Obama administration will reject Keystone XL pipeline

[K1052]

President Barack Obama is scheduled to deliver a statement on the pipeline decision from the White House at 11:45 a.m. ET.

Obama is expected to tie the refusal to climate change issues, Dow Jones reported, citing sources. That refusal comes after Secretary of State John Kerry recommended against the pipeline, according to Reuters sources.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/06/obama-administration-will-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-report.html

Not a giant shock but he was expected to wait a while instead of shoving it right in the bin. Transcanada asked to suspend their permit application a few days ago.

 

[OutHouse]

i dont understand this other than being a politial shit show. I live in Eastern colorado and there are pipelines both oil and natural gas pipelines being put in the ground all over the place. one of them being put down is connecting Wyoming to Central Texas.

 

[Genx87]

i dont understand this other than being a politial shit show. I live in Eastern colorado and there are pipelines both oil and natural gas pipelines being put in the ground all over the place. one of them being put down is connecting Wyoming to Central Texas.

We would think this is the only pipeline constructed if we listened to those opposed to it. We have thousands of miles of pipeline and many more being built as we speak. But this one got the target on its back. What a success for the left.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Bold move.

How about a statement on a special DOJ task force to investigate all these out of control police?

 

[Jaskalas]

We're headed for a dystopian future where energy is only for the rich and powerful. In the name of Climate Change.

 

[K1052]

We're headed for a dystopian future where energy is only for the rich and powerful. In the name of Climate Change.

I'm not entirely sure how not helping a Canadian company bring their product to market when they have two perfectly good coasts to utilize constitutes charting a course to a dystopian future.

 

[Jaskalas]

If attacking Keystone XL saves the planet from Climate Change, then supporting it saves our energy grid.

 

[K1052]

If attacking Keystone XL saves the planet from Climate Change, then supporting it saves our energy grid.

So you're just going to post nonsense then?

 

[Strk]

I can understand the eminent domain stuff because of it (I'd reject it on that basis), but environmentally? The oil is moving regardless whether by another pipeline or train, with the latter being a terrible transport method.

 

[Jaskalas]

So you're just going to post nonsense then?

Presidential quality nonsense, if that's what you want to call it.
Ask them why Keystone must be shut down, they'll tell you to look at the big picture. Got to make a difference one piece at a time. They want to save the planet from Keystone XL.

The nonsense starts with this administration.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We're headed for a dystopian future where energy is only for the rich and powerful. In the name of Climate Change.

The oil isn't being used now? I believe it is being used in Canada and parts of the Midwest. The pipeline makes it easier to export it to China who doesn't give a crap about where it came from.
If you want to make the pipeline fair don't use immanent domain to force it, make the oil company negotiate or give every impacted land owner a cut of the revenue that flows thru the pipe.

 

[Bowfinger]

Presidential quality nonsense, if that's what you want to call it.
Ask them why Keystone must be shut down, they'll tell you to look at the big picture. Got to make a difference one piece at a time. They want to save the planet from Keystone XL.

The nonsense starts with this administration.

Flip that around. Why must Keystone be built?

It increases profits for a Canadian company that wants to sell an especially dirty and damaging carbon-based energy product. In so doing, it adds material risk of environmental contamination to parts of this country. All for a few dozen permanent U.S. jobs. Why is this a good thing? Why should Americans support it?

 

[Genx87]

Flip that around. Why must Keystone be built?

It increases profits for a Canadian company that wants to sell an especially dirty and damaging carbon-based energy product. In so doing, it adds material risk of environmental contamination to parts of this country. All for a few dozen permanent U.S. jobs. Why is this a good thing? Why should Americans support it?

So where do you or we believe this oil is going to be refined? afaik it is still going to be refined in the United States. But will now have to be transported via rail. And they were going to add Baaken oil into this pipeline.

Instead that oil will continue to be transported by rail. Which has only killed dozens of people so far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-from-bakken-region-burns-day-after-accident

Crude trains, which travel through crowded communities such as Chicago suburbs and New York state neighborhoods, have increased 40-fold since 2009 to 493,000 last year. Much of the crude originates in the Bakken because of insufficient pipelines to move the oil to refineries on the coasts.
Canadian oil will continue to be shipped by rail cars if pipelines, such as the Keystone XL line, aren’t built, the Canadian government has said. Some U.S. Republicans have cited the recent fiery derailments as an argument in favor of approving the divisive $8 billion Keystone proposal. The U.S. Senate on Wednesday failed to override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill forcing approval of the U.S.-Canada oil link, a setback for Republicans who’ve made building it a legislative priority.

http://flatheadbeacon.com/2015/07/17/crude-oil-train-derails-in-rural-northeastern-montana/
The above story has a nice timeline of recent crashes.


400,000 gallons of crude spilled.
http://www.startribune.com/ntsb-400-000-gallons-of-crude-spilled-in-casselton-train-wreck/239948631/

Pipelines are the safest way to move this product. This is how a sizeable % of oil is moved around the world.

This whole ordeal is such a clusterfuck. I bet most people dont understand what Obama banned was phase 4. The other 3 phases have already been completed.

