Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[Zargon]

It's a modern pipeline, there's very little that could happen. Certainly not "destroy the environment" that's hyperbole for the truly ignorant.

a pipline rupture over the shallow watertable wont destroy it? it wont ruin the whole aquifer, but still ruin billions of gallons of water in an already F-ed up aquifer

it doesnt even need to shift that far to the east to skirt around it

 

[Bowfinger]

There were statements by his handlers and analysis done by commentators that he was going to state NO to the pipeline.

But theimpact of/on the election made it politically a hot potato. Environmentalists or Unions (construction jobs)

Therefore the Rs wanted the decision to be out front to be used as a point during the elections.

He had the option of stating that a reroute would be required before approval - such was never proposed from his camp.

I'm not sure how you justify that statement. Everything I've read so far indicates the proposed route has been the sticking point all along, and that the Obama administration wanted to study alternatives. For example, from Reuters last November:

Obama: Supports delay of Keystone pipeline decision
Nov 10 (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Thursday he supported the State Department's decision to study alternative routes for the Keystone XL pipeline, which will delay a decision on the project for more than a year.

The delay means a final decision to approve or reject the the controversial Canada-to-Texas pipeline would not occur until after next year's presidential election, taking political heat off of Obama, who is running for re-election.

"Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed," Obama said in a statement.

"The final decision should be guided by an open, transparent process that is informed by the best available science and the voices of the American people," he said.

That contradicts your claim.

It certainly appears to me it's Congressional Republicans who've turned this into a political game. Why was it so imperative this decision be made right now, knowing full well the route was an issue and that potentially better alternatives were already being considered? The answer is pretty clear: generate more ammunition to use against President Obama.

 

[Thump553]

It's amazing to me so soon after Deepwater Horizon so many GOP'ers continue to put blind faith in corporations. Deepwater Horizon was a clear example of ineffective regulation of oil companies, resulting in them cutting corners to meet deadlines with diasterous results.

The GOP in Congress forced Obama to make a prematute decision on this before the regulatory review and permitting process was complete. He made the only responsible decision that could be made-"no" at this time with the door left open to amend/reapply, which the pipeline company fully expected and had already been working on submitting their new plans.

It is the foolhardy impatience of the GOP Congress that led to delay, and their once again demonstrated practice of trying to score political points first with the public interest be damned.

2000-2500 TEMPORARY jobs is not worth the risk the GOP tried to blackmail the country with.

A more interesting question is what unreasonable and unrelated demands with the Congressional GOP now impose to attempt to defeat the middle class payroll tax cut again? (the only sort of tax cut the GOP hates, apparently).

 

[slayernine]

Good for Obama. He should be opposing any further exploitation of the Canadian tar sands, one of the world's environmental disasters. Hopefully this is only the first step of a comprehensive offensive.

As someone who has actually seen the tar sands up in Northern Alberta to call them an environmental disaster is far from true. Much of this land is swampy and sandy.

Did you know that the sand up there actually has oil in it? Did you know that the environment is naturally "polluted" with oil in this area? Extracting oil using modern processes leaves the area cleaner than it was before.

The second item I must discuss is that the delivery and transportation of Canadian crude oil is highly regulated and handled in a much safer manner than the current methods used to transport Middle Eastern oil. How many oil tankers need to dump their load in the Ocean before you start to care? The farther you transport something the more potential problems, more so when you must travel through pirate infested waters.

Also did you know there are already multiple pipelines going to the US from Canada? In fact both countries have pipelines all over the place. Why are you idiots raising such a fuss about another one? Getting your oil from Canada could mean the end of pointless military excursions into the Middle East. Dare I call you a war monger to put your environmental bullshit above the lives of real people.

http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_pipelines_map.jpg

 

[Darwin333]

Don't they want to send it to the Gulf for refining purposes? They don't want to just export the oil, but the refined products.

Also, Obama is no friend of Canada. He has been realigning US interests in one of the greatest feats of international relations. I'm sure he can find many ways to us US resources to prevent any Canadian activity. For example, he can further promote other energy resources to further diminish the usefulness of oil from the Canadian tar sands.

That is part of the reason, they would love to use whatever spar refining capacity we have, but the main reason is because the Gulf region has all of the infrastructure already in place to export the oil. Its where most of our imported oil from overseas is shipped to and the only area in the country that can handle the ULCCs (ultra large crude carriers).

With that said, it doesn't really matter what the wanted to do if we don't let them. They aren't just going to say "ok guys, stop extracting the oil because the US won't let us build a pipeline". They WILL build a pipeline to their west coast and export it from there, cutting us entirely out of it, if that is what they must do to sell their oil. It is better for them to send it to the Gulf region but their west coast is a hellofa lot better than not being able to export it at all.

If Obama wins reelection they will not wait until his term is over to start construction on one or the other. The people that are against this simply because its tar sands oil evidently fail to realize that the oil will be extracted regardless of what we do. The only difference is if we will get a cut of the action AND have some sort of leverage if we run into a problem with our imports at some point in the future.

