Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[michal1980]

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.

The socialist in the whitehouse says the plan and approvals have to start from the beginning. Given that it took 4 years to reject this project, why would canada wait 4 more years for the liberal to potentially change his mind? esspically if he gets reelected and has no pressure to even fake ruling from the middle?

 

[monovillage]

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

You deliberately picked a biased study to link to and now you're pissed because someone points out it's a biased study? If I had linked to the Exxon-Mobil study would you give it any credence? Of course not. Why would you expect me to give credence to your biased study?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You deliberately picked a biased study to link to and now you're pissed because someone points out it's a biased study? If I had linked to the Exxon-Mobil study would you give it any credence? Of course not. Why would you expect me to give credence to your biased study?

Please explain how it's biased. You are making an assumption. Did you read the information? Can you cite the specific biased points and expand on why they are biased? Are you saying labor would be against oil jobs for some reason?

Pissed? Laughable. I'd like you to actually support your claim. That's not pissed. That's rational. You have an opinion that you've stated. I'd love to see what that opinion is based on. I suspect you really have no basis for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Please explain how it's biased. You are making an assumption. Did you read the information? Can you cite the specific biased points and expand on why they are biased? Are you saying labor would be against oil jobs for some reason?

Pissed? Laughable. I'd like you to actually support your claim. That's not pissed. That's rational. You have an opinion that you've stated. I'd love to see what that opinion is based on. I suspect you really have no basis for it.

His rationale? Any port in a storm!

 

[K1052]

The socialist in the whitehouse says the plan and approvals have to start from the beginning. Given that it took 4 years to reject this project, why would canada wait 4 more years for the liberal to potentially change his mind? esspically if he gets reelected and has no pressure to even fake ruling from the middle?

Canada already said they are going to reapply. Had the Republicans not used the issue to score political points before the election (Obama hates jobs) a compromise most likely would have been reached by late 2012 or early 2013 that addressed the remaining issues. Now it will be probably 2017 before it will come up for approval again.

There are in the meantime alternate ways for that oil to reach US refineries. Shipment by rail will probably be heavily used in the interim.

 

[theeedude]

We should never approve it being built to Houston. It should only be allowed to go to US refiners, not for export outside of the US. We should not be exporting Canadian oil while importing oil from the Middle East.

 

[1prophet]

Wrong. The pipeline was supposed to go over the Ogallala aquifer, which supplies drinking water to tens of thousands, maybe even millions of people.

If the pipeline leaked, or worse had an explosion, the oil could contaminate a major source of safe drinking water.

http://www.kfdm.com/articles/pipeline-45689-texas-canada.html

I would be more concerned about contaminating it from below ground, but as usual this administration sends mixed signals.

http://grist.org/natural-gas/situation-normal-all-fracked-up-obama-embraces-fracking/

 

[michal1980]

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.

you do know that obama was delaying his descion because of politics? He wanted to postpone the NO till after the election.

 

[iGas]

We should never approve it being built to Houston. It should only be allowed to go to US refiners, not for export outside of the US. We should not be exporting Canadian oil while importing oil from the Middle East.

I agree, however the US is making money from exporting, and will be importing more oil from Canada once the pipeline is complete, and possibly up to 5 million barrels a day in the future.

 

[michal1980]

Canada already said they are going to reapply. Had the Republicans not used the issue to score political points before the election (Obama hates jobs) a compromise most likely would have been reached by late 2012 or early 2013 that addressed the remaining issues. Now it will be probably 2017 before it will come up for approval again.

There are in the meantime alternate ways for that oil to reach US refineries. Shipment by rail will probably be heavily used in the interim.

Obama was delaying to score political points.

He didn't want to upset the unions, or tree huggers.

But his polticals are ok?

I love how hypocritcal liberals are these days. You guys dont even hide it.

Obama playing politics = OK
Republicans playing politics = BAD.

 

[feralkid]

Canada already said they are going to reapply. Had the Republicans not used the issue to score political points before the election (Obama hates jobs) a compromise most likely would have been reached by late 2012 or early 2013 that addressed the remaining issues. Now it will be probably 2017 before it will come up for approval again.

There are in the meantime alternate ways for that oil to reach US refineries. Shipment by rail will probably be heavily used in the interim.

This.

spidey, mono and the other howler monkeys in this thread don't have a clue as to who is screwing who on this issue.

 

[michal1980]

This.

spidey, mono and the other howler monkeys in this thread don't have a clue as to who is screwing who on this issue.

this what?

Obama didn't want to say no till after the election. That was political grandstanding. But you liberals cannot critise your mashia

 

[monovillage]

Please explain how it's biased. You are making an assumption. Did you read the information? Can you cite the specific biased points and expand on why they are biased? Are you saying labor would be against oil jobs for some reason?

Pissed? Laughable. I'd like you to actually support your claim. That's not pissed. That's rational. You have an opinion that you've stated. I'd love to see what that opinion is based on. I suspect you really have no basis for it.

Here you go, your study refuted.

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/keystone-xl-energy-project-much-more-pipe-dream

"A recent study from researchers at Cornell University presented some curious findings on the economic impact of Keystone XL, a proposed multibillion dollar extension linking Canada’s rich supply of crude oil to major U.S. refining hubs.

All told, this megaproject will stretch 1,661 miles from Alberta to Texas’s Gulf Coast region. Immediately upon completion, the pipeline will have the capacity to carry 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) and ultimately the ability to transport 900,000 bpd.

So what did the new study conclude? That a $7 billion investment won’t create jobs and may even cost jobs on net, and that the ability to move an additional 900,000 bpd to refineries won’t have the effect of lowering gas prices.

