published Wednesday, February 5th, 2014

The Siphon

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

64
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
TOES02800 said...

A shaven Clay, blowing hose.

February 5, 2014 at 3:28 a.m.
dude_abides said...

Hope springs eternal.

Jesus! TOES up at 3:30 with disgusting personal attacks... the other side of the duplex must be having a party.

February 5, 2014 at 7:26 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Other than being pushed by Gov. Haslam, what's the problem with Drive to 55?

February 5, 2014 at 9:09 a.m.
soakya said...

If we haven't figured out by now when politicians want to give away other peoples money its to secure votes we are in deep. There is enough incentives in place to get any motivated kid in college that's wants to be in college.

Hope Scholarship, Pell Grant, American Opportunity Credit, Life Time Learning Credit, Education deduction, federally subsidized loans, student interest loan deduction, and private scholarships and the answer is to throw more money at students to get them in college. If a student isn't motivated enough to go to college with all these incentives then the students that will take advantage of this new incentive probably doesn't need to be in school. Once again government has created the problem and government is the one with the solution to the problem they created.

If we want to be an entitlement nation then eliminate the income limits on those eligible to take the American Opportunity Credit and expand the credit to cover more than 100% of the first $2000 and 25% of the next $2000.. And make it a fully refundable credit The current limits generally cover one semester at a community college, raise the amount available for the credit to at least $5000 so both semesters are covered at a community college. If a student wants to attend a 4 year college raise the credit amount to cover it.

Another boondoggle.

February 5, 2014 at 10:02 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

If it passes the board will approve 10-15% tuition hikes every semester and price college out of reach for even more students. I remember when the lotto was sold on the premise the money would go to education. well it did. New head start and preschool programs with money allotted for college but no money for k-12. Give them more money and they will spend more money and everything will cost more. Why not take some of that money apply it to primary education and reduce my property tax!

February 5, 2014 at 10:25 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

I think it's a decent idea. This may already be the case, but I feel that students should be required to sign some sort of Stafford Loan type document that says all moneys will be paid by the state, provided the student maintains a certain GPA and continues to be enrolled. If the student does not satisfy this GPA or drops out halfway through the semester then they will be required to pay back the state for any money the state has paid, plus interest as one would pay on a student loan. If the student successfully completes the program or transfers to a 4-year college, then the state picks up the tab.

DJH, I don't agree with the "10-15% tuition hikes every semester". You would have significantly more students attending and there wouldn't be the need for the tuition hikes. If anything, it could cause community college tuition to decrease for students that are not eligible for Haslam's proposal.

February 5, 2014 at 10:49 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Guass.... Was that the result in GA? Has the tuition decreased for NW GA or Dalton St since the GA Hope went into effect? Has the tuition decreased since the influx of students after the FEDS go into the student loan business or the influx due to the recession? My experience was more art on campus and more department heads and new courses of study but not a decrease in tuition. Some administrators may get a raise and there may be a few more adjunct professors but I am skeptical that tuition would ever decrease. I due like your idea about students having to repay the grant but would that be fair? I'm sure holding people accountable is not high on the list of any vote buying scheme but it would make since to get a guarantee on the money.

February 5, 2014 at 11:05 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

There are a lot of students who qualify for pell grants and show up for the first day of class get the money and drop. It has become a lifestyle for many of the poor we are wanting to help. Folks with FASFA loans have to pay them back but what about the free riders. No accountability with other people's free money! Wouldn't a trade school in Chattanooga city limits due more good than sending people to remedial math at a community college?

February 5, 2014 at 11:11 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

The White House press secretary says in a statement that President Obama met with his national security team today in the Situation Room to discuss security at the upcoming Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Boy, that must have terrorist fleeing for their lives

February 5, 2014 at 11:16 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

Guass......http://www.cappex.com/colleges/Dalton-State-College/tuition-and-costs here is a link to the Dalton tuition.....has the influx in students reduced tuition since the Ga hope went into effect? just one local example..... I'm sure Chatt st is brainstorming on ways to cut their tuition as we speak but first they will need a parking garage and renovate that new building and update their machinery for auto shop and then there is the unfinished sculpture guarding but after they spend all this new money on the current wish list they may get around to lowering tuition after they reduce class size (hire more professors) and toughen their academic standards ( add unnecessary classes to general degrees to milk each student for every penny). I hate to be so negative but I have yet to see any price decrease when the government adds money to the problem.

