized that it was going to hurt your election chances – claiming that not only was the list of criteria met, but your bureaucrats, whom don’t fucking work weekends, went over it and signed off, that something was wrong right?

    Fuck, this is too easy.

    Which facts did I dismiss?

    Well, the one you then decided you wanted to ignore so you could keep wasting time pretending you had any substance of value to add to the conversation, CM.

    Obama slipped when he admitted his agenda was CO2 emission control.

    I don’t think he did. As a basic policy direction it’s reasonable in every sense. That doesn’t mean immediately shutting anything down.

    More goal post movement! So now you are telling me that Obama’s big energy policy wasn’t to push CO2 emissions? Google “Cap and Trade”, which I should point wasn’t inflicted on the American people solely because first the democrats had basically destroyed every ounce of credibility they had pushing Obamacare, and figured they should not risk it with the elections so close, and the after they got shellacked in the election, didn’t have the manpower to push it through anymore. After Obamacare, CO2 emission control, “Cap and Tax” as we sane people like to call it, was priority number one for team Obama. Call me crazy, but to me that sure as hell sounds like IT WAS his top energy policy.

    You as much as admitted you are an envirotard. You have zero credibility when you say stupid shit like “As a basic policy direction it’s reasonable in every sense”. Your kind has no reasonable anything when it comes to fossil fuels. And note that I NEVER made the argument that they were going to immediately shut down anything – not even Gitmo, cause I knew better – but that the plan was to prevent anything new, as well as make the bureaucratic hurdle for any existing effort so impossible that they would simply collapse on their own. In the end the goal is the same: restrict energy usage.

    That’s your OPINION.

    Heh, my “opinion” seems to be more factual than your “facts”, all things considered.

    Yeah, a balanced assessment of ALL his actions, not a cherry-pick.
    So why are you obssessing about an Obama you-tube video?

    Oh, how I laughed. Balanced? Please! And is that last part there a desperate attempt to shift the conversation away from all the stupid you have posted so far? Not biting.

    Different issues entirely and you’re misrepresented the situation there too.

    Because you desperately need it to be so right? Those of us that didn’t dig ourselves the hole you are in defending these lunatics and their stupidity disagree.

    I’m certainly entertainined by how far you go to come up with ridiculous conspiracy and massive fraud everywhere you look. But that’s unfortunately what the internet has delivered – people who have no qualms making unfounded and ridiculous accusations about people who have no opportunity to defend themselves. You’re a classic example.

    I am entertained watching you have to resort to this to distract from the fact you are getting owned on this argument and have lost it more than a half dozen times already.

    Let me leave you with one last request: explain to me what the “facts” tell you that less than 2 day turnaround by the PHMSA on this really was based on, please. The “I don’t want it to be important defense” doesn’t count. I am looking forward to the laughter when we get to read this drivel.

    Thumb up 0

  23. CM

    Are you seriously going to go down this road CM? Do you have absolutely no shame? You did see they reversed course in LESS THAN TWO FUCKING DAYS and I guarantee you that if the only thing they needed was a signature, that would still have taken longer than that. But you can keep making a fucking fool of yourself pretending that they didn’t incredulously claim to have not just had TransCanada do a bunch of things that were incredibly rigorous & time consuming, then reviewed said requirements and singed off, in less than two non working days, it was a weekend, in what is obviously a reversal when they realized there would be hell to pay.

    I’m sorry you’ve been caught out, or don’t seem to understand what happened. Perhaps in future you should cast your research a little wider (and at least read the SOURCE DOCUMENT itself). The fact that you’re unwilling to discuss detail suggests you know full well that you’ve got nothing of substance here. You’re the only one who seems to think they had to carry out everything listed on the notice in less than two days.

    Oh, shoot! This from the moron that refuses to see the most obvious and relevant fact about the two contradictory releases in the story, the impossibly quick turnaround, and is elevating his asshat level to new heights by ignoring the obvious? Shit, you call what you are doing debating? Because to me it looks like what you are doing is making a total fool out of yourself defending the indefensible, way past the expiration date.

    I linked to the notice. I can’t physically make you read it. Or understand it. Again, not sure why you’re fixating on some short and less-than-stellar pieces written in a business and lobbying newspaper. Or why you’re doubling down on your inability to see sense now. It sure is fascinating though.

    Oh CM, thanks for not disappointing! Why don’t we need to do this? Because then you have nothing to stand on? You do realize that if I tell you that you will need to not meet an impossible list of safety criteria, but have me review them, at my leisure of course, on Friday afternoon, then suddenly release a presser on Sunday morning – the only change being that the story went viral and people freaked out, and you then realized that it was going to hurt your election chances – claiming that not only was the list of criteria met, but your bureaucrats, whom don’t fucking work weekends, went over it and signed off, that something was wrong right?

