🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 8, 10:07 am, drylined <r...@d.mr> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:59:44 -0700, chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 7, 3:54 pm, drylined <r...@d.mr> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:56:09 -0700, chatnoir
> >> <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 6, 9:52 am, drylined <r...@d.mr> wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:32:05 -0700, chatnoir
> >> >> <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Which means the Platte Pipeline system is connected to Canada and
> >> the
> >> >> > Oil-Tar Sands!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >> >> Yes it is, and so what? Would you prefer it to bring it Saudi oil?
>
> >> >> Does it bother you that Canada wants to create jobs in the US to
> >> build
> >> >> another pipeline (XL) to send their tar sands oil to US refineries in
> >> >> the
> >> >> Gulf?
>
> >> > Looks like you lose out!  An expert on the pipeline says it should not
> >> > be built!:
>
> >> >http://www.democracynow.org/2012/1/6/headlines#13
>
> >> > Ex-Inspector Urges Cancellation of Keystone XL Pipeline      A former
> >> > inspector on the original Keystone pipeline is sounding the alarm over
> >> > TransCanada’s plans for the Keystone XL. Mike Klink, a former Bechtel
> >> > employee who surveyed the first Keystone pipeline, says he raised
> >> > numerous concerns during construction that went ignored. The first
> >> > Keystone carries tar sands oil from Alberta to refineries in the
> >> > Midwest, while the XL would extend that route to the Gulf Coast.
> >> > Writing in Nebraska’s Lincoln Journal Star, Klink describes a number
> >> > of safety and design flaws, including cheap foreign steel, weak
> >> > foundations and rigged safety tests.
>
> >> So it has had how many failures? One in North Dakota due to a bad valve?
>
> >> > He concludes: "I am coming
> >> > forward because my kids encouraged me to tell the truth about what was
> >> > done and covered up... I am not telling you we shouldn’t build
> >> > pipelines. We just should not build this one."
>
> >> There is no reason to believe that "this one" would be identical to the
> >> "last one".
>
> >> Especially as he did speak out.
>
> >> Sigh...
>
> > I will stand behind the expert rather than your childish rants - what
> > are you 8 or 9 years old?
>
> You will do as your Lib masters tell you to do - what don't you trust our
> government to do proper inspections and set standards to make this a safe
> pipeline?
>
> And thanks again for chasing good paying jobs away from hard working
> Americans.
>

Nope, there are just some areas too important to soil!

Such as!:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/09/obama-protect-grand-canyon-uranium-mining

headline:

Obama holds strong to protect Grand Canyon from uranium
miningPresident Obama to introduce 20-year ban of uranium mining on 1m
square acres of Grand Canyon, despite political pressure

The Obama administration is set to give protection to one of the
world's natural wonders, by banning uranium mining on 1m acres of land
around the Grand Canyon.


The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, is due to make a formal
announcement on Monday of the 20-year ban on new mining claims, at a
film screening at the National Geographic Society in Washington.


The move, praised by conservation groups, is sure to bring the wrath
of the mining industry as well as some Republicans, who argue the ban
will cost jobs. The measure does not affect some 3,000 existing mining
claims around the canyon, however.


Conservation groups said Barack Obama had shown political courage in
going ahead with the ban in the face of that opposition. "Despite
significant pressure, the president did not settle for a halfway
measure," said Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environment Group. ... (cont)