February 5, 2014 at 11:20 a.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

here is a link of GA tuition the chart on the right side show yearly % increase at each 2 year public school ...... GA has basically the same deal that TN is proposing http://chronicle.com/article/Interactive-Tool-Tuition-Over/125043/

February 5, 2014 at 11:25 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

DJH, TN has the Hope scholarship for around a decade now. I may be wrong, but I don't believe GA has the same program that Haslam is proposing.

My experience with college students is that when the student has little to nothing invested in their education, they tend to do more poorly or be less motivated about succeeding then students that have a lot invested in their education. So it is my honest opinion that if TN is just going to pay for students to go to a community college without holding students accountable, it will not be a very successful program. First few weeks enrollment may be high, but it will be all for not if the majority of the participants are not earning an Associate's Degree or transferring to a four-year college to earn their BA/BS.

February 5, 2014 at 2:43 p.m.
Maximus said...

Teach a kid to vote Democrat and he will be a victimized, entitled, moocher forever. Teach a kid a skilled craft and he will be a productive, self reliant, strong Republican filled with the pride of doing a hard days work! Gov. Haslam's Drive To 55 program is a GREAT idea.

February 5, 2014 at 2:48 p.m.
DJHBRAINERD said...

guass....I agree 100% Everyone needs to put some skin in the game .... You are correct TN has had a program much like GA so why the need for more money? We could look at tuition increases for TN schools over the last decade and see that the influx of lotto $ has not kept tuition from increasing. So why not focus the increased funding and attention to primary and secondary education first?( I know it's not in the lotto's charter but charters can be changed. This attention could reduce the cost of college by reducing the number of students on financial aid who are in remedial classes, on the gov dime, with no credits acquired upon completion. With a repayment option I believe there would be more dollars per pupil if requirements such as passing the class or repaying the loan were enforceable.

February 5, 2014 at 2:59 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

This is too funny. If this idea had sprung from a Democratic governor, Maxie would have been crying "socialism!" And you damn well know it, you hypocrite. So don't even think about saying otherwise.

February 5, 2014 at 4:11 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

So Roo. You giving Haslam props, are you?

February 5, 2014 at 4:40 p.m.
soakya said...

Unbelievable I finally agree with Ricky. If Haslam was a progressive maximus would be calling him a welfare pimp.

February 5, 2014 at 5 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Not to be the devil's advocate (see my comments above to read my view of the proposal), but what if Haslam was a democratic governor and proposed this; would this not be labeled another entitlement program?

February 5, 2014 at 6:20 p.m.
volsam said...

soakya, Haslam is a progressive.

February 5, 2014 at 7:18 p.m.
Maximus said...

Rickarooboy...typical, conservatives hate all guvment programs.....wrong! Gov. Haslam's program, like the G.I. Bill, will be tax payer dollars well spent on teaching kids a craft, skill, or profession. After these learnings, like those that have benefited from the G.I. Bill participants will become hard working tax paying citizens contributing to the economy and voting Republican. Now....guvment programs that need to be trashed, where should I start....1. Close Down Obamacare.....IMMEDIATELY! Lol!

February 5, 2014 at 7:39 p.m.
dude_abides said...

PlainTruth said... "Boy, that must have terrorist fleeing for their lives"

The one that struck New York ain't running anywhere, PT. Oh, that's right, you wouldn't consider New Yorkers Americans. Sorry.

You conservatives that refuse to give the President credit for getting Bin Laden must, therefore, believe that Bin Laden didn't have anything to do with 9/11.

February 5, 2014 at 7:40 p.m.
soakya said...

volsam, we know that gaus, yep republicans would be screaming this is nothing but another entitlement program especially maximus.

February 5, 2014 at 7:43 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

đź’¤

February 5, 2014 at 9:27 p.m.
ibshame said...

How is Haslam's plan different from the one below?

"At a time when a higher education has never been more important or more expensive, too many students are facing a choice that they should never have to make: Either they say no to college and pay the price for not getting a degree -- and that's a price that lasts a lifetime -- or you do what it takes to go to college, but then you run the risk that you won’t be able to pay it off because you've got so much debt."