 

[slayernine]

a pipline rupture over the shallow watertable wont destroy it? it wont ruin the whole aquifer, but still ruin billions of gallons of water in an already F-ed up aquifer

it doesnt even need to shift that far to the east to skirt around it

Pipelines over land are much safer than drilling holes in the bottom of the Ocean. Oil spilled on land can and will be cleaned up but at the same time is highly unlikely.


As far as skirting around it, that is a fair plan but apparently Obama thinks we should just scrap the entire project because he is scared of the enviro-mentals not voting for him.

 

[Darwin333]

the big lie..

if this is all about private industry then why don't they just build it ?

the fact is the politicians in the big refinery states want the rest of us to subsidize this for them. Welfare is great if it's for corporations..

the other fact is, nothing Obama did will affect the project one way or the other at this point. It's a convenient political issue for the Republicans to feed their base with, at this time.

Huh? The don't "just build it" because they require the government to OK the project, not fund it but approve it.

 

[Genx87]

OMG there are pipelines running right through the ogalla!

 

[Bowfinger]

"Independent study" my ass. Loss of U.S. jobs? WTF are you smoking?

Lara Skinner has an agenda. Her study was funded and co-produced by the Goodman Group whose clients include the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and Greenpeace. Also, an associate at the Goodman Group is a board member and treasurer of Greenpeace Canada.

http://www.jobsandenergy.org/Facts/Cornellstudy.html

Cornell Study Ties to Extremist Green Movement Exposed!

LINCOLN -- During questioning in Natural Resources Committee, Dr. Lara Skinner of the Cornell Institute testified about a study she conducted at the Cornell Institute that attacked job estimates surrounding the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Skinner testified that her study,which was highly critical of job creation estimates made by the State Department, was financed and co-produced with the Goodman Group.

Under questioning by Senator Beau McCoy, Dr. Skinner asserted the Goodman Group was an independent organization with no stake on the Keystone Project. Senator McCoy responded by asking her to explain the fact that the Goodman Group website indicates their clients include the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and Greenpeace USA and International. In addition, Brigid Rowan, an associate at the Goodman Group, is a board member and the treasurer of Greenpeace Canada.

"Dr. Skinner misled Nebraskans about her agenda and that of the Goodman Group," Barry Rubin, Director of Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence said. "In her attempt to dismiss the importance of the thousands of good-paying jobs Keystone XL would create in Nebraska, she even went so far as to assert that she partners with labor organizations -- but it's clear she is part of the well-funded, environmental agenda of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to end fossil fuel use all together."

"Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence, 30,000 Nebraskans strong, continues to support the Keystone XL pipeline because of the jobs it will provide in Nebraska, the tremendous long-term economic impact it will have on our state, and the elementary fact that it is better for America's energy security to meet our energy needs with oil from our allies than oil from our enemies."

Given that we have no idea who's really behind "Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence", it's hard to weigh the objectivity of their claims. While they have shown possible ties between the GLI study and environmental groups, what they completely fail to address are the findings of the study itself. Why not? All they did was attack the source, making them just as meaningless as Monovillage's op-ed, and potentially hypocritical depending on where their own funding originates (something they don't divulge, strangely enough).

Guys, I'm willing to believe the GLI study is inaccurate, but throwing stones at the source doesn't prove it. All it proves is your reaction is emotional instead of substantive. If this study is so biased, why haven't the Keystone interests produced any specifics documenting GLI's errors? That would be useful information to help develop an informed opinion. Lacking that, read the study yourself and tell us what facts it got wrong. Do something, anything, to show you're capable of reasoned and fact-based analysis instead of just blindly spouting your partisan talking points.

 

[Bowfinger]

... As far as skirting around it, that is a fair plan but apparently Obama thinks we should just scrap the entire project because he is scared of the enviro-mentals not voting for him.

Link? Anything factual and credible to support this, or are you just repeating the talking point?

 

[feralkid]

OMG there are pipelines running right through the ogalla!

Poor sperring is an index to mental demangement.

 

[slayernine]

2000-2500 TEMPORARY jobs is not worth the risk the GOP tried to blackmail the country with.

If this pipeline is built and Canadian oil is refined down in Texas it will keep the refineries there busy and keep the workers there busy for decades to come.

Did you know that multiple construction projects are under way in Northern Alberta on an expansion to increase capacity further? No keystone doesn't mean the oil sands won't be developed, it just means the US will not benefit from it.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ces/oil-sands-expansion-plans/article2280006/

 

[slayernine]

Link? Anything factual and credible to support this, or are you just repeating the talking point?

Rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline project by the Obama administration is a temporary setback caused by the upcoming presidential election, experts say.