    Who’s election chances? Which election?
    Again, you should really go back and actually read the source document (particularly as I’ve given you the link). Where is the “impossible list of safety criteria”?
    But I’m repeating myself now. From other sources we know they were already working on what the agency would likely require. Which makes sense of course. (I guess it makes even more sense to me as I work in a related field, assisting companies through regulatory hoops, and dealing with all manner of regulatory enforcument and compliance notices not too different to these).

    Fuck, this is too easy.

    It’s very strange is what it is. You’ve gone completely off the reservation.

    Well, the one you then decided you wanted to ignore so you could keep wasting time pretending you had any substance of value to add to the conversation, CM.

    Funny that whenever we get down to detail and specifics you bail. Come on, which evidence did I dismiss (and to the point where I was attempting to move the goalposts)? Don’t run away from your accusation now.

    More goal post movement! So now you are telling me that Obama’s big energy policy wasn’t to push CO2 emissions? Google “Cap and Trade”, which I should point wasn’t inflicted on the American people solely because first the democrats had basically destroyed every ounce of credibility they had pushing Obamacare, and figured they should not risk it with the elections so close, and the after they got shellacked in the election, didn’t have the manpower to push it through anymore. After Obamacare, CO2 emission control, “Cap and Tax” as we sane people like to call it, was priority number one for team Obama. Call me crazy, but to me that sure as hell sounds like IT WAS his top energy policy.

    What on earth are you talking about with the ‘goal post movement’?
    The overall purpose of Cap and Trade is to bring carbon emissions into the marketplace. In that way you can attempt to correct a clear market failure. How else do you propose market failure is corrected? The status quo IS the failure, so doing nothing is actively supporting a failure in the market. Or are you a communist Alex?

    You as much as admitted you are an envirotard. You have zero credibility when you say stupid shit like “As a basic policy direction it’s reasonable in every sense”. Your kind has no reasonable anything when it comes to fossil fuels. And note that I NEVER made the argument that they were going to immediately shut down anything – not even Gitmo, cause I knew better – but that the plan was to prevent anything new, as well as make the bureaucratic hurdle for any existing effort so impossible that they would simply collapse on their own. In the end the goal is the same: restrict energy usage.

    As usual, you’ve got nothing whatsoever of substance. You take the only road open to someone with nothing of substance – personal abuse.
    As for “preventing anything new”, that’s simply not supported by the facts:

    US oil production last year rose to its highest level in almost a decade….

    As a result, analysts believe the US was the largest contributor to the increase in global oil supplies last year over 2009, and is on track to increase domestic production by 25 per cent by the second half of the decade.

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8698ae80-4503-11e0-80e7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1FXvTX1ED

    Your domestic oil production is soaring.

    The Financial Times also reported:

    The revival of US production has been made possible by a rush of small and mid-sized companies into onshore regions such as the Bakken shale in North Dakota, the Permian Basin in west Texas and the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas.

    North Dakota’s production has doubled since 2008, reaching 355,000 b/d in November. Extraction of oil reserves in these regions was thought to be uneconomic, but has been made commercially viable by the transfer of techniques successfully used to extract shale gas; in particular, long horizontal wells and “fracking”, pumping water under high pressure to crack the rock and enable the oil to flow.

    Dave Hager, vice-president for exploration and production at Devon Energy, one of the companies pioneering the development of the new onshore fields, said new technology had transformed production economics at its mixed gas and oilfields in north Texas.

    Heh, my “opinion” seems to be more factual than your “facts”, all things considered.

    Which is plainly the opposite of the reality of the situation. See above.

    Those of us that didn’t dig ourselves the hole you are in defending these lunatics and their stupidity disagree.

    I guess the people who routinely find themselves in holes just assume others are in holes too. Sorry Alex, I’m nowhere near a hole here. You keep digging though by refusing to deal with specifics.

    I am entertained watching you have to resort to this to distract from the fact you are getting owned on this argument and have lost it more than a half dozen times already.

    I’m entertained too. More fascinated though.

    Let me leave you with one last request: explain to me what the “facts” tell you that less than 2 day turnaround by the PHMSA on this really was based on, please. The “I don’t want it to be important defense” doesn’t count. I am looking forward to the laughter when we get to read this drivel.

    Your sentence doesn’t even make sense. Explain what the “facts” tell me that less than….?
    I’ve already pointed out that seems to have happened. I don’t see why there needs to have been any sort of ‘reversal’. Why would I need to explain it all again? Why don’t you just read what I posted above?

    Bizarre.

    Thumb up 0