"So we’re going to make sure students who receive federal financial aid complete their courses before receiving grants for the next semester. We’ll make sure to build in flexibility so we’re not penalizing disadvantaged students, or students who are holding down jobs to pay for school. Things happen. But the bottom line is we need to make sure that if you’re getting financial aid you’re doing your part to make progress towards a degree."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/22/president-obama-explains-his-plan-combat-rising-college-costs

As per usual if it comes from President Obama it's a bad idea, however if a Repub copies the idea then it must be good. This is just a another example of the type of hypocrisy of teabaggers, RWNJ and all the other Obama Deranged Syndrome Sufferers. Haslam must not be afraid of any challenge by the teabaggers or he would have kept his plan a secret until after the primaries. LOL

February 6, 2014 at 7:51 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Maximus, not to shock you or anything, but I went to college on the GI Bill and I am not a republican.

February 6, 2014 at 8:58 a.m.
degage said...

Looks like this toon has gone over like a lead balloon.

February 6, 2014 at 9:27 a.m.
jesse said...

Usual number of comments on the toon degage just none of the B/S comments!!This might be the most civil discussion i've ever seen on here!(SO FAR!)Soon as Al and conman show up he count will go up fast!!

February 6, 2014 at 9:42 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Imshamed: Speaking of elections, Shame, immediately prior to them will be a good time for The Sovereign to OK the pipeline, no?

February 6, 2014 at 9:57 a.m.
ibshame said...

"PlainTruth said... Imshamed: Speaking of elections, Shame, immediately prior to them will be a good time for The Sovereign to OK the pipeline, no?"

Not sure what Sovereign you're talking about since that implies the person was not elected by the people and rules without any checks or balances to his/her power. However, I personally am against the pipeline and hope President Obama will not give an OK to something that looks good on paper (as far as job creation) but would be horrible for the environment.

February 6, 2014 at 10:37 a.m.
PlainTruth said...

Of course you're against it, Shame. No surprise there.

February 6, 2014 at 10:51 a.m.
ibshame said...

An no surprise you would be for it.

This Article gives a list of the Pro and Cons, some will see the Pro side and be for it and that is their privilege.

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001628

February 6, 2014 at 11:09 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

I'm against the pipeline as well.

February 6, 2014 at 11:13 a.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Haslam's program is just another entitlement. There are plenty of programs out there to get people in college. I actually like whoever's idea it was to get some of that money down to the primary and high schools to improve their conditions.

If you remember, Gov. Phil Bredeson had a very similar idea to ole Bill's when he was running for a second term. I guess Bill thought if it worked for him I will try it too.

February 6, 2014 at 12:14 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

ibshame, thanks for the article on the pro's and con's of the pipeline. It was an interesting read. At the present time I would be FOR the pipeline and at the same time FOR R&D of new energy sources. I believe it will be decades before we can find something to totally replace our need for Oil.

I do have one question tho. If it is more difficult to refine the Oil from Canada, would that increase the price at the pump instead of decreasing it? Or would it offset enough to make a difference? I don't really expect anyone to answer that, it is just a question for thought.

February 6, 2014 at 12:34 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Nurse: It's not about the environment, cost of gas, jobs, etc for ibshame & gassy. It's all politics. If the Organizer reversed himself and said the pipeline was gold, the libs would be all over it with praise.

February 6, 2014 at 12:52 p.m.
ibshame said...

"PlainTruth said... Nurse: It's not about the environment, cost of gas, jobs, etc for ibshame & gassy. It's all politics. If the Organizer reversed himself and said the pipeline was gold, the libs would be all over it with praise."

A LONG, LONG TIME AGO IN A DIFFERENT CENTURY, I WAS TAUGHT ECON 101 BY A DR. SPIVEY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE. HE GAVE US MANY TV LECTURES ON THE CONCEPT OF OPPORTUNITY COST. SIMPLY PUT IT'S WHAT YOU ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP TO GET SOMETHING ELSE. While I like the idea of more jobs for the middle class, the pipeline causes more harm to an environment which has already been damaged. This pipeline represents just another disaster waiting to happen. I don't care whether President Obama is for it or against it. The cost to the environment is too high for the sake of the jobs it might create. If nothing else at some point people should worry about the environment we are leaving behind for future generations.

