Obama administration will reject Keystone XL pipeline

[zinfamous]

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.

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

No one has been able to tell me why we should bear the cost and liability to construct a service that will benefit no Americans.

We won't have any access to this gas and no matter where that pipeline goes, it still won't effect energy costs for us in any way.

It will create a few thousand contract jobs for maybe half a year, then permanent jobs for a dozen or so people to monitor the pipeline.

So, one party and their followers believe that we need to spend our money and resources to create 12 actual jobs (and I'm guessing mostly for Canadians), absorb the liability and costs when the pipeline leaks or bursts, support filthy extraction that creates earthquakes when we pump the runoff water back into the ground, and well, get no benefit in the end.

Yeah, real winner there, folks. I would be shocked to think that there is anyone dumb enough to have ever thought this was a good idea for the US, but then there are many republicans in this country.

 

[zinfamous]

So take out Government Power. Then no one need be afraid.

-John

I think it's time to contact your ISP and get a breathalizer installed that keeps your access deactivated until you do a quick breath test.

 

[1prophet]

Funny, people and especially republicans are ALL FOR THIS pipeline.... EXCEPT ..... when they start digging in their back yards to install it.
Here in my republican state another pipeline coming thru has republicans ALL UP IN ARMS against this "other" pipeline because they (republicans) realized it would in fact come thru their neighborhoods. And THAT fact did not sit well with them.
Funny how that works.....

No different than liberal democrats that are all for alternative energy until solar panels or windmills obstruct their scenic views, but if you really want to see them squirm try to put low income housing in their lily white liberal neighborhoods.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...will-turn-liberal-cities-conservative/398642/

 

[Newell Steamer]

Damn Liberals. Damn Eco-Kooks!

Why don't they allow foreign private companies to come in and take American citizen's land for profits!? Plus, it's safer! Who knows safety for America better than a foreign private company that operates for profit and has the right (via our govt.) to take our land!?

Unbelievable!

King Obama continues to abuse the American people by not allowing a foreign private company to abuse the American people.

//mockery

No, really guys, you are the epitome of corporate cheerleaders. It is insane how much trust, faith and support you put behind a group of people who want nothing more than more money.

 

[Genx87]

No one has been able to tell me why we should bear the cost and liability to construct a service that will benefit no Americans.

We won't have any access to this gas and no matter where that pipeline goes, it still won't effect energy costs for us in any way.

It will create a few thousand contract jobs for maybe half a year, then permanent jobs for a dozen or so people to monitor the pipeline.

So, one party and their followers believe that we need to spend our money and resources to create 12 actual jobs (and I'm guessing mostly for Canadians), absorb the liability and costs when the pipeline leaks or bursts, support filthy extraction that creates earthquakes when we pump the runoff water back into the ground, and well, get no benefit in the end.

Yeah, real winner there, folks. I would be shocked to think that there is anyone dumb enough to have ever thought this was a good idea for the US, but then there are many republicans in this country.

Who bears the economic costs when these trains carrying oil derail? I dont believe this pipeline will lower the cost of gasoline. But it will make transporting oil that is going to our refineries anyways safer.

 

[Wreckem]

Who bears the economic costs when these trains carrying oil derail? I dont believe this pipeline will lower the cost of gasoline. But it will make transporting oil that is going to our refineries anyways safer.

You act as if the Keystone XL is the only pipeline project. Its the only one that got caught up in State Department review. TransCanada's competitors have been building away because they got around the pesky review process.

 

[Sonikku]

Republicans getting uppity again about American's interests coming before the interests of the beloved corporate machine. If anything, Obama's rejection doesn't go far enough. Even if this one gets stymied, with more being built, the elite have basically won at skewing government to their benefit at the expense of everyone else once again. Sad thing is, if rejecting this one single pipeline caused this much GoP blowback, I can't even imagine what Obama would be dealing with if he dropped with the halfhearted counters and doubled down on the whole thing.

 

[feralkid]

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

Don't worry, you'll still have your kool-aid.

 

[Genx87]

You act as if the Keystone XL is the only pipeline project. Its the only one that got caught up in State Department review. TransCanada's competitors have been building away because they got around the pesky review process.

Well of course. Which imo highlights the stupidity to draw a line in the sand with this project.

 

[cubby1223]

No one has been able to tell me why we should bear the cost and liability to construct a service that will benefit no Americans.

Why don't they allow foreign private companies to come in and take American citizen's land for profits!? Plus, it's safer! Who knows safety for America better than a foreign private company that operates for profit and has the right (via our govt.) to take our land!?

Seriously, has the whole world "forgotten" that taxes would be collected by state and local governments for however long the pipeline is in use?

 

[boomerang]

So that oil will be moved by rail with the usual results. Our petulant President is concerned more with his legacy than the environment and the economy. 439 days left.

 

[Sonikku]

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

And all because Obama rejected one pipeline. This is what would eventually herald the beginning of the end for the United States of America.

#WeWillNeverForget

 

[zinfamous]

Who bears the economic costs when these trains carrying oil derail? I dont believe this pipeline will lower the cost of gasoline. But it will make transporting oil that is going to our refineries anyways safer.

I believe the contract for Keystone removed liability from Canadian agencies if something happened with the pipeline.

Now, if such a disaster happens with a train that is rumbling through the US, now the US and states of the US can sue those fucks into oblivion if one of their trains tips over. So while it doesn't remove the prospect of disaster, rejecting the pipeline at least returns liability to where it belongs.

 

[K1052]

It makes as much sense as claiming that the XL Pipeline would contribute to "Climate Change".

The oil is going to market if not through a pipeline, trucks and trains. No difference, just the administration's BS excuse.

