Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[Bitek]

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?

If he was intent on killing it, why create a refile pathway?

Its not like the whole submission gets shredded and they have to start over. It was clear from a while ago that the issue was the NE corridor. That had to get negotiated either way before approval was going to come.

This will likely have little impact on the timeline in the end. The rest of the submission is intact, and the changes need to be made anyway.

 

[umbrella39]

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.

Let it continued to be known you are a lying sack of shit America hating coward who is obsessed with the evil half white guy.

 

[Bitek]

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

Politics were already in play no doubt on both sides. It shouldn't have been escalated up to this. It still does not change the inappropriateness of bypassing the system and seeking rapid approval for a plan that is not complete. It needs more time regardless.

Sure it was a NO tho? Maybe it was going to be a YES, and he didn't want to backstab some of his base until after the election? They've thrown tantrums enough times about it. We'll never know.....

 

[monovillage]

Politics were already in play no doubt on both sides. It shouldn't have been escalated up to this. It still does not change the inappropriateness of bypassing the system and seeking rapid approval for a plan that is not complete. It needs more time regardless.

Yes, it's only been 3 years. The Federal Government will need at least another 23 years to pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually do some useful work.

 

[Genx87]

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.

So we have two biased reports. Lets use some common sense and admit that building a pipeline nearly 1700 miles long will create jobs and needed infrastructure in this country. And do it not using tax payers money.

 

[Bowfinger]

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?

Sorry, you don't "refute" a study by quoting an op-ed that basically says "Nuh-uh". As far as I could tell, this Bradley op-ed didn't offer anything original at all. It seems to simply repeat the original Keystone (Perryman) pitch for the project, completing ignoring the many holes and fallacies identified in the GLI study. There's lots of hand waving and assertions, but nothing to actually back Bradley's rhetoric.

For example, Bradley blindly repeats the "$7 billion investment" pitch without addressing the GLI finding that less than half will be spent on the US portion of the pipeline. Obviously, that's still a lot of dollars added to our economy, but it immediately erodes the credibility of Keystone's claims.

Bradley also blindly repeats the jobs numbers Keystone claims, while offering nothing to support them. Moreover, he completely ignores the contradictory -- and much lower -- figures from the GLI study, and apparently from at least one other US government study. I don't know whose numbers are right. I do know that merely repeating Keystone's numbers without offering any supporting data is meaningless. It refutes nothing.

Finally, Bradley spends a lot of space extolling the tremendous benefits of bringing this oil into the United States. GLI, however, states that this oil is already sold into the United States, specifically to the Midwest, where this increased supply lowers gasoline prices by some 10 cents per gallon. Bradley completely ignores this, as well as claims that this pipeline might actually reduce American supplies by making it easier and cheaper for Canada to export their oil. Again, Bradley refutes nothing.

In short, your attack on the GLI study was once again a knee-jerk, emotional attack on something you didn't like. That doesn't make the GLI study gospel -- it may well be full of holes. You have no idea where it's right and where it's wrong, however, because you didn't do any homework before you attacked it. Neither did Bradley, as far as we can tell from his op-ed. He also reacted emotionally to something he disagrees with, but failed to offer any objective evidence to support his beliefs.

 

[Bowfinger]

So we have two biased reports. Lets use some common sense and admit that building a pipeline nearly 1700 miles long will create jobs and needed infrastructure in this country. And do it not using tax payers money.

No, we have a potentially biased report and a contradictory op-ed with no new information. The right approach therefore is actually reviewing the findings of the GLI study to determine where they may be wrong. In particular, GLI presents several specific reasons the Keystone (Perryman) job numbers are inflated. I understand there is also a US government study reaching the same conclusion, though its job estimates are reportedly somewhere in the middle. (I don't have a link for this second study, unfortunately, nor do I remember where I heard about it.)

Re. creating infrastructure, while this is usually a good thing, to me the open question is whether it's good for the U.S., or mostly good for Canada (once we get past the initial construction). If Canada truly does already sell that oil into U.S. markets, it seems that the pipeline is a best at wash for us. Of course if the pipeline is ultimately used to allow Canada to export oil it currently sells to the U.S., it's actually a negative for us.

