Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
5 hours ago.
by Stillhere
BeRight
#1

CLEAN... ENERGY

Offshore wind farms from New Jersey to Virginia took a big step closer to reality with the completion of a review that showed the renewable energy source would not cause major environmental damage, officials said today. Wind projects off the coasts of Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and New Jersey are being studied. The Mid-Atlantic lease proposal follows the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts that was given the go-ahead in 2010 after 9 years of federal review."No developer should have to wait nine or 10 years," for approval, Salazar said. The response from the developers was "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

 
 

Member Comments

Stillhere

No evidence whatsoever of global warming despite the socialist left desire to make it so. MORONs ALL

Posted 102 days ago.

Ohwiseone

You gotta luv the idiots that cant think beyond the end of their noses ! Global warming causes climate change ! Now is that simple enough ?

Posted 102 days ago.

Stillhere

From a National Security perspective, doesn't it make sense to have that oil flow to OUR coast? Put away your silly Global warming nonsense (3 degrees here) and think about it.

Posted 102 days ago.

absolem

moderation...there are plenty of don't needs that generate revenue, public and private, in this world. i do feel confident that the EPA and every other regulatory agency will be all over this or any other project of this magnatude and potential impact. if we deny based on who will make the profits then what does that say for our way of life. as i have mentioned before, pleasing all interests in any endeavor is a delicate balacing act and not everyone walks away a winner. i do think this project has brought to light many concerns. the one that i would focus on is not the potential harm that has not ocurred but the one that has and is.

Posted 102 days ago.

moderation

Now, tell me again, why we need this pipeline.Tell it's not because some lousy investment was made on a 'pig in a poke'.

Posted 102 days ago.

absolem

"beam that oil over there Scotty"

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

well there you are beright. you are spot on with the energy topic. perhaps you can answer my questions. you do bring up an excellant point. considering that we have pipelines in place. one could also ask which would be preferable ...new and inspected pipelines or possibly aged and near the end of their life pipelines? naturally most would want zero pipelines.

Posted 103 days ago.

BeRight

Long-time Democratic Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber on Friday announced his resignation amid allegations his fiancée used her relationship with him to enrich herself. The influence-peddling allegations involving his fiancée were a result of her work as a green-energy consultant.

Secretary of State Kate Brown, a Democrat like Kitzhaber, was expected to assume the office and become the first openly bisexual governor in the country.(can't make this stuff up)

Sleeping with the power to get grants for Solar Power. LOL

Clean……Energy

Posted 103 days ago.

BeRight

You should also google pipelines in the USA.

Pipelines are already all over the nations breadbasket.

Also remember that all construction jobs are temporary so when we hear the president discuss infrastructure jobs we should run away from those projects since those job are temporary?

Anyway, Obabla is going to veto the bill and we will all have spent considerable time and the nation would have spent considerable time debating an issue that will not happen. You go Tree huggers.

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

OWO...i am not arguing in favor of it...i am simply asking questions that you either wish not to research and answer or ignore.

Posted 103 days ago.

Ohwiseone

What will you say when the line leaks and pollutes the land and water for miles around ! Point is we already have the tankers and there hasn't been a issue since the exxon Valdese !

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

OWO...a few questions for you. 1) where is the final destination for the tanker ships? 2) how much fuel and greenhouse gases will be expended and expelled by the tankers to carry the same volume that the pipeline will carry? 3) what will you say when there is another exxon valdese?

Posted 103 days ago.

Ohwiseone

And still there is no need for it ! Extend the existing line to lake superior and ship via tankers !

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

equivalent of more than 180 barrels of oil annually (NRDC 2001). Although there do not appear to be any estimates of the total volume or impacts of such end-use impacts on even a local scale, much less any global estimates, extrapolating from this one estimate suggests that stormwater runoff carries the equivalent of almost 20 million barrels of oil (more than 3 million m3) annually nationwide (about 0.8 percent of total annual motor fuel consumption), though this should be considered little more than an order of magnitude estimate. Total global runoff from contaminated surfaces could not be estimated from available data." either way, this will probably be more for you to cherry-pick. so have at it.

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

NasCarNut... "Well since you put it that way what would it hurt to add another source of contamination to our soil and water??...put the pipeline in then, the sooner the better!!..." you said it i didn't. how you can't see that i agree with you is beyond me. i am all for protecting our water. i have made that abundantly clear. however, to ignore natural sources of contamination is truly a case of sticking one's head in the "tar" sand so to speak. i hope you will agree that any contaminiation is undesirable but occurs everyday life, sometimes from unexpected sources. the responsible thing to do is minimize any negative effects whether it is oil, wind, solar geothermal, hydro, electric or gas. i found thgis from a study which you are more than welcome to find yourself. "Incompletely combusted fuels and minor spills and leaks from motor vehicles also generate contaminants. One study found that runoff from one square kilometer of roads and parking lots carried the

Posted 103 days ago.

NasCarNut

understand that there is contamination of oil into our water by way of leaching or natural flow

Well since you put it that way what would it hurt to add another source of contamination to our soil and water??...put the pipeline in then, the sooner the better!!...

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

NasCarNut...i will agree 100% with you. we all need clean water. our society can not survive without it. this project is like anything else in life and that thing is called "minimizing risk". least we forget where the oil comes from and understand that there is contamination of oil into our water by way of leaching or natural flow. it is found in both fresh and salt-water. in addition consider the amount of oil that consumers contaminate the soil with just from oil changes in our vehicles. i shutter to think of the other fluids that we "leak" into the soil and ultimately ourselves. OWO suggested ferrying the oil across one of the great lakes. it seems odd that he would suggest that considering the very up-close and personal proximity that it would place the oil in relation to the water. i have not looked into any proposed alternate routes that the pipeline could take in order to minimalize its potental harm to the environment.

Posted 103 days ago.

NasCarNut

The KXL passes over the Ogalalla aquifer that waters the crops that feeds our country and part of the world...It passes over more than 2000 contributory rivers , streams and creeks...

is it really worth the risk??...I can live without a lot of things but clean water isn't one of them!!...

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

, i think you will agree that all lands with the exception of indian reservations and federal lands are contingent upon the payment of taxes or upon the needs of the government whether local, state or federal. in many respects opposition is correct that the oil will not be used exclusively for north americans and it will not necessarily drive down the costs to consumers. there is a level at which it becomes impratical to even bother to pump it or refine it. if we can get over the idea of American Protectionism for many commodities that we produce, we will then have a shot at insuring that we have sufficient resources in which to supply our needs and hopefully within most peoples budgets. remember the cost is the cost and the price is the price. it is all relative.

Posted 103 days ago.

absolem

NasCarNut..protecting the Ogallala Aquifer is an important concern. we would be remiss not to mention not only the current contamination problems but also the continuation of conatminants irrespective of whether the pipeline is built, scuttled or even dismantled. the aquafier is currently being assalted by above. the roughly 174,000 square mile area of crop and rangeland seems to be the culprit of th current contamination. just imagine for a moment the amount of natural and artificial fertilizers along with the untold amount of pesticides that are applied to the "bread basket" of america. the nitrates as well as the enormous amounts of animal waste combine to form a powerful toxic cocktail. minimalizing contamination while still providing for the needs of our citizens is a delicate balance that will not be easily achieved. there are just too many interests at play and the task of pleasing everyone will prove to be daunting. concerning the generational "holding of land&q

Posted 103 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or