Keystone XL pipeline rises from the dead.

[K1052]

I don't understand your logic about how it doesn't serve Americans. Would you oppose building a new airport terminal because Lufthansa was going to use it rather than United? I'm not sure what difference it makes if they aren't an "American company" or how you could argue that it "doesn't serve Americans" because the terminal might be used primarily by Europeans passing through the U.S. on their way to South America.

Likewise, should we not build docks because it only benefits exporters from other countries and only a few dozen longshoreman workers are going to be hired long term?

Well that's a terrible example since Lufthansa is part of Star Alliance and uses United terminals but anyway. If they wanted to build a hub here they should knock themselves out since it will provide easier access for Americans to the rest of the world. You're now trying to move the goalposts with he "primarily" argument. You argued that this infrastructure will serve Americans comparably to rural electrification which happens to exclusively serve Americans. Pick a position and stick with it.

 

[glenn1]

Well that's a terrible example since Lufthansa is part of Star Alliance and uses United terminals but anyway. If they wanted to build a hub here they should knock themselves out since it will provide easier access for Americans to the rest of the world. You're now trying to move the goalposts with he "primarily" argument. You argued that this infrastructure will serve Americans comparably to rural electrification which happens to exclusively serve Americans. Pick a position and stick with it.

Okay fine, what's the minimum threshold of "American benefit" you require to allow basic infrastructure to be built? Let's use the same example of the airport terminal and say it was for the 100% exclusive use of non-Americans, would you oppose it on those grounds? How about 90% non-American? How about 99% American use? Do you not see how ridiculous and artificial of a consideration that is?

 

[K1052]

I don't agree with the premise that an export pipeline serving foreign companies with virtually no benefit to the US qualifies as "basic infrastructure" (along the lines of rural electrification that you used as an example) but I will address your question.

I'd have several questions before making that decision.

1) Who's paying for it?
2) Do you require the use of eminent domain?
3) What are the benefits to the US?

Number two is the major sticking point here IMO. For the government to use eminent domain to help a foreign corporation increase it's profit with negligible benefit to the US is outside the bounds of acceptability. I'm frankly amused that so many "conservatives" are for a project that relies a mechanism that is the embodies opposite of what they profess to believe.

 

[glenn1]

I don't agree with the premise that an export pipeline serving foreign companies with virtually no benefit to the US qualifies as "basic infrastructure" (along the lines of rural electrification that you used as an example) but I will address your question.

I'd have several questions before making that decision.

1) Who's paying for it?
2) Do you require the use of eminent domain?
3) What are the benefits to the US?

Number two is the major sticking point here IMO. For the government to use eminent domain to help a foreign corporation increase it's profit with negligible benefit to the US is outside the bounds of acceptability. I'm frankly amused that so many "conservatives" are for a project that relies a mechanism that is the embodies opposite of what they profess to believe.

So you'd rather the product travel instead on the railroads, which were built and financed primarily by foreign companies and used eminent domain and land grants and for uses that often weren't to "benefit the U.S."? Hell, should we not have built the Alaska Highway since it mostly benefits Canadians anyway, or should Canada refused to allow us to since "it will only create a few long term jobs"?

 

[Thebobo]

And he's looking at Sarah Palin for the Department of the Interior!
.

Lol OMG just like James Watt during the Reagan Administration who was run out of Washington with a golden shoe. It was For his mouth...

Also
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition

 

[K1052]

So you'd rather the product travel instead on the railroads, which were built and financed primarily by foreign companies and used eminent domain and land grants and for uses that often weren't to "benefit the U.S."? Hell, should we not have built the Alaska Highway since it mostly benefits Canadians anyway, or should Canada refused to allow us to since "it will only create a few long term jobs"?

Ok back to trains now I guess.

Start citing that the US rail network was foreign built. Yes rail companies were often awarded handsome land grants by the federal government which made them rich, though their utility to Americans would seem to fulfill my third requirement pretty well.

 

[glenn1]

Ok back to trains now I guess.

Start citing that the US rail network was foreign built. Yes rail companies were often awarded handsome land grants by the federal government which made them rich, though their utility to Americans would seem to fulfill my third requirement pretty well.

I would think the fact that Americans use a shitload of petroleum products (which this pipeline supplies) would fulfill it pretty well also. American oil refineries having crude product isn't enough of a third requirement fulfillment for you?

 

[K1052]

I would think the fact that Americans use a shitload of petroleum products (which this pipeline supplies) would fulfill it pretty well also. American oil refineries having crude product isn't enough of a third requirement fulfillment for you?

No, it isn't. The pipeline will actually redirect oil from refineries in the upper Midwest that produce product for American consumption at favorable pricing to ones in the gulf hat will export product for foreign consumption. If anything the project is a substantial negative for Americans from that perspective.

 

[Darwin333]

No, it isn't. The pipeline will actually redirect oil from refineries in the upper Midwest that produce product for American consumption at favorable pricing to ones in the gulf hat will export product for foreign consumption. If anything the project is a substantial negative for Americans from that perspective.

That is definitely a valid issue but one that I would figure would be rather easy to negotiate to ensure that it doesn't happen.

 

[ivwshane]

No, it isn't. The pipeline will actually redirect oil from refineries in the upper Midwest that produce product for American consumption at favorable pricing to ones in the gulf hat will export product for foreign consumption. If anything the project is a substantial negative for Americans from that perspective.

You have the patience of a saint!