Obama - no to Keystone pipeline

[michal1980]

According to the NY Times Obama didn't say no, what he said was the 60 day limit on evaluation stipulated by the Republicans was insufficient to determine the important issues. There is no reason it can't be approved but to do so the process has to be started over. Feb. 19th or so is the current deadline. There's a whole lot of stupid and sorry invective flying around about this, not a lot in the way if reasoned discourse, it seems.

nice spin/ cover by the NY times.

But why would anyone expect anything different from the MSM

Maybe the NY times should ask Obama why he wanted to decided AFTER the election?

 

[CitizenKain]

nice spin/ cover by the NY times.

But why would anyone expect anything different from the MSM

Maybe the NY times should ask Obama why he wanted to decided AFTER the election?

Because he's a socialist and they apparently dislike oil or something.

You seem to invent new definitions all the time, so its not like anything you say is grounded in reality. Just how far left of Republicans do you think Obama is.

 

[zinfamous]

I can understand peoples' opposition to the tar sands thing. But, that's Canada's decision.

More to the point, our refusal to allow the pipeline will have NO effect on the tar sands operation. None. Canada has already said they'll just pipe it across to their West Coast.

I.e., general objections to tar sands operations are irrelevant in discussing the pipeline.

Fern

well, how much costlier would it be for Canada to take it to their West coast? Probably not ideal with that terrain.

any decision that makes oil shale exploitation prohibitively expensive is always the right decision.

job killer....lmfao.

 

[zinfamous]

Yeah, we can run ads on all the good paying jobs the GOP shipped off shore the past 11 years, too.

I understand those already were paying hard working Americans big bucks already, not these imaginary jobs that haven't been created yet for your brother.

Agreeing with spidey? Nice to see the list gain a new buddy....

EDIT: NVM... odd vBulletin rules don't allow it...

Saint Reagan sure as shit trickled a lot of jobs off to China and India.

 

[bfdd]

well, how much costlier would it be for Canada to take it to their West coast? Probably not ideal with that terrain.

any decision that makes oil shale exploitation prohibitively expensive is always the right decision.

job killer....lmfao.

the dangers of oil shale are no where near as you think. stop listening to the bullshit eco-kooks who have no idea what it takes to power a progressive and advancing society.

 

[KlokWyze]

are you sure about that?

Let me preface this by saying i don't really know that much about this proposed pipeline. I've read a little about it, but didn't dig into it in depth. Therefore, understand that i am asking for information, not stating a position. I'm asking you specifically, rather than certain others in this thread, because you've consistently shown yourself to be well-informed and well-reasoned.

That said, it is my understanding that environmental opposition to the keystone pipeline centers on the link across nebraska. Nebraska apparently draws its drinking water from a fairly shallow aquifer, which means it is especially vulnerable to pollution. The concern is that a pipeline leak could easily pollute nebraska's main source of drinking water. If this is a valid concern, it certainly seems like a reasonable objection to me.

Again, per my limited understanding, the environmentalists want a different route for the pipeline, one the avoids the sensitive areas in nebraska. The obama administration agreed and was studying one or more possible alternative routes, attempting to find a better solution. Republicans in congress preempted this, however, by requiring a yes/no decision within 60 days. Therefore, "obama" said no.

That's my understanding in a nutshell. What parts are right? What parts are wrong? Why is it unreasonable to seek a route that doesn't threaten nebraskans' drinking water?

obama

 

[monovillage]

It looks like Newsweek is fulfilling my Dad's old saying about groundhogs and acorns, here's an article from them and Robert Samuelson.



"President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn't often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and -- beyond the symbolism -- won't even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much. Stopping the pipeline won't halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global warming emissions. Indeed, Obama's decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama's decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

Finally, Obama's decision forgoes all the project's jobs. There's some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to "job years," meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it's in the thousands and important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor." ..................

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/20/keystone_madness__112829.html

 

[zinfamous]

the dangers of oil shale are no where near as you think. stop listening to the bullshit eco-kooks who have no idea what it takes to power a progressive and advancing society.

funny thing is this: you're incorrect.

stop listening to the fundy fear kooks that can't read and hate science.