"As the Alberta premier (Alison Redford) pointed out, the application was not turned down on its merits, but turned down because of politics," Globe and Mail columnist Jane Taber told CTV's Canada Am Thursday.

Its all political manoeuvring due to the upcoming election. It is too conversational for Obama to really say anything so he is taking the do nothing approach which is effectively killing the project.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120119/keystone-XL-rejection-obama-pipeline-20120119/

 

[Bowfinger]

Its all political manoeuvring due to the upcoming election. It is too conversational for Obama to really say anything so he is taking the do nothing approach which is effectively killing the project.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120119/keystone-XL-rejection-obama-pipeline-20120119/

That's spin by a third party. Where has Obama or someone in his administration stated they want to "scrap the whole project"? Everything I've seen from official sources says they're evaluating alternative routes to reduce the potential environmental risk.

 

[slayernine]

That's spin by a third party. Where has Obama or someone in his administration stated they want to "scrap the whole project"? Everything I've seen from official sources says they're evaluating alternative routes to reduce the potential environmental risk.

Obama has not said he wants to "scrap the whole project" but what he is doing will result in "scraping the whole project". Just because he doesn't come out and say it doesn't make his actions or lack there of have any less meaning.

Actions are what count and I hope that Canada doesn't end up shipping oil to China as they are my least favourite super power nation.

 

[Zargon]

Pipelines over land are much safer than drilling holes in the bottom of the Ocean. Oil spilled on land can and will be cleaned up but at the same time is highly unlikely.

acutally not that unlikely, accoriding to a report I googled earlier its not that rare but spills are smaller, usually leaks not ruptures

As far as skirting around it, that is a fair plan but apparently Obama thinks we should just scrap the entire project because he is scared of the enviro-mentals not voting for him.

yes it seems election year is the real sticker here

 

[slayernine]

acutally not that unlikely, accoriding to a report I googled earlier its not that rare but spills are smaller, usually leaks not ruptures



yes it seems election year is the real sticker here

Yes that is exactly what I mean, it is very unlikely to have an huge disaster type scenario with a pipeline because if you ever have a leak you shut it off and fix it. Low environmental impact and the water table doesn't get compromised. As pipelines age they require more maintenance but companies that build pipelines have advanced monitoring tools to find problems in pipelines before there is a problem. They put monitoring equipment that travels down the pipe called "pigs" to ensure pressure and temperature is maintained at the proper levels.

The election in the US sure is a ridiculously long drawn out drawn out affair. It distracts politicians from getting their job done. In Canada federal elections are announced and there is 2-6 months of lead up much more efficient. Plus there has been major improvements in limiting how much people can contribute to campaigns in an effort to limit the commercialization of politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Canada#Length_of_election_campaigns

 

[umbrella39]

Pipelines over land are much safer than drilling holes in the bottom of the Ocean.

Until those nasty little F5's come ripping through tornado alley...

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Until those nasty little F5's come ripping through tornado alley...

Why haven't these nasty little F5's been a problem with the pipelines that currently run through tornado alley?

 

[umbrella39]

...

 

[spidey07]

Why haven't these nasty little F5's been a problem with the pipelines that currently run through tornado alley?

Pumping stations monitor pressure and shut off if they detect a drop. Simple stuff really. Perfectly safe. Only Obama is holding up jobs, progress and more energy and trade with our closest ally. He is the job killer, the food stamp president.

 

[umbrella39]

 

[feralkid]

Pumping stations monitor pressure and shut off if they detect a drop. Simple stuff really. Perfectly safe. Only Obama is holding up jobs, progress and more energy and trade with our closest ally. He is the job killer, the food stamp president.

That's dumb even for you.

 

[Pens1566]

Title is misleading.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Given that we have no idea who's really behind "Nebraskans for Jobs and Energy Independence", it's hard to weigh the objectivity of their claims. While they have shown possible ties between the GLI study and environmental groups, what they completely fail to address are the findings of the study itself. Why not? All they did was attack the source, making them just as meaningless as Monovillage's op-ed, and potentially hypocritical depending on where their own funding originates (something they don't divulge, strangely enough).

Guys, I'm willing to believe the GLI study is inaccurate, but throwing stones at the source doesn't prove it. All it proves is your reaction is emotional instead of substantive. If this study is so biased, why haven't the Keystone interests produced any specifics documenting GLI's errors? That would be useful information to help develop an informed opinion. Lacking that, read the study yourself and tell us what facts it got wrong. Do something, anything, to show you're capable of reasoned and fact-based analysis instead of just blindly spouting your partisan talking points.

And I'm willing to believe that TransCanada's job estimates are exaggerated...the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle as it usually does.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to see that that the GLI study is highly biased and agenda driven. There are numerous statements like "Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation" throughout the "study" which reek of bias and agenda. Read the study and you'll see that it's full of speculation. Also look at how many times it uses the words "probably", "may" and "likey".

This "study" is environmental activism cloaked as "scientific" and "independent"...pure garbage.