These claims simply defy economic logic — as well as every previous estimate of the economic impact of Keystone XL. Simply put, the study’s conclusions are specious, even absurd."

 

[feralkid]

this what?

Obama didn't want to say no till after the election. That was political grandstanding. But you liberals cannot critise your mashia

Drunk again?

 

[Patranus]

Here you go, your study refuted.

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/keystone-xl-energy-project-much-more-pipe-dream

"A recent study from researchers at Cornell University presented some curious findings on the economic impact of Keystone XL, a proposed multibillion dollar extension linking Canada’s rich supply of crude oil to major U.S. refining hubs.

All told, this megaproject will stretch 1,661 miles from Alberta to Texas’s Gulf Coast region. Immediately upon completion, the pipeline will have the capacity to carry 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) and ultimately the ability to transport 900,000 bpd.

So what did the new study conclude? That a $7 billion investment won’t create jobs and may even cost jobs on net, and that the ability to move an additional 900,000 bpd to refineries won’t have the effect of lowering gas prices.

These claims simply defy economic logic — as well as every previous estimate of the economic impact of Keystone XL. Simply put, the study’s conclusions are specious, even absurd."

Wait, so building a 1,661 mile pipeline won't create a single job?

LOL - You can't make this shit up.

Do they think that highly trained monkeys are going to build it?
(But if they use highly trained monkeys, someone has to train the monkeys.....but I digress)

 

[theeedude]

I agree, however the US is making money from exporting, and will be importing more oil from Canada once the pipeline is complete, and possibly up to 5 million barrels a day in the future.

Someone in the US may be making money from exporting, but the US consumer would be better off if that supply was captive and drove down prices.

 

[spidey07]

Let it be known as evidence in this thread that liberals actively prevent jobs and progress.

It clear as day. All in the name of defending this president, harm to our economy be damned.

This is the mind if the liberal.

 

[feralkid]

Let it be known as evidence in this thread that liberals actively prevent jobs and progress.

It clear as day. All in the name of defending this president, harm to our economy be damned.

This is the mind if the liberal.

Rick Perry WILL be your next president.

The mind of spidey.

 

[michal1980]

Drunk again?

Nope. Not a stone liberal that only sees politics played by the republicans.


Can any of you obama brownnosers honestly say when he was going to make a descison was not political?

 

[sportage]

What is it with oil that people smell oil and they all get a hard on thinking about oil, despite the fact it's not our oil nor will it benefit us. This oil is not going into your gas tank, idiots. Duh!
Maybe a very few jobs temporally created, and those will obviously be all Canadian labor jobs. Duh again!
So today, our republicans in congress learned HELL-NO is a two way street.
I LOVE it !!!!!
Just LOVE IT!!!
GO OBAMA !!!!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Here you go, your study refuted.

http://cei.org/op-eds-articles/keystone-xl-energy-project-much-more-pipe-dream

"A recent study from researchers at Cornell University presented some curious findings on the economic impact of Keystone XL, a proposed multibillion dollar extension linking Canada’s rich supply of crude oil to major U.S. refining hubs.

All told, this megaproject will stretch 1,661 miles from Alberta to Texas’s Gulf Coast region. Immediately upon completion, the pipeline will have the capacity to carry 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) and ultimately the ability to transport 900,000 bpd.

So what did the new study conclude? That a $7 billion investment won’t create jobs and may even cost jobs on net, and that the ability to move an additional 900,000 bpd to refineries won’t have the effect of lowering gas prices.

These claims simply defy economic logic — as well as every previous estimate of the economic impact of Keystone XL. Simply put, the study’s conclusions are specious, even absurd."

Remarkable that you first attacked the source erroneously, implying that Unions aren't in favor of pipeline jobs, and then offer a clearly biased source in refutation-

http://cei.org/cei-board-directors

They also obfuscate rather nicely about the impact of the pipeline on domestic oil supplies, as if moving additional barrels of oil to a free trade export facility will affect domestic supply in the slightest. Why would it?

They use some pretty slick phraseology in the process, I admit...

Repubs are desperate to pin the Job Killer! label on Obama, rather than on themselves, but these few thousand jobs are a pretty transparent ruse. Yeh, it'll sell to the base, because it's what they want to hear, but not to many others.

 

[feralkid]

Nope. Not a stone liberal that only sees politics played by the republicans.


Can any of you obama brownnosers honestly say when he was going to make a descison was not political?

Don't know, why don't you get your head out of your ass, put down the bottle and ask one of them?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Let it be known as evidence in this thread that liberals actively prevent jobs and progress.

It clear as day. All in the name of defending this president, harm to our economy be damned.

This is the mind if the liberal.

You poor fool, you have been deceived to give up your American status in support of the Canadians. Sad.

 

[dawheat]

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.

Great post - I fully support making sure this pipeline is built with the safety of American natural resources and our citizens as a priority. Shouldn't the states most impacted have a say in the decision? Doesn't the request from the governor of Nebraska carry any weight?

A 1700 mile pipeline should be fully vetted and oil companies shouldn't get a rubber stamp with a promise that "they'll take care of it later".

Now if the administration was actively blocking discussion or progress on this pipeline, I'd understand the venom. But requiring that a revised route be planned and vetted to protect millions of Americans doesn't seem like a high burden.

 

[monovillage]

prior bullshit............................

Repubs are desperate to pin the Job Killer! label on Obama, rather than on themselves, but these few thousand jobs are a pretty transparent ruse. Yeh, it'll sell to the base, because it's what they want to hear, but not to many others.

He requested I respond to his union biased study. I responded with a refutation from Forbes and now you get your panties in a bunch and whine because his biased source got refuted. Move the goalposts much?