This is all a vast oversimplification, of course, since there are undoubtedly hundreds of factors at work, some positive and some negative. To me, that's really the point. We immediately had a flood of the usual partisans jumping in to bash Obama without making any attempt to actually understand all the pros and cons. I honestly don't know if it's a net positive or negative, which is why I asked for more information. Unfortunately, none of the Keystone supporters really seemed to have much data to support their beliefs. It was all talking points and no substance.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I cannot believe at how Canada has managed to dupe conservatives into abandoning the US and to favor Canada.

 

[CitizenKain]

this what?

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

You and spidey in a competition to see who can have most irrational drunkpost?

 

[cybrsage]

Nah, only irrational people have a problem with Canada. The Quebequios, sure...but they are actually French.

 

[Bitek]

Yes, it's only been 3 years. The Federal Government will need at least another 23 years to pull their collective heads out of their asses and actually do some useful work.

Its either done or it isn't. If I turn in half-completed projects at work I know what the response would be. Saying its Friday and I'm ready to go home wouldn't cut it either.


Really I'm rather impressed they put such a complicated project together so fast. Aside from the engineering, having to deal with all the land lease, environmental, risk mitigation plans, local ordinances, rights acquisitions, etc etc, all along a transnational pipeline is rather impressive.

I'll agree Obama deserves criticism if he continually rejects the plan once they have the remaining issues sorted out and the plan is reasonable. Esp if he does so on global warming claims about Canada when the US has never bothered cutting any of its emissions.

To date, his reasoning is sound and has probably saved parties involved considerable money in lawyer fees given the certain legal challenges this would have brought if passed, esp in this manner.

It wasn't right for Congress to go dicking this company around and put them in the middle in the partisan bickering match just so they could run some ads in the fall accusing Obama of hating on america because he loves Hugo Chavez and his fellow muslim dictators in the middle east so much, or whatever stupid bullsh1t argument is being made. Then again, they got lobbyists from API involved, so kinda serves em right.

 

[Craig234]

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.

A problem you get into is if the pollsters tell you, 'if you do that, the right will actually strengthen its number, when they see the Republicans fighting you; and your own base will turn on you over the loss of benefits, and many will actually switch to the Republicans over it - the notice the impact more than the politics.'

I'm not saying that happened this time or that you're wrong - but if it does happen, it makes the political situation a lot more difficult.

Pay a huge political price for trying to... make the Republicans pay a political price for their obstructionism, and it'll backfire. Voters do cause this sort of problem at times.

Reminds me a little of when the Marines were bombed in Lebanon under Reagan.

He had a political dilemma - he could stand by his tough rhetoric and decide to keep the Marines there, but face the political cost and risk ongoing incidents; or he could pull them out and run the political cost of looking like he had been lying in his tough talk, unlikely to get a lot of political benefit from the peace crowd who wouldn't go to his side over one issue, when they disagreed with him. So, two bad choices. What he did was, give the tough speech - he will not back down - and the almost immediately after, withdraw them.

This was the 'political' combination to do - hypocrisy wasn't the probem; it gave his 'base' the words they wanted, while forcing his opponents - who lost something to attack him for - to in effect attack him for doing what they actually wanted him to do, and his base was pretty trained to ignore those critics anyway. He may have paid the minimum political price for it.

And Obama may have as well - be seen to be 'against' the extension in a speech and by his saying 'last extension', while removing it as a political weapon for opponents for a year.

Sure, it leaves him charged with not doing enough by his base - just like Reagan's could have charged him with the hypocrisy.

But in either case, what's the base going to do - Obama's embrace Republicans who want a permanent extension? Republican base embrace Democrats who want the withdrawal?

In both cases, they did 'enough' to make them preferable to their base, but little enough not to create a larger political issue for their opponents to use.

We discuss 'what's the best policy', they also discuss 'what gets them re-elected'.

Political calculations are that 'centrists' decide the election, and as horrible as some of their opinions might be, that's who gets catered to to win much of the time.

That's less clear right now, when Republicans are ignoring the moderates to competer for the nomination, but it'll change in the general - 'I never said that'.

Of course, if it's Romney, he'll never flip flop - as a guy of strong unchanging principle - to suddenly be the centrist chameleon. (Sarcasm alert).

