Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, Jan. 26, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.
Give me a break! President Barack Obama vetoes the construction of the XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. and then tries to blame Republicans because they put an “unrealistic deadline” on the decision? This pipeline has been studied for over three years and was approved as environmentally safe. And now he comes to Las Vegas to promote his jobs program? In November, I hope the unemployed workers in America and all of us who have to fill up our gas tanks with expensive oil imported from the Middle East remember where this president’s priorities really lie.
Perhaps Obama can mobilize the environmental tree hugger voting bloc and have them hug an unemployed construction worker instead.
No drama delusional green Obama's real actions say no to jobs once again.
No drama anti-jobs Obama has said no to stopping the rising cost of over $4 gas at the pump.
On January 17, 2012 Obama at his jobs council announced a new "All In Approach" on energy policy which would emphasize North America energy sources.
With gas prices continuing to rise and Iran threatening war, on January 18, 2012, Obama announced that he rejected the Keystone XL pipeline because it was not in the National Interest.
This was a rejection of the new routing in Nebraska around the aquifer. The Obama State Dept. took three years to approve the original plan only to have the WH delay a formal decision until after the election. The State Dept. said that that XL could reapply for a permit that would take another three years with the obvious point that Obama still would not approve.
Obama said "considering ... the consequences of ...the project on Energy Security, the economy, ...I have determined .... The project would not serve the National Interest" to get oil from Canada versus the Middle East and Venezuela.
China Premier Wen Jiabao has been shop all the key US Middle East oil suppliers for months to increase their sources while Obama has been rejecting new sources here and abroad.
J.J. Schrader; So, you say, jobs at the expense of environment? Okay, lets build a pipeline with dirty energy flowing over your property, per se, where hypothetically you have fruits and vegetables growing on your farmland. The property of where your children play. The water that irrigates your farm and the water that you all drink?
By the way Mr. Schrader, what is your stance on Yucca Mountain? I can't wait to read the background of your previous posts here in the Las Vegas Sun and see whether or not you are a political hypocrite. Would you personally so no to Yucca Mountain for the inherent dangers of stockpiling the nations nuclear waste at your back door? Or, would you be lame enough to say, "But the jobs that are lost at Yucca Mountain is just so terrible? And, (sniffle, sniffle), I wouldn't mind hugging a toxic rock to save jobs at the waste dump!"
And your response is, Mr. Schrader?
Letter writer is absolutely correct. The president's stance and politics on the Keystone XL Pipeline projest will come back to hurt and haunt him.
Recent facts about the president's decision to reject the pipeline indicate Warren Buffett and his railroads are the likely beneficiary to profit from the president's decision. Why? The Canadan crude will be transported by Buffett's railroads, which btw he just recently invested in, throughout the USA.
Carmine A. DiFazio
If what you say is true Mister DiFazio, sounds like a pretty good alternative to the pipeline and a pretty shrewd business move on the part of Warren Buffett. I would think a Republican would be able to see this. Or it is 20,000 temporary jobs in construction of this pipeline and the environmental threat to this areas aquifers are better than several thousand long term jobs being secured within the railroad for many years to come? Nothing personal, but, political hypocrites sure do confuse me!
How much of the tar sands oil from Canada will ACTUALLY be used by AMERICAN consumers? As for gas prices, unless you use premium unleaded in your tank, no one is paying anything near $4.00 per gallon. The oil companies have now lulled everyone to accept the new paradigm of well over $3.00 per gallon. Pipeline or not, prices will never again be below $3.00 per gallon. Get used to it. I remember .25 cents per gallon gas, but I don't expect to see prices that low again either.
The letter writer is misinformed. Before writing that "the pipeline was environmentally approved", he ought to have at least glanced at the letter of July 2011to the U.S. Department of State from the EPA rating the project as Environmentally Objectionable and setting forth in detail the reasons for that. I understand that there is a further letter from the EPA dated in November 2011, which refers to the Environmental Impact Statement submitted for the project as "inadequate."
If I want to start a project and have my own Environmental Impact Study done and label it "approved" (since I approve of my own project) then has my project been "environmentally approved"? That is what seems to have happened here. And it seems to be what letter writer means by "environmentally approved."
And what, exactly, is the rush on this -- besides the all-important rush for members of Congress to secure campaign contributions?
