Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[K1052]

I thought Canada said 'fish or cut bait'. I.e., no approval soon and they go to plan 'B'.

An (new) alternate route will face every hurdle the original faced. More enviro studies, more lawsuits etc. will all be necessary to proceed.

My guess is that it isn't worth it. More delays, more money etc with no certainty of success.

Maybe they'll wait until Nov to see if Obama is out and try again.

Fern

Is there someone else on a coast nearby with enormous refinery capacity , deep water port within easy reach of dozens of countries in need of refined product that is designed to refine the dirty crude coming out of Alberta? They need to get it to Texas.

They'll revise the route to follow existing ones and it will likely be approved.

 

[umbrella39]

It's a shame, but it's true that there's going to be posters here from the right/neoconservative/Republican side that are going to lie and misinform people about this issue.

Fix that bullshit for ya no charge. Back to the plonk list ya go...

 

[spidey07]

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.

Subsidize? No government money will be used.

It becomes a political issue when the president is actively working against the interest of our nation and allies.

 

[monovillage]

Fix that bullshit for ya no charge. Back to the plonk list ya go...

I like the way you have to change an accurate quote into an inaccurate quote to make you feel better about your lies and deceptions. Have fun.

 

[K1052]

So you are suggesting that the taxes collected on these transactions would be nill. WTF are you smoking.

What taxes?

 

[umbrella39]

Someone throw this troll a cookie and a Newsweek.

He's just been dying to use his eco-KOOK line again. Just shows that he is an eco-RETARD, thanks for quoting yet another plonked troll.

 

[pcgeek11]

No, but it is an environmental disaster that can have repercussions in the United States, and as such he should be trying to deal with it.

Obama is the first president to make America his primary interest. It's so refreshing to see it in action.

Yep. Just like the Alaska Pipeline destroyed the environment in Alaska!

Obama is a joke. I also heard he is passing the blame on to Hillary as it was a state dept recommendation.

 

[umbrella39]

Let's not forget where the oil is actually coming from.

Everything about it - from the clear cutting on forest, to large scale excavation, to the mass usage of water, to the toxic tailings lakes, and ultimately transporting it out of Alberta reeks of desperation. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I see it pretty absurd to destroy an area the size of Florida and then build a 2000+ mile pipeline to Texas.

And that doesn't even include the eminent domain or American water issues. We can do better than this.

Pst, don't confuse the resident retarded right with facts.

Jobs derp derp, cheap gas, derp derp, fucking tree huggers derp derp...

Pathetically funny liars or worse yet, fools. Nothing like a little black gold to drop the aggregate IQ of the fanbois posting here 20-30 points a piece.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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.

Yup. Obama is smart. He realizes that Canadians are not real friends to the US. Hopefully the US population will soon realize this.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

What taxes?

The taxes generated from the entire endeavor to build, maintain this pipe, refine and export this oil via US ports/refineries along with all the regulatory permits, etc.

 

[Zargon]

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.

are you seriously questioning its impact potential?



its a serious risk and they should plan around it. just because the existing pipeline is a risk doesnt mean we should heap it on.

 

[K1052]

The taxes generated from the entire endeavor to build, maintain this pipe, refine and export this oil via US ports/refineries along with all the regulatory permits, etc.

No taxes will be extracted from any part of the process once it is up and running. The tax implications of pipeline maintenance are negligible.

Since the southern end of the pipeline will terminate inside the Port Arthur Foreign Trade Zone no export duties will be paid on the refined product which will be shipped out of the country.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

No taxes will be extracted from any part of the process once it is up and running. The tax implications of pipeline maintenance are negligible.

Since the southern end of the pipeline will terminate inside the Port Arthur Foreign Trade Zone no export duties will be paid on the refined product which will be shipped out of the country.

You are specifically talking about the end product not the entire endeavor as I stated of getting the oil from point A and Point B to a refined state and then exported. Between those points there are many, many steps and processes that will generate expenditures that will result in tax generation and fees to be paid, etc.

 

[Genx87]

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.

The difference is this project required little in govt money. And it will create long term sustainable private jobs while building a piece of usable infrastructure. Did I mention it is privately funded?

Obama's jobs bill would have cost the US tax payer ~450 billion and at best created more short term jobs with questionable long term value. It is more of the same of govt malaize trying to fix our economic problems with short term bursts.

For me the biggest issue is the funding and who is directing the funding. Obama's bill puts that at the hands of politicians with tax payers money. The keystone pipeline puts it at the hands of a private organization beholden to itself, not special interest groups, and using private funds to pay for it. And important to the picture is the long term jobs will be funded by the private company. It wont require stimulus after stimulus we cant afford to prop up those jobs.

I would had applauded Obama for giving the go on this project. It isnt he is a democrat. It is he is making some serious stupid decisions.

 

[bfdd]

You are specifically talking about the end product not the entire endeavor as I stated of getting the oil from point A and Point B to a refined state and then exported. Between those points there are many, many steps and processes that will generate expenditures that will result in tax generation and fees to be paid, etc.