 

[shira]

Obama to kill a huge job producer. This project has win/win written all over it, and the only thing standing in the way of jobs is Obama. The good news is he can be slammed over this incredibly short sighted stupid move AND it will turn the unions against him.

Word on the street is the real reason he opposes it is it would harm exports from his pal Chavez.

Under my plan, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket - Barrack Hussein Obama.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...eject-transcanada-s-keystone-xl-pipeline.html

You're misinformed:

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

In response to negative publicity, president and CEO of TransCanada Russ Girling touted the positive impact of the project by "putting 20,000 US workers to work and spending $7 billion stimulating the US economy." This has been disputed by an independent study conducted by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute which found that while the Keystone XL would result in 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs, this impact will be reduced by higher oil prices in the Midwest which will likely reduce national employment.

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

So, you think the jobs claims of TranCanada's CEO are the gold standard, but an independent study indicating a LOSS of U.S. jobs can be ignored? That's in interesting religion you've got going for you.

 

[monovillage]

Too bad you didn't read through the posts in this thread shira, you would have seen this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb...nergy-project-is-much-more-than-a-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."

It wasn't an "independent study" D'oh

 

[shira]

Too bad you didn't read through the posts in this thread shira, you would have seen this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb...nergy-project-is-much-more-than-a-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."

It wasn't an "independent study" D'oh

If you had bothered to read the actual Cornell University study rather than believe the propaganda of an this oil-industry spokesperson (the CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, which gets its funding from the Koch brothers), you'd find out that the actual dollar figure that's relevant to the U.S. is $3.5 billion, not $7 billion. The rest of the money has either already been spent, already committed (it will be spent regardless of whether or not Keystone gets approve), or will be spent in Canada, not the U.S.

Secondly, Keystone's own data (from the Federal Employment Impact Study provided to the U.S. state department) indicates that construction jobs from Keystone will amount to between 2500 and 4650 jobs over two years.

Thirdly, most of the steel pipe that will be used in the project will be manufactured by Russian and Indian steel using steel produced OUTSIDE the U.S., and most of the pipe fabricated from this steel will be performed OUTSIDE the U.S.

There's also a long section of the Cornell study that addresses the "respected Perryman Group" mentioned in the Forbes column. For one thing, Perryman assumes that 18 jobs are created for one year for each $1 million spent. As the Cornell study points out, a far more realistic figure is 11 jobs. and

Given the opaque nature of the Perryman model and the absence of any disclosure regarding the TransCanada expenditure and sourcing data utilized by Perryman, it is impossible to determine why the Perryman results are so high. By contrast, analyses based on higher quality studies and standard economic models estimate multipliers substantially lower than those assumed by Perryman. Hence, an alternative approach (i.e., using an independent assessment multiplier), yielding lower job estimates, is a much more reliable guide for evaluation and policymaking in regard to the KXL project.

Furthermore, the Cornell study includes estimates of the costs of the long term environmental and pollution damage caused by the pipeline. Plus

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

It's easy to come up with highly-inflated job figures if you lie about where the money will be spent, use models that predict more jobs per dollar than standard models, and ignore the costs that must be borne by Americans as a result of the project. The Cornell study doesn't use rose-colored glasses; it considers all factors.

But hey, if the oil industry tells us that 200,000 jobs will be create by an oil-industry project, then it must be true.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Genx87
...
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.

I seriously doubt any Repubs would have praised Obama if he approved it. Their track record says otherwise.

The fact this pisses off Repubs so much makes the denial that much more sweeter.

 

[michal1980]

Originally Posted by Genx87
...
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.




I seriously doubt any Repubs would have praised Obama if he approved it. Their track record says otherwise.

The fact this pisses off Repubs so much makes the denial that much more sweeter.

Like obama, you prefer unemployement benefits to real jobs.

 

[J-Money]

Dumb, dumb, dumb move by Obama.

Enviromentalists are retarded anyway.

Btw Harper is going to China next month and discussions will likely include the Northern Gateway pipeline, which as has been briefly mentioned is one that will pipe the oil to our West coast so we can sell it to China instead.

Canada wins.
China wins.
America loses.

Had Obama used this EASY job creation / vote getting project it should be:

Canada wins.
America wins.

