Jump to content



Recommended Posts

why-obama-may-kill-keystone-xl-pipelineHuman Events:

What most people do not realize is that major oil pipelines extending 2,151 miles from the Canadian Tar Sands already have been completed and are in operation from Hardisty, Alberta, east through Saskatchewan and Manitoba and south through eastern North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas and then on to refineries in southern Illinois and central Oklahoma, carrying 590,000 barrels of oil each day.

If they knew that, they would certainly wonder why there is an uproar about adding capacity for an additional 830,000 barrels a day through new pipelines from Hardisty through eastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota, where it would pick up U.S. oil from the now famous Bakken Fields and then move further east through South Dakota and Nebraska to Steele City, Nebraska, where the existing pipeline travels on to Cushing, Oklahoma, and then continue it about 500 more miles to the Gulf Coast of Texas, where so many refineries are located.

Canadian oil is cleaner than most of what we get from Venezuela and the Persian Gulf. And our rejection of the Canadian oil will not slow development of the tar sands, a supposed goal of the environmental activists. Canada will simply build a pipeline to Vancouver and sell the oil to Asian countries.

According to Marita Noon, executive director of Energy Makes America Great, The Heritage Foundation has concluded “the project will create some 179,000 jobs on American soil and continue good trade relations with a close ally.” What’s not to like? Plenty, for some people.Scissors-32x32.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Redford must re-think pipeline strategy ahead of Washington meetings


Feeding the fire that threatens to burn down our economy


Tom Harris (Bio and Archives) Monday, April 1, 2013


It is bad enough that the Alberta government misleads its public about the supposedly settled science of climate change. But in mid-March, they took the same flawed message to the United States in one of the worst public relations mistakes of all time: supporting the climate scare in America’s premier newspaper, the New York Times.


When Alberta Premier Alison Redford travels to Washington D.C. in April to lobby for the Keystone XL Pipeline, she must say nothing that would support the controversial idea that humanity’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous climate change. After all, the ultimate aim of climate activists is to end our use of fossil fuels. Why would a province that derives most of its income from those resources support a movement that is trying to kill the market for the same resources? Scissors-32x32.pnghttp://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54187

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1701778016
  • Create New...