The failure to approve the Keystone Oil Pipeline project is another travesty emanating from the Oval Office. Another example of a failed policy by this administration. While we must be willing to protect the environment, the needs of the nation have to be prioritized and there is no question that both job creation and energy independence from the Middle East are at the top of the list of the nation's critical priorities. In this case the President is placing the complaints of the envirnmental community above the highest priority needs of the nation for his own political interests. This is an outrageous case of the President pandering to a loud part of his base, while the nation suffers from joblessness and energy dependence on the Middle East.
Joe, first and foremost, I am old school, and I'm not going to change. I drive a big truck, and it uses a lot of fuel. I would walk or crawl before I would drive a green automobile like the Volt. However, I think some green energy should be supported, but certainly not to the extent that President Obama desires. If what Mr. DiFazio from the "All Comments" section said is true about Warren Buffett investing in, and proposing that the railroads haul this oil from Canada, than that is a perfect alternative to the pipeline. Or is it, Republicans have now turn coated on Warren Buffett because he has publicly stated that he believes the wealthy should pay their fair share in taxes?
As far as Yucca Mountain. Once the Department of Energy has hired three totally politically independent scientists to conduct their studies on Yucca Mountain, and they all confirm that the storage of such nuclear waste is safe to be stored at Yucca Mountain, I will then consider changing my views on this dumpsite. Until such time, my answer is, unequivocally, NO!!! I need absolute proof from any politically biased politician before I believe what they say. That's Democrat or Republican.
Gogo says, "As for Yucca Mountain, Bradley, we need to get away from this 1950's "Godzilla" mentality. Yucca Mountain is SAFE, CONTAINED......"
Can you say Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant? Another patch of the planet that will be uninhabitable for centuries.
Some excellent points Joe. The good thing about Warren Buffett's investment in the railroads is, there will be many jobs created in building these extensions. Secondly, should a disaster occur in transporting this oil by railroad, the risks to areas that are environmentally sensitive and the quantity of oil lost will be minimized.
As for the environmentalists, if the oil shall be shipped by railroad, they do not have a leg to stand on. Oh!!! I want the oil, whether or not we use it for our own consumption. If not, once the oil companies have gone through their processes of conversion, I say maximize our oil reserves and sell the rest to the highest bidder on the market. This would be good business practice, and profitable too. I absolutely love this plan!
I have good cause to believe that the only conspiracy that exists here is that of the environmentalists against oil companies. To a small degree, I will occasionally agree with environmentalists. However, once a suitable alternative has been recommended, they need to withdraw from the issue at hand. I agree with their protests of the pipeline over the aquifers. But, that's it, that's as far as I will go with them.
The only questions I would have in Warren Buffett's proposal of the railroads transporting this oil from Canada across the United States is; Can this type of transportation by railroad equal the daily output of oil that would have originally been shipped to the United States by pipeline? I wouldn't think so? If not, what would be the differential?
I would say if the disparities are too great, we should turn back to rerouting the XL Pipeline around the aquifers in shipping this Canadian oil across the United States. Then, and only then, if President Obama would opt to once again deny the building of this pipeline, outrage would surely be warranted.
Bring on the non-oil, non-coal energy sources. Immediately, if not sooner!
Gee Go Suz got caught again now lying about the XL pipeline facts.
The State Department approved it twice but the WH review shut it down for politics.
And don't forget crony capitalist Obama is putting $2 billion into the George Soros deep water oil field off Brazil.
gogo, you must be reading your newspaper upside down. he big letters go at the top. Recent comments from Japan's cleanup efforts;
And a radiation specialist who tested the results of an extensive local cleanup in a nearby city found that exposure levels remained above international safety standards for long-term habitation.
Even a vocal supporter of repatriation suggests that the government has not yet leveled with its people about the seriousness of their predicament.
"I believe it is possible to save Fukushima," said the supporter, Tatsuhiko Kodama, director of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo. "But many evacuated residents must accept that it won't happen in their lifetimes."
To judge the huge scale of what Japan is contemplating, consider that experts say residents can return home safely only after thousands of buildings are scrubbed of radioactive particles and much of the topsoil from an area the size of Connecticut is replaced.
Even forested mountains will probably need to be decontaminated, which might necessitate clear-cutting and literally scraping them clean.
