Quid's cancelling of the Keystone XL phase 4 extension costs 11 thousand jobs . Quid said at the time that cancelling the pipeline is in the US interest because our allowing the pipeline to be built (basically improving a pipeline that is already in existence ) would “undermine U.S. climate leadership by undercutting the credibility and influence of the United States in urging other countries to take ambitious climate action.”

Part of US leadership is honoring terms of treaties . TC Energy ;the company that owns the pipeline filed suit claiming that cancelling the deal violates US obligations under NAFTA. TC has a good case . They invested $9 billion under the assurances that their investment was protected under the US permit . After years of environmental and other reviews, that was a reasonable conclusion. Quid's cancel was on a whim with no review or comment period by TC Energy and other interested parties

The real question besides the probable loss of $15 billion that will have to be paid to TC Energy is how can investors trust their investments will be honored and not terminated based on the political winds in America ? Without a NAFTA arbitration , Canadian investors will be helpless against Quid's environmental policy since a lawsuit against a U.S. President in U.S.courts has little chance.

What this tells Canadian and Mexican trading partners (with Canada being the largest US trading partner ) is that their investments in the US are unprotected without 3rd party trade agreement arbitration.

But take heart . If the US loses the suit (which it probably will ) .The sale of Hunter Biden art should be able to cover the $15 billion. <sarc>

Very few pols, and certainly no liberal dem pols, are concerned anymore about 15 billion dollars. There was a time when it would have meant either raising taxes or cutting spending somewhere else, actions that most pols dislike. Now, in the happy days of monopoly money, it's no problem. Just write them a check. The liberal news media will deep six the story, and all will be well...for now.

Building the pipeline has a beginning and end for jobs for construction workers. The alternative, trucking the oil, gives unending jobs to drivers, motels/hotels, restaurants/diners/fast-food places, et al.

Better yet, if we transported it all in pickup trucks, a couple hundred gallons at a time, then we'd have a lot more jobs and a lot more economic activity. Correct?

Better yet, if we transported it all in pickup trucks, a couple hundred gallons at a time, then we'd have a lot more jobs and a lot more economic activity. Correct?
No, too dangerous.

Plus, trucking it means the pipeline won't be under indigenous lands and private property/farmland that had been grabbed via eminent domain.

Not to mention pipeline leaks and breaks....

I can only assume you are joking. No one asserts that trucking oil is safer or more economical than a pipeline.

Okay. Then put the oil on trains.

Another more expensive, more dangerous, and less eco-friendly solution. Pipelines are far and away the most sensible alternative. But as I understand it, that is exactly how the oil is being moved. The question concerns what the Biden admin thought it was accomplishing by cancelling the remainder of the pipeline project.

by cancelling the remainder of the pipeline project.
He stopped U.S. land theft by a Canadian company.

nope almost all the land for phase 4 was already purchased by TC Energy .The only hold up before Quid's dictate was permitting and some litigation delaying it .

nope almost all the land for phase 4 was already purchased by TC Energy .The only hold up before Quid's dictate was permitting and some litigation delaying it .
Part of its route was to be over the Sandhills in Nebraska. Thank goodness Biden revoked the permit for the pipeline on his first day in office. On June 9, 2021, the project was abandoned by TC Energy. Only 8% of the pipeline was constructed. (Wikipedia)

Part of its route was to be over the Sandhills in Nebraska.How is that significant?

Only 8% of the pipeline was constructed.I don't think that's even remotely true.

$15 billion loss to American taxpayers when the law suit is settled not including 11,000 lot jobs ... Great Job Quid ! AND Alberta Canada is likely to either join the suit or file on their own joining 21 other states that have filed .

$15 billion loss to American taxpayers when the law suit is settled not including 11,000 lot jobs ... Great Job Quid ! AND Alberta Canada is likely to either join the suit or file on their own joining 21 other states that have filed .
But the lands and especially the safety of Canadian and US indigenous peoples and farmers/ranchers have been preserved. What's more important, wealth or humanity?

what a pant load ! Safety was the least issue . You worry about safety when the alternative is Warren Buffett trains ;trucking ,or sending the oil to the Canadian Pacific coast to be refined in less safe Asian plants ?

what a pant load ! Safety was the least issue
Yup, safety for environmental reasons (pollution, water contamination, etc.), disturbance of historical and archeological sites, demolition of burial sites, pipeline workers infiltrating both indigenous and Caucasian settlements to rape and rob. What's more important, wealth or humanity?

There was never any safety threat to indigenous peoples or ranchers. It’s just lib dem propaganda.

It’s all just unsubstantiated nonsense.

There was never any safety threat to indigenous peoples or ranchers. It’s just lib dem propaganda.

It’s all just unsubstantiated nonsense.
Put on your google hat and do some honest research.

You have family members living anywhere near Houston or Port Arthur?

Put on your google hat and do some honest research.And yet once again, you cannot back up your claims, so you desperately want someone else to do it. No thanks.


Yup, safety for environmental reasons (pollution, water contamination, etc.), disturbance of historical and archeological sites, demolition of burial sites, pipeline workers infiltrating both indigenous and Caucasian settlements to rape and rob.Simply untrue.

And yet once again, you cannot back up your claims, so you desperately want someone else to do it. No thanks.
I posted mine. Yours is apparently based on your bitter and unloving nastiness.

Simply untrue.
You are sooooo out of touch!

I posted mine. Yours is apparently based on your bitter and unloving nastiness.If you posted yours, then why did you ask me to research it for you? Come on. Try being honest.


You are sooooo out of touch!
Says the lady who has absolutely nothing to back up her claims.