February 6, 2014 at 1:40 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"i'm against the pipeline as well".......lmao!!

February 6, 2014 at 1:46 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Shame, had the same course, from the same guy. Small world. Think he wrote the textbook too. Could be wrong. Long time ago.

February 6, 2014 at 1:55 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

From Americanthinker.com

Germany's wind and solar power generation came to a standstill in late 2013. More than 23,000 wind turbines ran out of wind and most of the one million photovoltaic systems ran out of sunlight. For a whole week, coal, nuclear, and gas-powered plants generated an estimated 95 percent of Germany's electricity.

Britain has 3,500 wind turbines, but during a period of extreme cold they produced just 1.8% of UK's electricity.

When electricity demand peaked at the height of the recent heatwave in Southern Australia, the total power output from the fleet of wind farms across Victoria and South Australia was almost zero. (Wind’s share was .3 to .7% and capacity was 2 to 4%)

Germany has 23,000 wind turbines - they produce an average of about 17% of their installed capacity; on some days, they harvest nothing except subsidies (and they are good at that).

And crucially, both wind and solar energy are very dilute, so large areas of land are required to collect significant energy and to build the spider-web of roads and transmission lines required to connect to each other and to the grid.

Even if we invented magic batteries (small with massive capacity, low cost, no energy losses and everlasting life), the green energy plants would still need to spend over 60% of the energy they generate to charge the batteries in order to produce 24/7 power.

All of this explains why Green Germany is now using more coal than it did in 2009 and its power supply is more expensive and less reliable.

February 6, 2014 at 2:03 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

PT, you continue to amaze with your clear demonstrations of how little you know what you speak of. MANY libs, myself included, are at odds with Obama over his ambiguity over the pipeline. We are not hanging on his every word to decide how we think on this or any other issue. We already know what a complete disaster it would be for this pipeline to get the green light. If he ultimately comes down in favor of it and allows it to proceed, it will be anything BUT praise that he receives from those of us you think "worship" him. It's obvious how out of touch you are with what's really going on.

February 6, 2014 at 2:04 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"Don’t fall for it. If solar or wind were good alternatives, they wouldn’t need political advocates; they’d win out on the market. But solar and wind have been the biggest energy failure of the last century."

"Are fossil fuels dirty? Fossil fuels have fueled the unprecedented industrial progress that doubled the human life expectancy and produced the cleanest, healthiest human environment in history."

http://www.masterresource.org/2013/08/fossil-fuels-improve-the-planet/

February 6, 2014 at 2:05 p.m.
ibshame said...

Yep, he was one of a kind.

February 6, 2014 at 2:05 p.m.
ibshame said...

"Rickaroo said... PT, you continue to amaze with your clear demonstrations of how little you know what you speak of. MANY libs, myself included, are at odds with Obama over his ambiguity over the pipeline. We are not hanging on his every word to decide how we think on any issue"

People like PT will never understand that fact because they usually march in LOCKSTEP with whatever their leaders tell them regardless of whether it is right or wrong. I always thought President Obama should have been pulling troops out of Afghanistan a long, long, long time ago. There shouldn't be any US troops over there now but he didn't do that. I was totally against the invasion of Iraq even though Hillary voted for it and was for it before she turned against it. Right wingers just never get it and more often than not they are the ones who believe you either are with them or "agin" them. LOL

February 6, 2014 at 2:13 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

"complete disaster" rickaroo? Really? Have the 55,000 miles of crude oil pipelines already in existence been a "complete disaster"?

We live in the cleanest environment in history. Made possible by fossil fuels. You're out of touch and don't even know it. And that's pretty funny.

February 6, 2014 at 2:13 p.m.
PlainTruth said...

Roo, there are studies showing no environmental damage will be caused by the pipeline. Including one by your own State Dept. …You're predisposed to go with the ones that support your position. I get it. Human nature. Am I wrong?

February 6, 2014 at 2:21 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

Some real news for you:

Obamacare’s Impact on the Economy

" The main takeaway from today’s report is that the President’s health care law will result in 2 million fewer workers in 2017, 2.3 million in 2021 and 2.5 million through 2024. This is a significant increase from 2011, when CBO said that the law would only destroy 800,000 jobs (That’s a 200% increase)."