The Soviet Union did not attempt such a cleanup after the Chernobyl accident of 1986, the only nuclear disaster larger than that at Fukushima Daiichi. The government instead relocated about 300,000 people, abandoning vast tracts of farmland.
Sounds promising for Fukishima residents huh?
Obama is plain wrong on this. Besides the Canadian oil, which money given to Canada for oil will come back to the US in forms of exports to Canada, there is a big oil shale field in ND that will need infrastructure to get the oil to the refineries which I am sure the XL will play a part in. Presidents do dumb things, with Bush it was the wars, with Obama it will be sticking it to the people with high energy costs while further enriching our Arab "friends". What about the carbon footprint of moving that oil across the world? Potential catastrophic things that can happen in transit? Brazil is so pissed off about this it will not sell the oil out of thier big offshore field to USA because of Obama's decision, it will be sold to China instead, how is that better for us?
Unfortunately for the unemployed and underemployed, Obama needs an open-ended deadline before he gets it.
1. All of y'all ought to go look at a map of the Keystone pipelines before you opine. You will see: (a) that there is more than one Keystone pipeline; (b) that many of these send Canadian oil shale "crude" (it is really more like an asphaltic slurry) to U.S. refineries; (c) the XL project is one phase of an entire network; (d) the XL project phase you are opining on would have crossed the Ogallala aquifer which is a key water supply.
2. The letter writer believes this is a "crisis." A crisis is an event which will lead to an unstable or dangerous situation. Iran getting nukes would be a crisis. The collapse of Pakistan allowing its' nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists would be a crisis. The delay of one oil pipeline route is NOT a crisis. It might be poor policy (or it might be wisdom) -- only time will tell.
3. Everyone ought to look at the price of producing a barrel of oil and at the prices producing countries have to get to sustain their governments (the "Political Price" of oil). It costs $17/bbl to for oil produced in Kuwait. Most of the Arabian and Iranian oil costs less to produce than oil from the Canadian tar sands which costs about $33/bbl. But when you look at the political price of oil, Canada's would be very low in comparison to many other sources. Three points follow from this: (a) The Canadian tar sands product already flowing to landlocked midwestern U.S. refineries results in lower costs per gallon petroleum products than if the oil were imported from other producing countries; (b) The XL project will open up big exporting Gulf Coast refineries, allowing the Canadian product to flow out to a higher-priced stronger demand for petroleum products in other countries rather than be "trapped" in lower-priced U.S. Midwestern markets; and (c) The difference between a $100/bbl world price for oil and $33/bbl cost of production is huge and strongly motivating the building of a pipeline to existing refineries that can handle it and refine it for export -- refineries that exist only on the U.S. Gulf Coast. That pipeline isn't going anywhere else because anywhere else would involve too much capital and cut ROI and operating profit too much.
4. The only "crisis" might be one perceived by members of Congress who continue to seek funds for their perpetual re-elections. If they don't get those contributions, it might cause them to lose -- and we all know just how unstable and dangerous that condition might be for them.
Bradley, the demise of the caribou was predicted by the various eco-whacko groups upon building the Alaskan pipeline. The caribou have thrived, in part because the pipeline provided a place of shelter, warmth and cover for the notoriously shy creatures to mate. If only the pipeline reached the lower-48, we could've averted Exxon-Valdez, as we know that water bourne transit carries the most danger to the environment.
But maybe we can blame Biden as he was one of four senators who voted against it and told BO it wouldn't hurt him in the eyes of the dumbocrat party.
The real reason the pipeline was cancelled:
A year after the election of Obama, Warren Buffett bought a giant railroad, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. The BNSF has more than 32,000 miles of track and right-of-way in this nation, running from the west coast and through the agricultural heartland of America. It is also hauls coal from the mines in Montana and Wyoming and is the railroad with the best existing north-south infrastructure. In fact, it's quite well-situated to perform precisely the task for which TransCanada has proposed to build a pipeline.
Should the pipeline fail, the oil will still be extracted, but it will then be transported by rail, and Mr. Buffett, thanks to the efforts of his friend Mr. Holland, will be uniquely situated to derive a fortune from that business, as well as enhance the value of his holdings in Conoco-Phillips petroleum. Is it possible that Warren Buffett's assistance to Obama in both policy and public relations lately may be his way of trying to tip the regulatory scales in his favor? After all, nothing says "I love you" to a Democrat better than a public plea for more taxes.