 

[michal1980]

Because he's a socialist and they apparently dislike oil or something.

You seem to invent new definitions all the time, so its not like anything you say is grounded in reality. Just how far left of Republicans do you think Obama is.

i dont invent anything. I already posted a definition. You liberal socials are just in denial. Your afraid of the truth.

Reality is, that Obama chose his green tree hugging buddies over a privately funded oil project that would generate jobs. And then said that unemployement creates more jobs.

How is that not a socialist stance?

 

[Darwin333]

Good for them, but the statement claimed Texas. The same statement stands.

Its all connected to the same pipeline infrastructure. It would be very easy to ship either crude or refined product to Louisiana for export via tankers. Furthermore, if we were to get cut off from middle east oil today we would not be able to replace that supply and the nation would enter into a depression. With the pipeline we could twist Canada's arm into selling the oil to us instead of exporting it which would save our asses. Without it we have very little, if any, leverage.

I should clarify petroleum products. Is this Canadian oil going to be used in the United States?

Some will but from what I read most won't. Why does that matter? Its a global commodity and we could increase our internal supply all we wanted but it wouldn't really have an impact on price. Personally I would like to see the oil from the pipeline replace our imports from the ME. With the pipeline we still have that option, it gets much more difficult without it.

No, but that question wasn't asked. It's irrelevant.

I don't see how the statement about Canada is relevant to the discussion either which was my point.

 

[Darwin333]

That would be a dream come true.

While the point Londo was trying to make is valid he is a bit off.

The price of gas wouldn't be the main concern if we did that. The main concern would be if you could even find gas for sale at any price. Your "dream come true" would be the economic death of our country.

 

[Darwin333]

You're assuming that the US would do it immediately and that there's no replacement. Advancements and changes are coming by quickly in this area.

What advancements and changes are coming that would allow us to stop importing oil from Canada in any reasonable time frame?

 

[Darwin333]

well, how much costlier would it be for Canada to take it to their West coast? Probably not ideal with that terrain.

any decision that makes oil shale exploitation prohibitively expensive is always the right decision.

job killer....lmfao.

It may not be ideal but it most definitely won't make it prohibitively expensive. The oil will be extracted regardless of what we do, thats just the way it is.

 

[CitizenKain]

How is that not a socialist stance?

How is it a socialist stance?

Also, why is a socialist stance bad exactly? Beyond it being a word you were taught to fear?

 

[Jaskalas]

any decision that makes oil shale exploitation prohibitively expensive is always the right decision.

Why do you and Obama want energy to be 'necessarily more expensive' for Americans?

 

[Jaskalas]

Also, why is a socialist stance bad exactly? Beyond it being a word you were taught to fear?

Centralized planning is the antithesis of liberty, of freedom of choice. It is dictation, a core tenant of Communism and couldn't be more anti American.

 

[K1052]

As a tax professional I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. Honest question - I've never actually done any professional work on a project like this.

But it seems to me that under current income sourcing rules the presence of that pipeline in US territory is going to force the Canadian company to allocate some of their (taxable) net profits to the US. That means we get paid income taxes. Likewise for the states it would pass through.

I'll give an example. If a Canadian passenger plane flies from Vancouver to Miami most of that airline's profit is US income and taxed here (in the absence of a treaty overruling domestic US law). This is because the plane is flying over US airspace for the most part, hence it's US source income. Likewise, that pipeline is laid over a bunch of US territory.

It also seems to me that each state is going to get real estate tax. If the Canadian company is only renting the land, the fed & state govt are going to get a chunk of that too (rental income from real estate, whether improved or not, is taxable income). The states/counties it passes through are also likely to receive money from personal property taxes on the value of the pipeline and related equip located in their borders.

So, I'm interested to see how they escape all this taxation.

Fern

The state department estimated a property tax impact of around $63M annually for the entire length of the project. Since clearly this is a company with resources to appeal across all the counties they traverse I'd figure that to be on the high side. So past the initial construction we're looking at a few refinery jobs, property tax income in the range of $50M-ish annually, and maybe (generously) a hundred permanent jobs working on the pipeline. The domestic financial impact of this whole endeavor is negligible as far as we are concerned.