He doesn't understand how the energy industry works, he's just speaking out his ass with talking points he knows nothing about. He has no idea how much goes into changing that oil into a refined product or how well those jobs pay because blue collar jobs are dirty junky jobs that only Chinese and "dirty beaners" right right?

 

[K1052]

You are specifically talking about the end product not the entire endeavor as I stated of getting the oil from point A and Point B to a refined state and then exported. Between those points there are many, many steps and processes that will generate expenditures that will result in tax generation and fees to be paid, etc.

Pumping stations aren't big tax revenue generators. Nothing is going to happen to that oil that will generate any substantial income between the terminus in Canada and the terminus in Port Arthur.

 

[monovillage]

are you seriously questioning its impact potential?



its a serious risk and they should plan around it. just because the existing pipeline is a risk doesnt mean we should heap it on.

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

 

[Genx87]

Hahaha.

This thing has been under 'study' since 2008.

Fern

It is a laughable excuse when you consider the healthcare bill he pushed through congress is far more complex and he couldnt wait to sign it. This thing has been in the works for years and not like the admin hasnt had time to read the studies by now.

 

[K1052]

He doesn't understand how the energy industry works, he's just speaking out his ass with talking points he knows nothing about. He has no idea how much goes into changing that oil into a refined product or how well those jobs pay because blue collar jobs are dirty junky jobs that only Chinese and "dirty beaners" right right?

So now we are down to a few refinery jobs as the major economic impetus for such a project?

As I said, I expect this to eventually be approved when they reroute around the areas objected to (as it should be since it is indeed legal). That said I see no reason to kid ourselves about the economic benefits of the plan as they relate to the US nor motivation for us to shoulder additional environmental risk in the process.

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole thing is more complicated than I'd pretend to understand, except to say that when Repubs decided to force the issue, make it an all or nothing proposition, not wait until 2013 to sort out a decision, Obama had the balls to say "Nothing". Good for him.

Dems in general should have done things that way a long time ago, starting with the Bush tax cut extension/ unemployment extortion racket back in 2010. Make Repubs go back to their broke-ass unemployed constituencies & explain how tax cuts for the wealthy were more important than middle class cuts & extended unemployment benefits in the face of the greatest economic calamity since 1929. Let 'em explain why they raised taxes & cut benefits for middle class families.

There are other instances when Dems really should have played it that way, too.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So now we are down to a few refinery jobs as the major economic impetus for such a project?

As I said, I expect this to eventually be approved when they reroute around the areas objected to (as it should be since it is indeed legal). That said I see no reason to kid ourselves about the economic benefits of the plan as they relate to the US nor motivation for us to shoulder additional environmental risk in the process.

An independent study of the pipeline and job creation potential. Cites a few thousand temporary jobs for two years and very few permanent ones. Also breaks down the projected impact.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

 

[Bitek]

...
I would had applauded Obama for giving the go on this project. It isnt he is a democrat. It is he is making some serious stupid decisions.

This is the correct decision. Major projects with large potential impacts should not be able to short circuit the review and approval process. This was an inappropriate issue to be put into legislation. Why should well-connected companies with high powered lobbyists be able to force their issue to the POTUS rather than the process everyone else follows?

For example, if some pharma was creating a drug, promised it would do some really amazing things (ie cure cancer, aids, stupidity, etc)
Should they be able to go around the FDA, hire some lobbyists to push Congress, grease some superpacs, and force a deadline for approval when it turns out they haven't even completed phase III trials? "Oh how dare the pres not approve, he wants Americans to have cancer..." What happens if the drug actually has bad effects not yet discovered bc the work was not complete?

Not saying TransCanada did all that, but its not how approvals should be made. The system should not be corrupted to score election year points.

Bad policy and bad precedent. Wise to push it back.

 

[monovillage]

An independent study of the pipeline and job creation potential. Cites a few thousand temporary jobs for two years and very few permanent ones. Also breaks down the projected impact.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

"Welcome to GLI.

The Cornell Global Labor Institute was established in 2005 to work with trade unions in the U.S. and internationally to help them and their civil society partners develop solutions to major social, economic and environmental challenges."

report? independent? study? nope

 

[spidey07]

"Welcome to GLI.

The Cornell Global Labor Institute was established in 2005 to work with trade unions in the U.S. and internationally to help them and their civil society partners develop solutions to major social, economic and environmental challenges."

report? independent? study? nope

They have all the liberal justices.
Social justice
Economic justice
Environmental justice

Pure libtard

 

[MomentsofSanity]

"Welcome to GLI.

The Cornell Global Labor Institute was established in 2005 to work with trade unions in the U.S. and internationally to help them and their civil society partners develop solutions to major social, economic and environmental challenges."

report? independent? study? nope

Please explain the relevance of that to the information contained in the study, or address the study itself. Can you do that?