"And finally, remember how the President’s health care law was going to end the problem of uninsured Americans. Well, the CBO estimates that, in 2024, there will still be 31 million people in the U.S. without health insurance."

http://americansforprosperity.org/tennessee/newsroom/cbo-says-2-3-million-jobs-lost-to-obamacare/#ixzz2sZVAZPq6

February 6, 2014 at 2:24 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

By Erika Johnsen

The oil-and-gas industry is awash in resources, and while the Keystone XL pipeline would have been the most cost-effective, energy-efficient, safest, cleanest way for Canadian and North Dakotan companies to transport those goods, it is still perfectly profitable for them to find other ways around the bottlenecks that the relative lack of available pipeline infrastructure is creating — namely, railroad.

The eco-lobby’s biggest argument throughout this entire painfully drawn-out episode has been that allowing the pipeline to proceed would exacerbate the onslaught of climate change by allowing Canada to more readily develop their oil sands.

As sane, rational people everywhere have been trying to impress upon these determinedly single-minded eco-radicals, however, the permanent absence of the Keystone XL pipeline will do exactly nothing to stop these companies from developing those resources. Where there’s a will, there’s a way, whether that means using more railroad or shipping their products by sea to the ever-eager buyers in China.

(Remember to bring plenty of marshmallows when the tank cars start derailing and bursting into flames. BTW ... who do you think owns the Burlington Northern R.R. ... could it be one of the Fleabaggers favorite billionaires?)

February 6, 2014 at 2:26 p.m.
TOES02800 said...

More real news:

Email: IRS’s Lerner, Treasury Department secretly drafted new rules to restrict nonprofits

But Madrigal’s email to Lerner proves that the regulations were being developed long before the IRS needed to publicly put anything “to rest.”

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/05/email-irss-lerner-treasury-department-secretly-drafted-new-rules-to-restrict-nonprofits/

But according to Obama, "not a smidgeon of corruption". Lying bastard.

February 6, 2014 at 2:31 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Any innovation, especially one that involves a potentially life-altering transition with not only national but global ramifications, is going to have huge hurdles to overcome. The fact that green energy in all its various forms is experiencing setbacks and obstacles is only par for the course. It is not going to be easy to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, especially when the moneyed interests behind them rule every nook and cranny of our political machine and have so much control over every facet of our lives.

To say that it should be left up to the free market to dictate what form of energy wins out is hogwash, because our "free" market is nowhere close to being free. The capitalism that you RWNJs are so desperately defending is not free market capitalism but crony capitalism that benefits only the corporate fat cats who are running the show.

Like it or not, which direction we go with our energy sources in the near future is going to have to come down to some serious governmental decisions. It is ludicrous to think that if we are going to make any advances as a nation going forward, in the fields of education, economic prosperity, energy production and sustainability, and the overall health of our citizenry, that we can just leave everything up to the whims of the free market - especially when that "free market" is anything but free.

February 6, 2014 at 2:34 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

ibshame said...

This Article gives a list of the Pro and Cons, some will see the Pro side and be for it and that is their privilege.

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001628

And here is the stupidest and most dangerous sentence in the article.

James E. Hansen, PhD, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA

“The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now.”

As an example ... From Forbes.com:

Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists.

Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The latter is Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation.

“He said …the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.”

“Science changed dramatically in the 1970s, when the reward structure in the profession began to revolve around the acquisition of massive amounts of taxpayer funding that was external to the normal budgets of the universities and federal laboratories. In climate science, this meant portraying the issue in dire terms, often in alliance with environmental advocacy organizations.”

“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

February 6, 2014 at 2:50 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

From der spiegel: (A kraut rag)

The EU's reputation as a model of environmental responsibility may soon be history. The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking.

The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

( Sure looks like they have woke up and smelled the lack of sustainable and cost effective energy supplies)

February 6, 2014 at 3:16 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

For those of you who are saying what a great thing this Pipeline will be, how it is environmentally safe, is going to create jobs, and help to make us energy-independent, blah blah blah.... here are a few facts:

It is not really oil that we are talking about but BITUMEN, and it needs to be heated and to have over 200 chemicals added, many of which are toxic and carcinogenic, just to make it flow.