Extracting bitumen from sand is an extremely energy intensive and dirty way to get oil. If there is no good way to get a lot more of it to market without expensive (rail tanking, which is also much lower volume) of delivery then it is a less attractive source to develop. That the carbon footprint of this extraction is significantly greater than basically any other method is not really in dispute. From that standpoint I can see how it's disapproval would be consistent with the environmental policy of the administration.

 

[WackyDan]

Republicans getting uppity again about American's interests coming before the interests of the beloved corporate machine. If anything, Obama's rejection doesn't go far enough. Even if this one gets stymied, with more being built, the elite have basically won at skewing government to their benefit at the expense of everyone else once again. Sad thing is, if rejecting this one single pipeline caused this much GoP blowback, I can't even imagine what Obama would be dealing with if he dropped with the halfhearted counters and doubled down on the whole thing.

They made it a political issue. THEY being both the republicans and democrats. This wasn't an honest fight...

What we have seen for the last several years is two political parties drag out an issue so that they could extort the most amount of campaign cash and favors for both parties.

If you think this was republicans vs democrats, you are mistaken as they were on the same team. This was indeed gov't versus corporation and the american people.

 

[umbrella39]

If it's such a great thing, why aren't Canadians building on Canadian soil and employing Canadian workers, and shipping it out of Canadian ports.

 

[Jhhnn]

No different than liberal democrats that are all for alternative energy until solar panels or windmills obstruct their scenic views, but if you really want to see them squirm try to put low income housing in their lily white liberal neighborhoods.

http://www.citylab.com/politics/201...will-turn-liberal-cities-conservative/398642/

Nice bit of projection. What is it that you're talking about other than this, from your link?-

Edsall points to Westchester County in New York for evidence that Republicans can pick up seats in white liberal jurisdictions by exploiting fear and hate.

That's apparently what it takes to sell "conservative values".

 

[K1052]

If it's such a great thing, why aren't Canadians building on Canadian soil and employing Canadian workers, and shipping it out of Canadian ports.

Such projects have been proposed in Canada but ran into major public opposition. Harper largely championed them and now that's out of office it's questionable they will ever proceed.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

You got us there. Why support any pipeline or energy infrastructure? Lets shut it all down as it clearly doesn't benefit us.

 

[Bowfinger]

Seriously, has the whole world "forgotten" that taxes would be collected by state and local governments for however long the pipeline is in use?

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

The taxes paid on the pipeline are dwarfed by the increased energy prices in the Upper Midwest (up to about $3.9 billion per year, according to TransCanada's own study). While that may be a net win for one or two states, it's a big hit on consumers and businesses in the region.

 

[Bowfinger]

You got us there. Why support any pipeline or energy infrastructure? Lets shut it all down as it clearly doesn't benefit us.

I'll ask you again. 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. It also increases energy costs in the Upper Midwest by up to $3.9 billion per year (according to TransCanada's own study). All for a few dozen permanent U.S. jobs. Why is this a good thing? Why should Americans support it?

 

[Brainonska511]

You got us there. Why support any pipeline or energy infrastructure? Lets shut it all down as it clearly doesn't benefit us.

Of perhaps we should look at it on a case by case basis. A pipeline that brings Canadian oil to the gulf for export doesn't sound like infrastructure that substantially benefits us. Canada has its own ports, why not build such a pipeline in their own territory?

Now, if it was a pipeline to our refineries and was going only to the NA market, perhaps we would want to take another look at it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Of perhaps we should look at it on a case by case basis. A pipeline that brings Canadian oil to the gulf for export doesn't sound like infrastructure that substantially benefits us. Canada has its own ports, why not build such a pipeline in their own territory?

Now, if it was a pipeline to our refineries and was going only to the NA market, perhaps we would want to take another look at it.

And was it rejected on that basis? No. The President is very specific that he rejected it for CO2. For Climate Change.

A President with American interests would demand imported oil serve American interests, and we'd have it done.

 

[K1052]

And was it rejected on that basis? No. The President is very specific that he rejected it for CO2. For Climate Change.

A President with American interests would demand imported oil serve American interests, and we'd have it done.

From the article:

Listing the reasons why the State Department recommended rejecting the pipeline, Obama highlighted his administration's analysis that the project "would not make a meaningful, long-term contribution to our economy."

Additionally, Obama said the State Department believed the pipeline would not lower gas prices for american consumers (and he pointed to the recent decrease in the cost of gas to consumers). Obama also said that "shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America's energy security," seeking to rebut one of the frequent arguments for the Keystone XL project.

The Canadians would never have agreed to limit to the US market. It is far more profitable to send oil to Texas, refine it, then ship products out by tanker to foreign markets. This was the major impetus for the project.

 

[cubby1223]

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

The taxes paid on the pipeline are dwarfed by the increased energy prices in the Upper Midwest (up to about $3.9 billion per year, according to TransCanada's own study). While that may be a net win for one or two states, it's a big hit on consumers and businesses in the region.

The $3.9b number is the estimated increased revenues to Canada's energy industry with this pipeline in place. I searched google and found about a dozen different interpretations over just what this means. If you think that means the Upper-Midwest will be paying the full sum in extra costs, it's no use discussing anything ever with you Some people are estimating that if Canada diverts as much oil as it can away from other oil refineries in the U.S., and through the Keystone XL, and all onto the world export market, gas prices will increase around 40 cents per gallon in some U.S. states. It is quite simple for the U.S. government to enforce that this scenario will not happen.


How about the scenario that Canada builds a pipeline to their Pacific border and fills it with oil for export? Then we pay the full brunt of the increased prices AND have no tax revenue to show for it. Have you no ability to think things through? They build the pipeline through their land, the U.S. cannot enforce any terms.


tl;dr
stop acting like you know what you're talking about, and begin actually learning about these subjects.