Yup, safety for environmental reasons (pollution, water contamination, etc.), disturbance of historical and archeological sites, demolition of burial sites, pipeline workers infiltrating both indigenous and Caucasian settlements to rape and rob. What's more important, wealth or humanity?This is just silly. Show us where any of that has happened in the past twenty years. You're still living in the day of the snail darter. And those clever pipeline workers with that "infiltrating" of communities to rob and rape!! Feeling kind of dramatic today?

If you posted yours, then why did you ask me to research it for you? Come on. Try being honest.
The song "Twist and Shout" must have been written with you in mind. Nowhere did I ask you to research it for ME. I was hoping YOU would do some honest research for your own edification.


And those clever pipeline workers with that "infiltrating" of communities to rob and rape!! Feeling kind of dramatic today?
Read up on "man camps".

And why would I want to research it for me? You are the one making the silly claims. Do your own research, if you can. I rather doubt it.


Read up on "man camps".And again. You make a silly claim, and then ask someone else to research it. What's wrong with you???

And why would I want to research it for me? You are the one making the silly claims. Do your own research, if you can. I rather doubt it.

And again. You make a silly claim, and then ask someone else to research it. What's wrong with you???
I never realized you are so afraid to learn the truth. If I had given you links, you would have (and have in the past) spit on them. Do your own research.

Read up on "man camps".

I did that. Anybody interested should do the same.

I never realized you are so afraid to learn the truth. If I had given you links, you would have (and have in the past) spit on them. Do your own research.One more time. I will not do your research for you. If you post something sensible, it will be acknowledged as such. If you post nothing, that will be treated differently as well it should be. If you post silliness, such as suggesting that trucks should replace pipelines, then that will be noted as well.

Up to you.

One more time. I will not do your research for you.
I posted my source. You haven't supported anything you've posted.

If you post something sensible, it will be acknowledged as such.
By whose standards?

If you post nothing, that will be treated differently as well it should be. If you post silliness, such as suggesting that trucks should replace pipelines, then that will be noted as well.

Up to you.
I posted, supported it with a reference, whereas you're just babbling on and on. Who's the silly one?

seems like a job for police

Yup, safety for environmental reasons (pollution, water contamination, etc.), disturbance of historical and archeological sites, demolition of burial sites, pipeline workers infiltrating both indigenous and Caucasian settlements to rape and rob. What's more important, wealth or humanity?You have posted nothing to support any of that. You have posted nothing to support your idea that trucks should replace pipelines. You made a referenece to Wikipedia concerning Keystone. That's fine, but there has been nothing to support what I've talked about above. You have done nothing but tell everyone but WG to look it up on the internet such as, "Put on your google hat and do some honest research." Then you claimed you haven't asked me to do your research. Then you claimed you posted your source. And on and on it goes.

Are you always this confused?

Are you always this confused?
Always, always, always a putdown.

It was ALL from the Wikipedia article. Had there been other references, I would have posted links.

Always, always, always a putdown.
You mean, you mean, you mean like this? "...whereas you're just babbling on and on. Who's the silly one?"


Had there been other references, I would have posted links.You didn't post any links at all. None. Zero. Nada. You just made a vague reference to a Wikipedia article.

You mean like this? "...whereas you're just babbling on and on. Who's the silly one?"
Oh no. I've caught your disease!

You didn't post any links at all. None.
I posted Wikipedia in parentheses after a paragraph about the pipeline. My following comments were from that same article. You would have noticed that had you bothered to read the article.

I had to find the article since you posted no link. I saw nothing to confirm your assertions. Perhaps you can provide the relevant quotes?

I had to find the article since you posted no link. I saw nothing to confirm your assertions. Perhaps you can provide the relevant quotes?
If you read the article, you read my comments.

Fraid not.

Read the article. Your comments, however, seemed to be strangely absent.

I do. You don’t.

It’s difficult. All of your multiple sources and references are so lengthy. (Sarcasm meter on overload).

Yep. Frustrated because she does not know how to provide sources. Try this link. Just right click it and it will take you to that site. Not literally, you understand, but digitally. Keep working at it. You're making progress. Well not really, but I do want to be as encouraging as possible.

https://scholar.google.com/

WG, we just don't play well together. I realize I come across as overly critical. I find it irritating to ask for some sort of support for your ideas and get a response to the effect that I should do a google search. Your ideas are yours and you are welcome to them, but you needn't ask me to accept them without some sort of verification. And a vague reference to some Wiki article out there somewhere just doesn't really work. It would seem easy enough to provide some quotes IF you are genuinely using the article as your source.

I guess a request that you provide support for your ideas is not what you are accustomed to. I just figured that having been a librarian, you would find it second nature.

ah the assumption or the projection. Just because you want every statement justified, doesn't mean the rest of us can't have opinions. I know you hate my statements just as much as those of WG becuase I don't do your work for you. If you want to refute an argument, do your own research

Reading comprehension and critical thinking must not be taught in Australia.


Just because you want every statement justified, doesn't mean the rest of us can't have opinions.Exactly what I said above.


I know you hate my statements just as much as those of WG becuase I don't do your work for you. If you want to refute an argument, do your own researchI don't hate anyone's statements, but if you think it's my work to do research to back up your statements, then you're nuts. And aren't you the one who's always whining about my use of data and stats, otherwise known as the result of research I've done to support my own views?

as you should, but you often misused statistics.

What is taught in Australia is don't listen to any ole mug

as you should, but you often misused statistics.I think you consider any statistic which disproves one of your beliefs to be a misused stat. It actually doesn't work that way.