It is 5 times more corrosive to metal than oil and already there have been many tar sands pipelines that have blown out in Canada.

Because it’s bitumen, if it spills in a river or lake, it will sink to the bottom and the only clean-up method available is surface water skimming, which is useless when we're talking about mounds of toxic sludge mixed in with the sediments.

John Boehner and many Republicans and some Democrats have been offered free preferential shares worth potentially millions of dollars each to push it through congress. Free money and damn the consequences.

It’s partly owned by Koch Industries who have an atrocious clean up record, preferring to pay relatively small fines rather than shelling out for very expensive cleanups. So the tax payer gets stuck with the bills for any disasters.

It will cross America’s largest aquifer where half the population gets its drinking water and most agriculture draws water. The dangers here are not just those posed by accidents happening. It would be impossible to secure and defend every stretch of this pipeline from terrorist threat. All it would take would be one explosive strategically placed and that aquifer would be permanently poisoned, crippling most of the nation.

It will not make the US energy independent or self-sufficient, as most will be sold on the world market to the highest bidder. lt won’t even be taxed in transit in the US.

Seeing that it’s mostly bitumen, it will be used for paving roads in South America. Plenty of money will be made, but next to none for the U.S.

It will only create a few thousand 2-year temporary jobs, then only anywhere from 50-100 permanent jobs.

The pipes for the pipeline are being made by Indian labor in India, not Americans in the U.S.

Tar sands are the most polluting form of fossil fuels and the U.S. already produces more oil than it can use, so we are sacrificing our water and environment for foreign interests with little to no reward for the U.S. and at a potentially huge cost to the economy and environment.

The people pushing for this debacle have bought congress by and large so we don’t factor into whether we want it or not. But we will pay dearly when things go wrong and cause catastrophes. And things WILL go wrong.

Canada just wants a free route to ship bitumen to Brazil for refinement. The gas quantity is very low and we are being played for stooges by a very few mostly multinational corporations with no responsibility to or allegiance to the U.S. and they just don't care if disasters unfold.

February 6, 2014 at 3:23 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Ricky it looks like the fact R.R.'s are now and will continue to transport the oil, in the absence of the pipeline, makes almost all of your points mute.

February 6, 2014 at 3:49 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Railway delivery is by no means a done deal. There have already been some severe railway accidents involving transport of this crudest of oil and most of the rail cars that will be used to transport it, if and when it comes to that, are old and of dubious safety standards. In fact, there are many proponents of Keystone making the argument that because rail transport would be so unsafe, the pipeline would prove to be a safer alternative. But the fact is that there is NO way to deliver this sh!t that is safe or even cost effective. It will prove to be nothing but a huge debacle, both environmentally and economically. BTW, the word you are looking for is MOOT, not "mute."

February 6, 2014 at 4:24 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

Railway delivery is by no means a done deal.

It is already being delivered by rail.

There have already been some severe railway accidents involving transport of this crudest of oil and most of the rail cars that will be used to transport it, if and when it comes to that, are old and of dubious safety standards.

Didn’t I just make that point?

In fact, there are many proponents of Keystone making the argument that because rail transport would be so unsafe, the pipeline would prove to be a safer alternative.

That one as well

But the fact is that there is NO way to deliver this sh!t that is safe or even cost effective.

Oh, but there is a way and it’s being done with or without the pipeline.

It will prove to be nothing but a huge debacle, both environmentally and economically.

Then I suggest you not invest in that activity or use any of it’s product ... that’ll show them!

BTW, the word you are looking for is MOOT, not "mute."

Congradulations! ... you did score a point and everyone said you had such little potential.

February 6, 2014 at 4:45 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

Rickaroo said...

It is not really oil that we are talking about but BITUMEN, and it needs to be heated and to have over 200 chemicals added, many of which are toxic and carcinogenic, just to make it flow.

”... 200 chemicals added, many of which are toxic and carcinogenic”. Is that in each process or over the entirety of the different types ... also ... you got a reference to back that up?

It is 5 times more corrosive to metal than oil and already there have been many tar sands pipelines that have blown out in Canada.

I guess they’ll make the R.R. cars out of plastic?

Because it’s bitumen, if it spills in a river or lake, it will sink to the bottom and the only clean-up method available is surface water skimming, which is useless when we're talking about mounds of toxic sludge mixed in with the sediments.