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage...
So whats the deal? Is the south the only place a refinery can be built ? Seems like all the environmental concerns could be eliminated by building a refinery close to the oil supply. What am I missing ? Is it too cold to refine oil in the north?
'President has no grip on oil crisis'
Yeah, whatever. If the GOP's no-we-can't gloom and doom was a power source those do-nothing losers would have a global monopoly on energy production.
Republicans can't win the WH with a plan for a brighter future so they're playing the Apocalypse Now card, doing everything possible to make their dark predictions a reality.
Thankfully, a determined president and Sen. Reid haven't allowed their endless obstructionism to kill a recovery and drag us back down to the days of economic misery left behind by Bush.
Speaking of oil, when are those Iraqis going to sell some and reimburse US taxpayers for that military debacle, as the neocons promised? (Don't waste your time waiting for a response to that question from the Sun forum teabaggers.)
The pipeline will be built after the environmental impact is judged over the new route.
A fact for you Obama haters. According to the WSJ oil drilling in the United States is at it's highest rate, ever. I'll bet the increase in prices is due to speculation, people playing on the Wall St. casino market.
Number of the Week: How Many Rigs Are Drilling for Oil?. 1,069: The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. this week. The figure reflects a huge surge in U.S. oil drilling, up nearly 60% in the past year and the highest total since at least 1987, when oil services company Baker Hughes Inc. began keeping track.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/08/2...
A letter was published recently stating very little of the XL oil would make it's way to US consumers. That Canada wanted to send it to the gulf and ship it to the rest of the world.
Does anyone know if this is true???? I don't have a clue.
"political hypocrites sure do confuse me!"
Me too. If the GOP did this [Buffett/Obama partnership for oil transportation] the media outrage would be deafening. Dems and Obama get a pass every time. Pure silence.
BTW, in case you missed it, I'll post for you here again. In all the pipelines in the USA NEVER, and I am reluctant to use that word but it factually applies, has a leak compromised an aquifer. More hypocritical nonsense from green Hollywood donors.
In fact, as I posted here before, the real issue with the Nebraska aquifer, which is one of the largest in the country and extends through several states, is that the use and abuse of the water resources are not being replenished. If I recall correctly, and it's been awhile, it is diminishing every year at a substantial rate. Yet, no outrage from the green police and media on this catastrophe. Hypocritical? Is there a stronger word? If so, it too applies.
Carmine A. DiFazio
PS to my post above:
Believe or not it's costlier to transport the barrels over rails than through pipelines. Isn't that something!
Carmine A. DiFazio
"Does anyone know if this is true???? I don't have a clue."
The PM of Canada and head of Trans Canada oil have said that more than likely, if the US refuses the Keystone XL pipeline, they will pipeline to/or truck haul the crude to the Alaska pacific coast and export to China by vessal containers.
Carmine A. DiFazio
GOPer: Don't fret, maybe Buffet's secretary was clued in to the stock deal. And for pete's sake keep parroting Dim talking points!
"maybe Buffet's secretary was clued in to the stock deal."
Not so not so. Check the stock price of Berkshire Hathaway. His secretary, like most average Americans, can't afford to buy it.
Carmine A. DiFazio
Big Oil doesn't give a crap about anyone but their shareholders. Year-after-year record profits have not meant lower prices at the pump and, despite the hype, there will be no pot of gold for average citizens at the end of the pipeline -- only greater profits for the cartel.
The only way to beat the monopoly is by substantially reducing consumption.
But throes, Big Oil has pushed back the 'peak' oil date (whatever that was) and increased natural gas reserves by 40% in the past year through new discovery and drilling techniques.
Can't you get a different rant?
Walker's job creation 13,500 after six months of steady private sector loss:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/prom...
GOPReallySux,
If we stipulate that the oil from the XL pipeline will add to the overall amount of oil but will not be reserved for America. And if we agree that an oil spill could happen with the XL pipeline, even though we have thousands of miles of oil pipelines all over the US and almost no spills, isn't is also true that the 20,000 jobs connected to the XL Pipeline would be a good thing?
