Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[PokerGuy]

shoving this decision time frame into an earlier bill it had no place being in and with no time for a full and proper review

The timeline had nothing to do with "proper review", and everything to do with wanting to wait until after the election. Just like with obamacare, the administration wanted to hide the true impact of their stupidity until its too late for the public to fix the problem. In this case, they failed.

 

[kage69]

The first part is something that would need to be addressed. As I've said regulations that would stop the flow in short order isn't a great feat. That could (and should) have been addressed, but I would disagree that it's within the proper role of the government to decide for a business what it sees as profitable assuming the proper safety mechanisms are in place. That's a great deal of power to grant an institution driven by the Beltway mentality.

While I share your apprehension on giving DC too much room to call all the shots, they are least are responsible to the people when a disaster occurs. I can't fault Obama for being wary here, the Gulf spill somehow became his fault and was compared to the gross incompetence of Bush's handling of Katrina.

These companies have a history of creating disasters and destroying lives and land, and their greed and aversion to responsibility as it affects the common man is (IMO) a far greater evil then the Beltway mentality directing regulation of the industry. Exxon in Alaska immediately comes to mind.


I'm all for infrastructure upgrades and energy, but like Franz said I think we can do better than this. This is vested interests trying to sell a risky venture as a boon to all, and I don't buy it.

 

[CitizenKain]

If its one thing you can count on the from right, its uneducated screaming about Obama whenever he does something. They don't have to understand it, just mention Obama and off they go. They are such good little followers.

 

[Texashiker]

Why isn't he demanding that the existing pipelines that go over the very same aquifer and are decades old be shut down and removed?

Those have already been discussed in this thread.

Our children should not have to pay for our mistakes. And that is what has been done to us with those old pipelines.

Sure, pipelines have been put where they should not have been. Can we do anything about it now? Nope. But what we can do is reduce the risk to future generations.

 

[cybrsage]

Obama's reasoning for saying no is stupid:

President Obama announced Wednesday that he will deny a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, blaming Republicans for imposing a "rushed and arbitrary deadline" which he said did not give officials enough time.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ject-keystone-pipeline-reroute/#ixzz1jqUEE8m5

He said because he was forced to actually decide, he said no...that was his reason.

 

[dmcowen674]

You guys know this is a pipeline to let Canada ship their oil to the Gulf right? It doesn't benefit us...

and at the expense of the midwest.

The other part of the equation to this is that they turn the oil around that flows from Cushing Oklahoma to the Midwest around and only goes south to Houston cutting the midwest off from it's oil supply.

I posted articles where they said you can expect gas to go to $20 gallon in the midwest because of that.

The existing refineries would be starved off of oil and forced to be shut down.

Funny how Republicans support this raping of the middle of the country in the name of more profits for their oil oil buddy kind.

 

[cybrsage]

Out of curiosity, which is in the US' national interests more, having an oil pipeline flowing through the US or through some other country?

 

[Fern]

There are at least 3 major crude carrying pipelines (between 8"-24")and a bunch of refined product pipelines running right over the aquifer and they are decades old, if that is the sole reason to object to the keystone XL pipeline it stands to reason that shutting down the existing pipelines should be even more of a priority.

I already know why they won't even talk about doing that, do you?

Well, there's that, and how many gas station with tanks in the ground are in that huge area? I'm going to guess an awful lot.

I can't believe we are unable to make and install safe/sturdy pipelines in this day and age.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Aw c'mon, it's not like these oil companies take risks and ignore environmental protections to save paltry amounts of money.


Oh, wait...

So you have no faith in the govt to establish reasonable and effective regulations or it's ability to enforce those regulations?

Fern

 

[soundforbjt]

Out of curiosity, which is in the US' national interests more, having an oil pipeline flowing through the US or through some other country?

Makes no difference when we don't get the oil.

 

[monovillage]

Well, there's that, and how gas station with tanks in the ground are in that huge area? I'm going to guess an awful lot.

I can't believe we are unable to make and install safe/sturdy pipelines in this day and age.

Fern

Yes and the millions of people, the farms, towns and cities, the septic systems, sewers and landfills, the businesses, roads, gas stations etc. etc. etc. all over the Ogallala aquifer but somehow, someway this magic pipeline is going to be the one thing that puts pollution in the area.
It would be funny except the idiots believe it. One sad thing is that the guy that believes in Creationism is the one leading the Democrats on the science here in the forums.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Makes no difference when we don't get the oil.

Why don't we get the oil? I thought it was supposed to be piped to our gulf coast refineries and Midwest market hubs primarily for U.S. usage.

 

[kage69]

How am I taking both sides of the debate? I made no comment on anything other than the pipeline.

You know what? You're right, I worded that poorly. My apologies, what I typed and what I meant didn't really jive, so allow me to clarify. Maybe this is what I get for trimming my caffeine intake so drastically... anyway...

Oh sure why not. You obviously have been waiting to unleash this on me for weeks or months and are great at degenerating a conversation into personal insults.

What I was referring to was your stance on job numbers, specifically. I recall you dismissing the number of jobs a bill would create as low and inconsequential, even though it would apply to all US companies and come in the form of financial incentives. The gist of your response was that it wouldn't amount to enough jobs to make a difference. This was back during the debt ceiling debate period iirc.