”... surface water skimming” is only method? ... Really? There have been spills in rivers and lakes and they have been cleaned, so I wonder what they would have used? Maybe they just willed it out of the water.

John Boehner and many Republicans and some Democrats have been offered free preferential shares worth potentially millions of dollars each to push it through congress. Free money and damn the consequences.

Sounds criminal to me ... have you got a link for me and the Justice Department?

It’s partly owned by Koch Industries who have an atrocious clean up record, preferring to pay relatively small fines rather than shelling out for very expensive cleanups. So the tax payer gets stuck with the bills for any disasters.

”... Small fines” ... Sounds like administration malfeasance to me.

It will cross America’s largest aquifer where half the population gets its drinking water and most agriculture draws water. The dangers here are not just those posed by accidents happening. It would be impossible to secure and defend every stretch of this pipeline from terrorist threat. All it would take would be one explosive strategically placed and that aquifer would be permanently poisoned, crippling most of the nation.

Wonder what it takes to derail a train?

(cont)

February 6, 2014 at 5:30 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

(cont)

It will not make the US energy independent or self-sufficient, as most will be sold on the world market to the highest bidder. lt won’t even be taxed in transit in the US.

Petroleum and its by-products are a fungible commodities

Seeing that it’s mostly bitumen, it will be used for paving roads in South America. Plenty of money will be made, but next to none for the U.S.

Then why does it have to be transported to refineries in Texas and Louisiana? Why not just send it to the West coast of Canada and placed on ships.

It will only create a few thousand 2-year temporary jobs, then only anywhere from 50-100 permanent jobs.

If it’s jobs you want send it by train. If its relative better safety and economy you want send it by pipeline. It’s going to be sent none the less.

The pipes for the pipeline are being made by Indian labor in India, not Americans in the U.S.


From Blomberg.com:

The 7,000 manufacturing jobs projected by TransCanada will come from making “hundreds of millions of dollars” of steel pipe, fittings, valves and other equipment, according to TransCanada. The company has contracts with more than 50 suppliers in the U.S. The pipeline will require more than 800,000 tons of 36-inch carbon steel pipe, about half of which will be produced outside of the U.S., Skinner said. TransCanada has contracted with Mumbai, India-based Welspun Corp Ltd (WLCO), India’s second-biggest producer of pipes, and Moscow-based Evraz Plc, a Russian steelmaker, for steel pipe. That’s the global marketplace for you ... Learn to swim in it or drown.


Tar sands are the most polluting form of fossil fuels and

It’s all of 2% more so than the product already being used at it’s refinery destination.

the U.S. already produces more oil than it can use

We are ... Really?

February 6, 2014 at 5:34 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

JT, your ignorance is apparent with this statement:

"”... surface water skimming” is only method? ... Really? There have been spills in rivers and lakes and they have been cleaned, so I wonder what they would have used? Maybe they just willed it out of the water."

Google Kalamazoo River oil spill. The spill occurred in 2010 and the river is still in the process of being cleaned.

It baffles me that people have no problem with polluting one of Earth's most precious resources (Fresh Water) under the guise of "energy independence" or "job creation". Look what just happened in WV, would you clowns be willing to drink water from that polluted river?

"Then why does it have to be transported to refineries in Texas and Louisiana? Why not just send it to the West coast of Canada and placed on ships."

Think of the distance saved. Travel routes to SA would be a lot shorter from Texas as opposed to Canada. A ton of savings in fuel costs for ships.

February 6, 2014 at 6:48 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"Nurse: It's not about the environment, cost of gas, jobs, etc for ibshame & gassy. It's all politics. If the Organizer reversed himself and said the pipeline was gold, the libs would be all over it with praise."

I believe Obama will soon be coming out with support for the pipeline. I will think it will be the worst decision of his presidency (right in front of re-authorization of the Patriot Act and not immediately ending both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after he was inaugurated). This pipeline will have next to no effect on the "cost of gas", and those minuscule savings wouldn't even be seen for about a decade.

And let's get one thing out in the open. Unlike you, I am capable of forming my own opinions and I certainly don't need some political party telling me where I should stand on any issue. Your insults and comments only display your lack of any original thought and that you will follow whatever the GOP tells you to follow. Life must suck for a person that has to be told what he should support or oppose from some group of politicians in DC.