Regardless Canada wins. That oil will be dug up and it will be transported somewhere. Nothing will stop that. Now if you hippies would get off the pot and realize your country needs whatever jobs it can get for however long that this would have been a great move.

Also, do you hippies even know where in Alberta the oil sands are? Where this "enviromental disaster" is?

Look at this map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athabasca_Oil_Sands_map.png

Do you know how many people actually live anywhere remotely close to those? This isn't something your going to drive by on your way to work or where you might decide to go camping. If it wasn't for the oil sands that area would be deserted. Sure it might look good but nobody gives a shit since it's about minus 40 degrees up there. Might as well make it useful.

 

[PeshakJang]

Of course, if it's Romney, he'll never flip flop - as a guy of strong unchanging principle - to suddenly be the centrist chameleon. (Sarcasm alert).

I've proven time and again that you wake up, put on your pants, and decide what principles you're going to have on any given day... What makes you two so different?

 

[Bowfinger]

Too bad you didn't read through the posts in this thread shira, you would have seen this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertb...nergy-project-is-much-more-than-a-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."

It wasn't an "independent study" D'oh

So you're going to double down on your meaningless op-ed and continue to completely ignore the study. Typical emotional, faith-based ideology.

 

[sportage]

Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Holding a card he can later use to play against republicans in the house. Against Boehner. It's good to see Obama playing the game for once as it has been played against him, and finally realizing that being mr nice guy will get him nowhere.
Usually, Obama goes on tv, speech after speech, trying to make his case and stir up public opinion. All while republicans hold hostages until they get what they want.
We all know the list. How that has come down, issue after issue. We all know the list quite well.
But this time, and for once, Obama is holding the winning hand in this game.

Will Obama agree to the pipeline, play his hand, to force republicans to install Richard Cordray as permanent head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Will Obama use his hand to avoid another fight over some looming economic issue?
Or to permanently extend that middle class tax cut from his stimulus plan?
Who knows.
And that unknown will give John Boehner many sleepless nights. As it should.
Obama is not stupid. They know that. We know that. You know that. And this time the president holds a winning hand, waiting for the right time to play it, without taking hostages.
I suspect the pipeline will become reality, but not until John Boehner gives up a hostage or two or three.
Excellent! Smart! And finally!
GO OBAMA!!!

HELL-NO is a 2 way street, Mr Johnny B.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Dumb, dumb, dumb move by Obama.

Enviromentalists are retarded anyway.

Btw Harper is going to China next month and discussions will likely include the Northern Gateway pipeline, which as has been briefly mentioned is one that will pipe the oil to our West coast so we can sell it to China instead.

Canada wins.
China wins.
America loses.

Had Obama used this EASY job creation / vote getting project it should be:

Canada wins.
America wins.

Regardless Canada wins. That oil will be dug up and it will be transported somewhere. Nothing will stop that. Now if you hippies would get off the pot and realize your country needs whatever jobs it can get for however long that this would have been a great move.

Also, do you hippies even know where in Alberta the oil sands are? Where this "enviromental disaster" is?

Look at this map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athabasca_Oil_Sands_map.png

Do you know how many people actually live anywhere remotely close to those? This isn't something your going to drive by on your way to work or where you might decide to go camping. If it wasn't for the oil sands that area would be deserted. Sure it might look good but nobody gives a shit since it's about minus 40 degrees up there. Might as well make it useful.

I venture to say that you can count the number of forum users who have been to the Ft McMurray area on one hand. I've been up there and saw nothing that could be considered an environmental disaster. Though I did see what happens when you park a pickup to close to one of the dump trucks.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

It's easier to understand than health care it would seem. But the Dems who know less about that pushed something through that was a whole lot more convoluted in a shorter time with less understanding. Nicely done.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Politics were already in play no doubt on both sides. It shouldn't have been escalated up to this. It still does not change the inappropriateness of bypassing the system and seeking rapid approval for a plan that is not complete. It needs more time regardless.

Sure it was a NO tho? Maybe it was going to be a YES, and he didn't want to backstab some of his base until after the election? They've thrown tantrums enough times about it. We'll never know.....

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

But the impact 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.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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

So, you think the jobs claims of TranCanada's CEO are the gold standard, but an independent study indicating a LOSS of U.S. jobs can be ignored? That's in interesting religion you've got going for you.

"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."