Pensacola Discussion Forum
Floridatexan wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/
Seven things you should know about Solyndra
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- No matter how hard President Obama may try, the Solyndra debacle -- and its $529 million taxpayer-backed price tag -- just won't go away.
[...].
PkrBum wrote:It would have to be more that solyndra... and if I had to guess there would be more than 50 govt bureaucrats hired.
Markle wrote:Floridatexan wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/
Seven things you should know about Solyndra
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- No matter how hard President Obama may try, the Solyndra debacle -- and its $529 million taxpayer-backed price tag -- just won't go away.
[...].
How much is the government paying for the Keystone Pipeline?
It costs you nothing, provides many jobs, has not environmental impact so what is your problem? Just that Republicans are in favor of the project right?
Floridatexan wrote:Markle wrote:Floridatexan wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/
Seven things you should know about Solyndra
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- No matter how hard President Obama may try, the Solyndra debacle -- and its $529 million taxpayer-backed price tag -- just won't go away.
[...].
How much is the government paying for the Keystone Pipeline?
It costs you nothing, provides many jobs, has no environmental impact so what is your problem? Just that Republicans are in favor of the project right?
Try reading the thread on this subject. "No(t) (sic) environmental impact..."? That, Mr. Shill, is a joke...and not a very funny one.
Floridatexan wrote:
We don't need Canada's dirty oil, however it's transported.
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I just read yesterday that production of bitumen from the Athabasca Oil Sands region in Alberta will grow from 1.98 million barrels per day in 2013 to 5.2 million barrels per day in 2030.
The U.S. will be producing 10 million barrels of crude per day in 2030, and reforms by the Mexican government is revitalizing Mexican oil production which has been lagging. I haven't seen any projections on what production will be from Mexico's large and untapped shale formations, but it will be significant.
Realistically, I don't think the climate-change movement is nearly powerful enough to stand in the way of this. North America (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) is going to soon challenge, if not replace OPEC's grip on energy production and the power this represents. Just the fact that the hydrocarbons will come from a region of the world that is geopolitically stable is very significant.
When Saudi Arabia can no longer hide the fact that its wells are drying-up, it will make the shift I describe more apparent.
Bernie Sanders will need significantly more than a climate-change platform to gain any traction in 2016.
Floridatexan wrote:
BREAKING: Senate did not get the 60 votes.
http://sanders.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100121690.36782.39&gen=1
Chrissy wrote:Floridatexan wrote:
We don't need Canada's dirty oil, however it's transported.
You're right. we will just annex Mexico and take theirs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-16/north-america-to-drown-in-oil-as-mexico-ends-monopoly.html
Markle wrote:Floridatexan wrote:Markle wrote:Floridatexan wrote:http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/
Seven things you should know about Solyndra
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- No matter how hard President Obama may try, the Solyndra debacle -- and its $529 million taxpayer-backed price tag -- just won't go away.
[...].
How much is the government paying for the Keystone Pipeline?
It costs you nothing, provides many jobs, has no environmental impact so what is your problem? Just that Republicans are in favor of the project right?
Try reading the thread on this subject. "No(t) (sic) environmental impact..."? That, Mr. Shill, is a joke...and not a very funny one.
Report: Keystone pipeline would have minimal environmental impact
Friday Jan 31, 2014 12:07 PM
A long-delayed environmental report from the U.S. State Department could remove a major hurdle for a controversial oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast.
By Michael O'Brien, NBC News
A new State Department report on the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline finds that the project would have a minimal impact on the environment, an assessment likely to increase pressure on the White House to approve it. But the report sets no deadline for doing so.
Given this evaluation of environmental impact, President Barack Obama and his administration will face increased pressure to approve the project, which enjoys widespread support among Republicans, and some measure of support among Democrats and allies of the administration, like labor unions.
The proposed pipeline would carry crude derived from oil sands in Canada to refineries in the United States.
"Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution,” Obama said in June 2013. “The net effects of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward."
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/31/22524683-report-keystone-pipeline-would-have-minimal-environmental-impact?lite
By the way, does your house NOT have a minimal impact on the environment?
Chrissy wrote:Id laugh my ass off if the left ran Bernie LOL
Go to page : 1, 2
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|