WoundedKnee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2017
- Posts
- 7,512
That seems to be pretty thorough. Nothing there says that they were stopped. Maybe the claim was supposed to be that Canada decided no new pipelines. Maybe they think they have enough.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That seems to be pretty thorough. Nothing there says that they were stopped. Maybe the claim was supposed to be that Canada decided no new pipelines. Maybe they think they have enough.
Canada's Federal Court of Appeal blocked a controversial oil pipeline Thursday after years of protest by environmentalists.
The court ruled that Canada's federal government did not properly consult with First Nations on or near the route of the Enbridge Inc.'s proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, The Globe and Mail reported.
The project was controversial across the continent. It would carry oil sands petroleum from Alberta to the Pacific coast, providing a means for export, the same purpose as the Keystone XL project that President Obama rejected last year.
Northern Gateway was frequently compared to Keystone by environmentalists seeking to sow opposition, and both projects were being planned at the same time.
CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - Oct. 5, 2017) - News Release - TransCanada Corporation (TSX:TRP) (NYSE:TRP) (TransCanada) announced today it will no longer be proceeding with its proposed Energy East Pipeline and Eastern Mainline projects.
The Keystone XL pipeline, on the other hand, isn’t such an open-and-shut kind of case. First off, it hasn’t been built yet—that is, at least the portion that is supposed to run through the U.S. The reason the Keystone requires approval from the federal government is that it crosses an international border, through Canada. Unlike the DAPL, the Keystone is about as un-American as it gets. It is being built by a Canadian company to help mostly Canadian and European oil companies move Canadian crude from Western Canada down to Texas.
The Canadians already have pipelines that cross the border, but they all head to the Midwest. The Keystone, instead, runs south, to the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Canadians claim that the pipeline intends to provide oil to U.S. refineries. That sounds reasonable, as the Gulf Coast is home to most of the nation’s biggest refineries, many of which can process heavy Canadian crude. But the pipeline also connects the Canadians to the Port of Houston, giving them the ability to export their crude out of the U.S. to other countries, namely, China.
This is the real key issue with the Keystone pipeline. Western Canadian crude currently has no way of being exported out of North America, and can only head to a handful of U.S. refineries in the Midwest. This causes it to trade at a discount to world oil prices, giving those refiners fatter margins and U.S. consumers a bit of relief at the pump.
If the Canadians are given the ability to export their oil to other countries, it could negatively impact U.S. energy security, U.S. gasoline prices, and Midwest refining margins.
So why is President Trump giving Keystone away for nothing? He says it will create jobs. But the handful of jobs it will create—it doesn’t take many people to build or run a pipeline—pales in comparison to what Canada stands to gain. Trump also made some silly statement yesterday about wanting to have the physical pipe for the Keystone built in America, but, again, that’s a one-off gimmick that wouldn’t come close to balancing out the deal.
Maybe treason. Maybe he cut a deal with China, the recipient of the Canadian oil, in exchange for... what? Beijing Tromp Tower?http://fortune.com/2017/01/25/donald...ne-pipeline-2/
"So why is President Trump giving Keystone away for nothing?"
Canada just wants the US to have Canada’s Very Best Oil as a gesture of goodwill.
Didn't notice what I wrote about Native Americans I know, eh?
I did. We don't always disagree.
The company had to spend so much time after all the brainless hate terrorist , you call the protesters that maintenance couldn't be done so you can thank the activist and please comment about how evil and harmful the Alaskan pipeline is .Those of us with a brain knew this would happen.
I hope not either.
Anyone happy this happened will feel sad later when its proved that some terrorist caused the just to make an ecotard point!Hope the Ogallala Aquifer was not impacted. This was pretty much the whole reason that the stupid thing was not supposed to be built in the first place.
I hate to break this to you, but many First Nations, Native Americans, and indios are also assholes. Like my Miwok next door neighbors and their vicious dogs. The family running the tribal casino downhill they work at are exemplary, providing great support for our community and for the pipeline protestors. But many more, like my Cherokee stepfather, are working folk with redneck tendencies. Reservation crime rates tend towards the horrific.
All that aside, reservations and rancherias are sovereign entities, and much off-reservation land is considered sacred. Leaderships of many indigenous nations are rightly concerned with preserving surrounding environments and heritages. The old Indian Wars continue at a lower pitch. The ending is undetermined.