 

[Bowfinger]

So where do you or we believe this oil is going to be refined? afaik it is still going to be refined in the United States. But will now have to be transported via rail. And they were going to add Baaken oil into this pipeline.

Instead that oil will continue to be transported by rail. Which has only killed dozens of people so far https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...n-from-bakken-region-burns-day-after-accident




http://flatheadbeacon.com/2015/07/17/crude-oil-train-derails-in-rural-northeastern-montana/
The above story has a nice timeline of recent crashes.


400,000 gallons of crude spilled.
http://www.startribune.com/ntsb-400-000-gallons-of-crude-spilled-in-casselton-train-wreck/239948631/

Pipelines are the safest way to move this product. This is how a large % of oil is moved around the world.

This whole ordeal is such a clusterfuck. I bet most people dont understand what Obama banned was phase 4. The other 3 phases have already been completed.

Your whole argument presumes that it's inevitable this oil will be transported to the Gulf region. That is not a given. It can continue to be sold to refineries in Canada and the Upper Midwest. It can also just sit in the ground because it's not cost-competitive with other products.

 

[Genx87]

Your whole argument presumes that it's inevitable this oil will be transported to the Gulf region. That is not a given. It can continue to be sold to refineries in Canada and the Upper Midwest. It can also just sit in the ground because it's not cost-competitive with other products.

This oil is being transported to mid west refineries right now. It may also end up in Gulf refineries. The point is the plan right now the oil is going to US refineries. And until that changes and this pipeline gets built rail will be used instead to transport this oil. Which carries far greater risks than a pipeline. It is an embarrassing position to take for those on the green left that building this pipeline is worse than transporting it via rail. And doubly so given 3 of 4 phases have already be completed. With each new derailment their argument gets weaker.

 

[cubby1223]

Flip that around. Why must Keystone be built?

It increases profits for a Canadian company that wants to sell an especially dirty and damaging carbon-based energy product. In so doing, it adds material risk of environmental contamination to parts of this country. All for a few dozen permanent U.S. jobs. Why is this a good thing? Why should Americans support it?

They sure got you hook, line, and sinker...

 

[Bowfinger]

They sure got you hook, line, and sinker...

So, you've got nothing. Thanks for playing. Grab your Participant!!! ribbon on the way out.

 

[Bowfinger]

This oil is being transported to mid west refineries right now. It may also end up in Gulf refineries. The point is the plan right now the oil is going to US refineries. And until that changes and this pipeline gets built rail will be used instead to transport this oil. Which carries far greater risks than a pipeline. It is an embarrassing position to take for those on the green left that building this pipeline is worse than transporting it via rail. And doubly so given 3 of 4 phases have already be completed. With each new derailment their argument gets weaker.

It's planned for the Gulf ... IF Keystone XL is built. It remains to be seen how cost-effective that will be without the new pipeline. It will certainly be an incentive to continue selling the product in Canada and the Upper Midwest, which is to U.S. advantage.

 

[werepossum]

While I support Keystone XL, it's a great time to officially kill it. I seriously doubt that right now it would generate enough profit to pay for the last phase of the pipeline. With gas considerably below $2.00 in most of the nation, I can't see the Pubbies generating much public wrath at the cancelation. When oil is back up, a future President can always allow it to be completed. (Assuming we ever again have a Republican President, I mean; I can't imagine a Democrat President doing other than telling us all to pound sand.) In the mean time, Democrats can point to their proud accomplishment in making this oil's refinement use far more energy, which obviously helps fight global warming . . . somehow.

 

[PokerGuy]

I dislike the use of eminent domain, but other than that this project would do nothing but make the transportation of the oil safer and more convenient. This is nothing more than the usual rampant stupidity of the left enamored with symbolic actions rather than actual logical solutions.

 

[K1052]

It's planned for the Gulf ... IF Keystone XL is built. It remains to be seen how cost-effective that will be without the new pipeline. It will certainly be an incentive to continue selling the product in Canada and the Upper Midwest, which is to U.S. advantage.

From a purely economic standpoint the US has little self-interest in making it easier to get Canadian diluted bitumen to gulf refineries.

 

[Enigmoid]

I dislike the use of eminent domain, but other than that this project would do nothing but make the transportation of the oil safer and more convenient. This is nothing more than the usual rampant stupidity of the left enamored with symbolic actions rather than actual logical solutions.

Yep.

"Oh my god pipelines are dangerous and can leak and pollute the environment and require passage through environmentally unsafe lands..."

"Lets ship all this crude by much more expensive, much less safe railways."

 

[Franz316]

Transcanada suspended their request for the permit a few days ago so either they knew Obama was going to cancel it, or they cancelled it and made Obama's decision a lot easier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...r-permit-to-build-keystone-pipeline.html?_r=0

 

[glenn1]

From a purely economic standpoint the US has little self-interest in making it easier to get Canadian diluted bitumen to gulf refineries.

Other than safer transport of the product to avoid things like explosions and burning down Chicago or other major cities that rail lines pass through?

http://www.sightline.org/2015/05/06/oil-train-explosions-a-timeline-in-pictures/

 

[Victorian Gray]

They sure got you hook, line, and sinker...

And your reasons for supporting the pipeline are? The benefits for Americans and the country at large are?