February 6, 2014 at 7 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

But Truth you were correct about the "cost of gas" and "jobs" part. I will never believe in poisoning the Earth in the name of saving me a few cents at the pump or creating a couple of thousand jobs. You were dead wrong on the part about the environment, though.

“When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.”

― Cree Prophecy

February 6, 2014 at 7:10 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

GaussianInteger said...

JT, your ignorance is apparent with this statement:

"”... surface water skimming” is only method? ... Really? There have been spills in rivers and lakes and they have been cleaned, so I wonder what they would have used? Maybe they just willed it out of the water."

Google Kalamazoo River oil spill. The spill occurred in 2010 and the river is still in the process of being cleaned.

Are they using “surface water skimming” and if not then there must be other methods available...Right? If so then that would invalidate Ricky’s contention, prove me right, and you the ignorant one or disingenuous at least, in that you took my statement out of context.

It baffles me that people have no problem with polluting one of Earth's most precious resources (Fresh Water) under the guise of "energy independence" or "job creation". Look what just happened in WV, would you clowns be willing to drink water from that polluted river?

It baffles me that you would prop up such a stupid strawman like that and address it to me. In that I have made no argument that there is “no problem with polluting one of Earth's most precious resources (Fresh Water) under the guise of "energy independence" or "job creation".” My whole point has been that the oil is going to market and the pipeline would be preferable to other means.

"Then why does it have to be transported to refineries in Texas and Louisiana? Why not just send it to the West coast of Canada and placed on ships."

Think of the distance saved. Travel routes to SA would be a lot shorter from Texas as opposed to Canada. A ton of savings in fuel costs for ships.

Thanks again for taking my statement out of context. The point was Ricky claimed the oil was destined for refineries in Brazil which is not true. I was pointing out, to him, that if it was destined for Brazil then why send it all the way across the U.S and then load it on ships for Brazil.

Canada could simply build a shorter pipeline to their West coast and the oil could just as easily shipped to Brazil or the Far East which would love to have it. After all the Chinese are undercutting us around the world by signing contracts for oil that we are in competition for. That way Canada would be in complete control and not have to deal with the uncertainty of involving the undependable Obama Administration in the deal.

February 6, 2014 at 7:31 p.m.
Jt6gR3hM said...

GaussianInteger said...

“When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.” ― Cree Prophecy

Is that a direct translation or just a new age interpretation you read on a bumper sticker?

BTW ... what group or organization is proposing to cut down all the trees, kill all the animals, pollute all the water, make all the air unsafe to breathe? Got a link ??

February 6, 2014 at 7:57 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

I believe the majority of the oil will be sent to TX for export. There are plenty of centralized refineries which would allow for it to be more cheaply ship to more markets. Why not just send it there if this is being built mainly for jobs and "US's energy independence"? (As if increasing out imports of CANADIAN oil lessens our dependence on foreign oil). I would say less than 25% will be kept in the US once it's refined.

"Canada could simply build a shorter pipeline to their West coast"

I'm not totally sure of the mileage, but I don't think it would be shorter to build the pipeline to "their West coast". Plus, I am certain that it would have to be built through the Rocky Mountains which would be expensive and probably have a ton of environmental regulations.

February 6, 2014 at 8:03 p.m.
volsam said...

Seems to me the progressives are following the Saul Alinsky playbook perfectly. First you find a financial backer ( George Sorros), then you buy a puppet an election (Obama) then you spend massive amounts of money on hypothetical crises (global warming). The money man then hedges his money against the country's financial system. When the currency falls or totally collapses the money man becomes so rich and gains so much power he becomes the proxy leader. If this sounds familiar it is, it happened in the 1910's.Thats why the Federal Reserve and a small group of bankers took control of our monetary system which they still control. They realized the need for more money so they amended the constitution and instituted a progressive income tax that unfairly taxes the middle class. Tax and spend has turned into borrow and spend. If we continue to spend more money than we take in eventually the Dollar will fall and the consequences will be devastating. This may sound impossible, but that's what the Germans thought right before the rise of Adolf Hitler.

February 6, 2014 at 8:32 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.