|
Well, of course!
Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Well, of course!
Keyser Söze wrote:
Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! |
Well, of course!
Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Well, of course!
On 1/20/2015 7:38 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here. I don't think Franken's amendment is realistic. Most of the quality steel is being produced elsewhere now-a-days and has been for years. American manufactured steel shouldn't be excluded if it meets specifications but steel from other, non-domestic manufacturers should also be included in the bidding process. As for Markey ... he's dead against the expanded pipeline anyway. The primary purpose is to export the oil, not use or sell it in the USA. We don't need it. So, by virtue of those amendments the project and the jobs it creates would be dead in the water. |
Well, of course!
On 1/20/15 7:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 1/20/2015 7:38 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here. I don't think Franken's amendment is realistic. Most of the quality steel is being produced elsewhere now-a-days and has been for years. American manufactured steel shouldn't be excluded if it meets specifications but steel from other, non-domestic manufacturers should also be included in the bidding process. As for Markey ... he's dead against the expanded pipeline anyway. The primary purpose is to export the oil, not use or sell it in the USA. We don't need it. So, by virtue of those amendments the project and the jobs it creates would be dead in the water. Hmmm. I remember the proponents were saying we'd use the oil here...but no one believed them. So, we've stopped importing oil and we can't make quality steel anymore. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Well, of course!
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:56:39 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
we can't make quality steel anymore. Blame the unions and liberals for that one. |
Well, of course!
On 1/20/2015 7:56 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/20/15 7:46 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 1/20/2015 7:38 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here. I don't think Franken's amendment is realistic. Most of the quality steel is being produced elsewhere now-a-days and has been for years. American manufactured steel shouldn't be excluded if it meets specifications but steel from other, non-domestic manufacturers should also be included in the bidding process. As for Markey ... he's dead against the expanded pipeline anyway. The primary purpose is to export the oil, not use or sell it in the USA. We don't need it. So, by virtue of those amendments the project and the jobs it creates would be dead in the water. Hmmm. I remember the proponents were saying we'd use the oil here...but no one believed them. So, we've stopped importing oil and we can't make quality steel anymore. Boy, that's a jump to conclusions. The number of American steel manufacturers has dropped dramatically over the years. They still exist, but even back when I bought a lot of quality stainless steel (304 or 316) it came from overseas. Couldn't get it domestically without a long delivery and at premium prices. There's no market in the USA for the dirty Canadian sand oil. It's for export. |
Well, of course!
|
Well, of course!
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:56:36 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Hmmm. I remember the proponents were saying we'd use the oil here...but no one believed them. Anyone who said that was not very well informed. Are you listening to fox again? So, we've stopped importing oil and we can't make quality steel anymore. Yes and no in that order. We are net exporters of oil/gas and we want to expand that. As for steel, I think we know how to make good steel but we just can't do it as cheap as China. I also wonder if we even have the capacity to supply that much. The same issue came up with the Alaska pipeline and our steel business was bigger then. EPA probably would shut down steel plant expansion. |
Well, of course!
Keyser Söze wrote:
Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here. And you brought up republicans supporting China steel/manufacturing. |
Well, of course!
On 1/20/2015 11:43 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: Republicans say no to American-made steel for Keystone XL Republicans like to point to Keystone XL as one of their signature jobs bills and, when oil prices are high, like to imply that it would mean cheap oil flowing free in America. But Tuesday afternoon they voted down two Democratic amendments aimed at just those issues. Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey's amendment to the Keystone bill would have prohibited oil shipped through the pipeline from being exported. It was killed by a 57 to 42 vote. Minnesota Sen. Al Franken's amendment would have required that the pipeline be built with American steel. It was killed by a 53 to 46 vote. Seriously. "It's a jobs bill! It's a jobs bill!" "Okay, let's require that it be made with American materials, creating more jobs." "Hell, no." (Apparently when the GOP talks jobs, it is talking about jobs in Japan or China.) Bull****. The Democrats in California, republicans do not have a voice, let a China company, who had never built a bridge do the majority of the manufacturing for the SF-Oakland Bay Bridge. Do not blame just the Republicans! Steel for the keystone project is under discussion here. And you brought up republicans supporting China steel/manufacturing. It's not about the keystone pipeline. It's about dissing republicans. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Well, of course!
On 1/21/2015 11:41 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
disaster, a ticking time bomb. Let the Canadians export it from their ports. That's mighty neighborly of you. I wonder if O'Bama's mind changing is causing Harry's head to spin? -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Well, of course!
In article ,
says... Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills come from the pipeline, and how big they are. BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed. That should go over real good. I can see the headlines. "Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to- court-to.html If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest. Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this. http://tinyurl.com/old9pph "The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved, compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline network." |
Well, of course!
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills come from the pipeline, and how big they are. BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed. That should go over real good. I can see the headlines. "Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to- court-to.html If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest. Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this. http://tinyurl.com/old9pph "The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved, compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline network." === Quoted from the article: ------------- Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail freight is better). Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much higher. -------------- Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and delays. |
Well, of course!
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills come from the pipeline, and how big they are. BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed. That should go over real good. I can see the headlines. "Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to- court-to.html If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest. Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this. http://tinyurl.com/old9pph "The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved, compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline network." === Quoted from the article: ------------- Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail freight is better). Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much higher. -------------- Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and delays. Rail tracks run along rivers, etc. easiest route. Leads to disasters such as we had at Dunsmuir. http://www.redding.com/news/legacy-of-a-disaster Also they run through towns. How many derailments have we had in the last 50 years in housing areas? |
Well, of course!
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:09:59 PM UTC-5, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:32:14 -0600, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... Probably is less environmentally dangerous. Depends on how many spills come from the pipeline, and how big they are. BTW, TransCanada is going for eminent domain to grab the land needed. That should go over real good. I can see the headlines. "Canada Oil Company Grabs American Farmers' Land - GOP Says It's Okay." http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/01/2...firm-heads-to- court-to.html If you look at spills per million barrels, pipe is by far the safest. Talking about spills, not even close to true according to this. http://tinyurl.com/old9pph "The association has published a battery of statistics to show pipelines have more and bigger spills than rail operators. It estimates railroads spill just 0.38 gallons for every million barrel-miles of crude moved, compared with an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons on the pipeline network." === Quoted from the article: ------------- Which method of transport is "safer" depends on whether the object is to minimise the number of spills (in which case pipelines have the advantage) or their size when they do occur (in which case rail freight is better). Pipelines are very safe but they move enormous volumes of crude oil and other liquids under considerable pressure, so if there is a serious rupture the potential volume of liquid released is much higher. -------------- Pipe lines are much less disruprive than railroads however when you take into account things like noise, vibration, highway hazards and delays. Rail tracks run along rivers, etc. easiest route. Leads to disasters such as we had at Dunsmuir. http://www.redding.com/news/legacy-of-a-disaster Also they run through towns. How many derailments have we had in the last 50 years in housing areas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graniteville,_South_Carolina,_train_crash Had to evacuate most of the town for a period of time. Chlorine gas is some nasty stuff. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com