Michael
"Can't you get a different rant?"
Couldn't help but notice you had no comment on my post about the $1.5 trillion US taxpayers have flushed down the middle east nation-building toilet after being promised the debacle would be paid for with Iraqi oil money.
Care to comment on that part of my rant, rusty? ... I didn't think so.
All those pipeline jobs teabaggers whine about are the same kind of mythological jobs Bush promised us when his rubber stamp GOP congress passed the ten-year, $1.3 trillion trickledown tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
Been there and done that voodoo, dummies.
As Bush the Lesser once said while channelling The Who, "Fool me once ... shame on ... you. Fool me twice ... We won't get fooled again ..."
YEAHHHHHH !
The reason oil is so expensive has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with the speculators on wall street who play games by trading a single barrel of oil 6 thousand times to create the illusion of high demand. As for the keystone pipeline do you believe that the right wingers are telling the truth That 20 thousand jobs will be created? Where do you think the pipe is manufactured? China or India?
Gogo: I'll bet you're selling Fukishuma land options.
GOPReallySux,
20,000 or 6,000, they are jobs and we do need jobs. Actually, I would consider legalizing both pot and prostitution, since we do an awful job of trying to prevent access to either and each is a personal choice. Oil is transported all over the world and this country, all at some risk. Why arbitrarily draw the line here? Is it because of an agenda?
Michael
GOPReallySux,
We agree to disagree. I suspect that if it were possible to use existing lines, Canada and the Canadian company would do so because it probably would be much less costly than building a new pipeline. I understand you just don't want any more oil pipelines in the US and that's your call, but you may regret that stance one day. Time will tell.
Also, unlike you, I find private industry numbers and studies questionable but I also find government numbers and studies questionable. Let's face the fact that the people providing the number and studies are all human beings and that all sides have an 'agenda'.
Michael
Three years in office and does absolutely nothing to help get America back to being stable. One year left and suddenly he feels the urge to do something. Anything. And that includes talk one thing and do another.
He likes to take the credit for killing Osama (Thank you GW) and opening up a natural gas fueling corridor that has been under construction for over 10 years. (Thank you GW) but feels its too soon to start blaming him for the failures under his watch.
Does a wheat farmer need wall street speculating on there business to survive and prosper. The answer is no.
Does wall street speculators need a wheat farmer to make a living. The answer is yes. So it quite obvious that the speculators like shrillmoeller are in fact parasites they cannot survive on there own they need someone else to produce a product for them.
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
"Does a wheat farmer need wall street speculating on there business to survive and prosper. The answer is no."
When asked if the Soviet Union wouldn't stop until they had put the whole world under communism, the premier replied that they wouldn't conquer New Zealand.
"Why New Zealand" came the reply.
"How would we know what the price of anything would be otherwise?"
LasT Throes: Care to comment on that part of my rant, rusty? ... I didn't think so.
Care to have a link to that quote, lastThroes? Not that i can trust a deluded mind and all.
BTW, what's your next fallback position? Bush knew about 9-11?
I swear WillieT is making an argument for centralized storage of nuclear waste.
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
Comment removed by moderator. Off Topic
Well, Michael, the jobs created DURING the construction of the XL segment MIGHT be a good thing, but if the tar leaks into the Ogallala, the lost production of wheat, corn, and soybeans and the products that incorporate them (and the jobs that go along with that) would be LOST PERMANENTLY. So I guess whether on balance it would be good or bad depends on (1) how you rate temporary construction jobs as against permanent ag-related jobs, (2) whether we can make up any lost production by growing these crops elsewhere, and (3) the cost of moving a population that no longer has a water supply or, in the alternative the cost of building and operating treatment plants to remove the contaminants.
Well, well, well, Carmine DiFazio is attempting to win a debate from the ranks of the unenlightened.
He says, "Believe or not it's costlier to transport the barrels over rails than through pipelines. Isn't that something!"
That's very good Carmine! So I assume you leave your car parked in the driveway and take the bus to work because it is cheaper? What a pointless, ridiculous, absurd and meaningless comment you made. But, I'm not surprised in the least.
.
"What a pointless, ridiculous, absurd and meaningless comment you made. But, I'm not surprised in the least."
I was making a statement of fact: It costs more to transport the Canadian crude oil by rail than push through pipelines.