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those??)?I will readily admit that the Indians got a raw deal. But that's what happens when you don't have an immigration policy or enforce the policies you do have. There's a lesson in there for anyone that wants to pay attention.
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??
Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??
Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??
Dang. That's some spin. There are some crisis management firms in D.C. that would pay top dollar for such skillzzzz.
I can't pay any attention to anything other than "Indians got a raw deal." A raw deal?? Is that what you are calling the deliberate eradication of an entire nation of native people? And you're laying blame at their doorstep due to their failed immigration policies (because Native Americans in the 1600s had those)??
Just a note: Nothing like an integrated Native American nation nor culture ever existed. The Americas were (and in places still are) a vast quilt of tiny patches of peoples. Some built significant civilizations. Many suffered protein shortages because megafauna extinction -- but that's another issue. None were resistant to European diseases.That's how it goes around here. Lay down all sorts of smack about native Americans and paint it as a failed culture, and nobody bats an eye. Tell the truth about the people of the Confederacy, and get your ass handed to you.
I claim some small familiarity with indigenes of the northern Americas, having grown up and spent adult years with folks of many indigenous backgrounds between Alaska, Newfoundland, the Southwest, and Honduras. Early native populations were as diverse and contentious as Europe or south-central Asia. Cultural generalizations are false. Adjacent peoples often had vastly different belief systems -- no universal Great Spirit. See The Birth of the Gods for some clarity. And modern indigenes often adopt a faith of the conquerors.
Pre-contact California hosted about twice as many distinct nations (~120) as are counties now. Those Californios spoke languages from Nunavut, Great Lakes, New England, Texas, and central Mexico -- everywhere in North America but Florida. They had the usual wars. They didn't live in wilderness. They sculpted the landscape, giving our grasslands and oak woodlands their parklike form because better foraging and hunting. And, like all of us, they regularly danced with the fuckup fairy.
Yes, Spanish and French spread disease and misery before Brits got involved. But notice that most Catholic countries in the Americas still have large (if subjugated) indigenous populations, while in Protestant lands (US and Canada) they're mostly exterminated. So yes, I do blame Anglos for genocide.
And yes, it's all about land, sacred and profane. Evict previous occupants and take their real estate. US Constitution, Art.VI: "The Constitution... and all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." But the US started breaking treaties with Indian nations almost as soon as the ink was dry. Yup, this rogue nation has always treated its supreme law as a mere scrap of paper, as Dubya rightly called it.
Proceed to Jackson's SCOTUS-defying genocidal Trail of Tears, and removal of many tribes to the shittiest small parcels possible. Gotta evict the occupants if you want the real estate. Throw in extermination of bison to starve Great Plains tribes; kidnapping children to Indian Schools to be deculturated; and rampant BIA corruption; and we've got Crimes Against Humanity.
Genocide is more than "a raw deal."
I love the smell of cherry-picking in the morning; it only highlights the inability to back a contention based upon belief and nothing more.
I love the smell of cherry-picking in the morning; it only highlights the inability to back a contention based upon belief and nothing more.
Jump forward a couple centuries. Mr Tromp could decide that the presence of certain groups within USA is intolerable, and order expulsion outside the national boundaries, or merely removal to small, wasted parcels.There are two sides to every story. Jackson's decision was based on a simple concept, 'nations cannot exist within nations.' As you pointed out the various Indian nations were, at one time, sovereign nations in their own right. The problem was that the English, Spanish, and to a lesser extent the French, were treating with those nations and using them as proxies to cause disruption, and in some cases out and out war, with the newly formed United States. This situation was intolerable so Jackson removed them to an area outside of the then US State boundaries. Yes, many individuals profited from that, but that was not Jackson's motivation, merely a consequence.
Jump forward a couple centuries. Mr Tromp could decide that the presence of certain groups within USA is intolerable, and order expulsion outside the national boundaries, or merely removal to small, wasted parcels.
Oh no, that's like Nixonian Concentration Camps paranoia! Except that Civilized Tribes removal and Japanese-American internments are precedents. Watch how USA, past and present, treats Native Americans. Any of us in an unpopular group could be next.
Perhaps you would like to quote where I made such "claims"? You're just making crap up again. I'll wait.
In the mean time, Canada can and should find another way to get their oil across our country rather than more pipelines. I don't see anyone suggesting that all pipelines are abandoned. I do not think they should be enlarged.