Cut to today, now you claim that this project to help Canada sell it's oil will be worth it even if it provides 10 jobs. The political background here is germane: the Bill I mentioned was brought up by Dems, and you did your best to try and downplay and invalidate the effects it would have for the middle class.
This pipeline project is largely a big oil / GOP thing, which you approve of. If I refer to you a partisan hack it's because you provided me with proof that your concern on job numbers is largely influenced by politics.
Something the Dems try to do that could stem or even reverse the flow of outsourcing? Baaaaaad! A GOP darling of a project, even if it netted only 10 extra jobs? Goooooood!


Truth be told I've seen a few posts of yours that I actually agree with, but don't flatter yourself by insinuating some stalking bullshit. As you can see my post count is a fraction of that of heavy posters here - I have a habit of remembering posts that are direct responses to mine. If that creeps you out, well, tough shit? Don't reply to me? If you express contradictory sentiments in a public forum you should be prepared to get called on them.

At the end of the day neither one of us know the exact number of jobs that would have been produced by that Bill, nor do we know how many jobs this Keystone project would create (both short and long term), we only have estimates that of course will vary. But my point is that you are being inconsistent with the value you place on the number of jobs being created by any initiative, and it appears to be political in nature. If you consider that personally insulting, well again tough shit, maybe it's time to re-evaluate some of your positions.

 

[kage69]

So you have no faith in the govt to establish reasonable and effective regulations or it's ability to enforce those regulations?

Fern

Lets say what faith I have in the gov's ability to do that is outweighed by my faith that the companies will ignore or subvert the regulations to the best of their ability. Even when clearly in the wrong, they will throw money at the problem and appeal ad nauseum and simply outlast the plaintiffs that got screwed. Again, see Exxon Mobil.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt
Makes no difference when we don't get the oil.

Why don't we get the oil?

I thought it was to be piped to our gulf coast refineries and Midwest market hubs primarily for U.S. use.

No, just the opposite.

They are building this to cut off the midwest market hubs and to ship oil out from the Gulf.

Does anyone actually read the articles in here?

 

[Fern]

Lets say what faith I have in the gov's ability to do that is outweighed by my faith that the companies will ignore or subvert the regulations to the best of their ability. Even when clearly in the wrong, they will throw money at the problem and appeal ad nauseum and simply outlast the plaintiffs that got screwed. Again, see Exxon Mobil.

What is it I'm supposed to see?

Honest question I googled and nothing seems particularly relevant.

Fern

 

[sunzt]

Originally Posted by soundforbjt
Makes no difference when we don't get the oil.



No, just the opposite.

They are building this to cut off the midwest market hubs and to ship oil out from the Gulf.

Does anyone actually read the articles in here?

From wiki:

Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would provide 5 percent of the current U.S. petroleum consumption needs and represent 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports

The XL part is about 1/2 the system so it would be ~2.5% and 4.5% respectively.

Obama should have passed this on condition of an alternate route that is safer/less risk to the aquifer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Keystone_XL

 

[Darwin333]

Those have already been discussed in this thread.

Our children should not have to pay for our mistakes. And that is what has been done to us with those old pipelines.

Sure, pipelines have been put where they should not have been. Can we do anything about it now? Nope. But what we can do is reduce the risk to future generations.

The hell we can't do anything about them right now. We can immediately cease their operation and start dismantling them. The reason we don't is because gas prices would skyrocket for a large portion of our country and the backlash would be relentless.

 

[cybrsage]

Makes no difference when we don't get the oil.

Sure it does. Let us assume the Middle East suddenly goes dry. If there is an oil pipeline through the US we can demand the oil flowing through it goes to the US.

 

[monovillage]

Let's see, it costs high paying construction and support jobs, it endangers the United States energy security and it almost forces Canada to make a deal with China so China will get the oil and job benefits.

It's stupid even for Obama.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

From wiki:



The XL part is about 1/2 the system so it would be ~2.5% and 4.5% respectively.

Obama should have passed this on condition of an alternate route that is safer/less risk to the aquifer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Keystone_XL

from wiki:

Upon completion, the Keystone Pipeline System would provide 5 percent of the current U.S. petroleum consumption needs and represent 9 percent of U.S. petroleum imports

5% of our consumption needs is highly significant and it would be nice to reduce our import dependence by 9% from less than friendly foreign sources (e.g. Chavez). Also, our refineries would process the crude which should help strengthen our manufacturing base in the South.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

First of all they can submit a new permit with an alternate route, doesn't kill the whole project just the route.

Secondly they attempted to short cut the review process and don't even have a 2nd route planned, although they should have.

Third, Republicans also share blame shoving this decision time frame into an earlier bill it had no place being in and with no time for a full and proper review, including environment review. It's a 1700 mile pipeline, there is a lot to be reviewed on that route and 60 days is nothing to do that proper.



I love this right mindset of "Hey, we are going to potentially/probably destroy the environment, but it's ok we 'supposedly' made 10 jobs (and banked a few mill from being paid off too, but hush hush on that)"..../s

:thumbsup: when it comes to Obama bashing the repubs have no problem throwing logic and reason out the window.

 

[monovillage]

:thumbsup: when it comes to Obama bashing the repubs have no problem throwing logic and reason out the window.

That's because what demo24 says about "destroy the environment" is a flat out lie. It's tough for reasonable people to be able to respond to assholes like him that lie and exaggerate.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Hopefully this is the beginning of deteriorating relations between the US and Canada.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's all part of the master plan to drive oil and gas prices higher so people will spend money they don't have to buy foreign built electric cars.