Carmine A. DiFazio
"So I assume you leave your car parked in the driveway and take the bus to work because it is cheaper?"
Close, but not quite. I car pooled. Yes, it was less expensive.
Carmine A. DiFazio.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
oil consumption has gone up by 4 million barrels per day in the last YEAR. China put nearly 19 million cars on the road last year. The US 12 million units. Refining capacity is limited around the world. Those who think oil is NOT a supply and demand driven commodity are living on fantasy island.
As the world economy continues to grow you will see $6.00 a gallon gas before you can blink. Without refineries the oil does us no good.
The world needs refineries and Saudi Arabia is the only country building up capacity to any degree. According to T Boone Pickens the world refining capacity is 91M/BPD. That is where we are at currently. Next stop MUCH higher prices.
Wah!!! Wah!!! Waaaah!!!
"I want my Oil Pipeline! Waaaah!"
"The debate over whether Keystone XL creates jobs is a convenient diversion from something oil company backers don't want you to know: this is an export pipeline to help them access foreign markets and bypass the United States. Oil companies will make bigger profits and oil prices for Americans will increase. That's not a project that helps Americans. It's a project that helps Big Oil."
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/13...
CNN Shatters Supporters' Claims That Keystone XL Would Create Thousands Of Jobs
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/20111111001...
"If the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline were approved, even more oil will flow to the Gulf Coast and then to international markets and not provide the United States with energy security. And building Keystone XL would very likely lead to even higher oil prices according to IHS CERA. This confirms the findings of Oil Change International's report. Keystone XL has always been about increasing US oil prices and finding a route to export tar sands on the world market."
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroit...
According to the State Department, only 20 permanent jobs will be created by the pipeline. Even the pipeline company acknowledged that only "a few hundred permanent jobs' will be created.
I forgot to comment on the original letter.
WHAT OIL CRISIS ?
Sux- Thanks for sharing your liberal thoughts. Potential voters need to see all sides of the issues and your giving everyone a very good idea of what comprises liberal thought & ideology. Keep up the good work!
Zippert
Maybe I interpreted your 8:16 link wrong but I believe the demand for oil contracted in the fourth quarter. Seems the problem is not that there is not enough oil as in there is not enough refining capacity? Why would the merchants of oil not want to build anymore refineries? Perhaps to manipulate oil prices to increase profit?
1976 was the last one built in the USA. You can't get them built. Who wants a refinery in their back yard.
J.J. Schrader, gogogreedy, and Carmine, you can
take that dirty pipeline and shove it where the
the sun doesn't shine.
We don't need that dirty oil.
After this years election, get used to eating
alot of crow.
We Democrats are keeping our great President
Obama, the Senate and we're taking back the
House.
You greedy republican losers can suck eggs.
LIVE BETTER/WORK UNION!!!
zippert
Texas
Don't know if this has been mentioned although I read the first 40 posts. The peoples of Nebraska were concerned about the pipeline crossing pristine wilderness and requested study of an alternate route which the administration agreed to.
However the Republicans demanded that a yes/no decision must be made NOW on the present route which in effect forced the presidents decision.
This has delayed the process for 13 months and the Canadians have to resubmit all requests again.
If the government approved (with imminent domain) a huge pipeline in or near Vegas without citizen input I think some posters would be singing a different tune.
Personally I wish they'd plant it next to Interstate highways. They're going to make a gazillion $'s anyway.
gmag, referencing "thinkprogress" is anything but 'progress'. wah-wah.
Funny how natural gas prices have fallen so much due to increased...supply. Why don't the speculators, oh nevermind.
"Well, Michael, the jobs created DURING the construction of the XL segment MIGHT be a good thing, but if the tar leaks into the Ogallala, the lost production of wheat, corn, and soybeans and the products that incorporate them (and the jobs that go along with that) would be LOST PERMANENTLY."
Do you get your information from eco-whacko scare-mongers? Do you know ANYTHING about aquifers?
Here is a start, maybe you'll stop parroting them:
" The first thing you should realize is that the aquifer slopes from west to east, so only the downslope part of the aquifer would potentially be affected by a spill.
Secondly, the geologic nature of the aquifer, which at its shallowest is 300 feet below the surface, would tend to confine any spill to a very small area."
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2011/10...