Edit: Forgot about the MLPs that pipeline companies use to minimize their income tax exposure.

The company should be able to build this pipeline. It is legal and Canada is a friendly nation. I do not however think that preferable treatment should be granted over the objections from states about the routing (Nebraska). It was highly likely that this whole thing would have been resolved later this year if it wasn't turned into a political football.

 

[michal1980]

^typical liberal. That hates middle class jobs. Why? Because its just a few jobs. And its just a few million dollars in taxes.

Instead we need big successful jobs/companies like solyndra, that take 500 million dollars in taxes, and ...

 

[CanOWorms]

Its all connected to the same pipeline infrastructure. It would be very easy to ship either crude or refined product to Louisiana for export via tankers. Furthermore, if we were to get cut off from middle east oil today we would not be able to replace that supply and the nation would enter into a depression. With the pipeline we could twist Canada's arm into selling the oil to us instead of exporting it which would save our asses. Without it we have very little, if any, leverage.

You're talking about Canada, not Zimbabwe. The United States can just take it by force. The US can rescind any recognition of Canadian sovereignty. That is quite a bit of leverage.

Some will but from what I read most won't. Why does that matter? Its a global commodity and we could increase our internal supply all we wanted but it wouldn't really have an impact on price. Personally I would like to see the oil from the pipeline replace our imports from the ME. With the pipeline we still have that option, it gets much more difficult without it.

Not much of our imports come from the ME. Moreover, why are Canadian imports preferred over Middle Eastern? That's a value judgment that I don't share.

I don't see how the statement about Canada is relevant to the discussion either which was my point.

I was directly asked about Canada's actions and its effects upon me. You were not asked about anything.

 

[spidey07]

^typical liberal. That hates middle class jobs. Why? Because its just a few jobs. And its just a few million dollars in taxes.

Instead we need big successful jobs/companies like solyndra, that take 500 million dollars in taxes, and ...

Funny how solyndra was approved, given money, etc in under the 60 days obama had to make a decision on "allowing" all these jobs to be created.

Good job on republicans for forcing the issue, he's standing in the way of jobs and needs to be chastised for it right up and through the election, in every debate, in every ad and commercial detailing his disastrous policies and decisions.

"Why obama, why are you preventing jobs?"

 

[CanOWorms]

What advancements and changes are coming that would allow us to stop importing oil from Canada in any reasonable time frame?

What is a reasonable time frame? Will a reasonable time frame overlap with the lifetime of the pipeline?

 

[K1052]

^typical liberal. That hates middle class jobs. Why? Because its just a few jobs. And its just a few million dollars in taxes.

Instead we need big successful jobs/companies like solyndra, that take 500 million dollars in taxes, and ...

I've said (in multiple posts now) the pipeline should be allowed after the routing issue was resolved. Nebraska isn't exactly liberal stronghold in case you haven't looked. What should not have happened is Congress sticking their nose into it trying to force the approval ahead of the IG report. Odds are TransCanada would have rerouted the pipeline to follow existing ones and negated the entire issue even before the IG was done.

 

[spidey07]

I've said (in multiple posts now) the pipeline should be allowed after the routing issue was resolved. Nebraska isn't exactly liberal stronghold in case you haven't looked. What should not have happened is Congress sticking their nose into it trying to force the approval ahead of the IG report. Odds are TransCanada would have rerouted the pipeline to follow existing ones and negated the entire issue even before the IG was done.

You're trying to revise history. Obama was always against the pipeline, it literally took an act of congress to force him to make a decision on it. And as he always does, he choose wrong.

 

[K1052]

You're trying to revise history. Obama was always against the pipeline, it literally took an act of congress to force him to make a decision on it. And as he always does, he choose wrong.

It took an act of Congress to throw a mealy bone to the disaster on wheels that is the Republican Presidential primary race.

 

[K1052]

Haha.

Check out this map showing all the pipelines already placed over the aquifer.

It looks like a spider web.

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/ogallala_aquifer_map.pdf

Makes the concern about the aquifer look phony. I'm getting the impression the real objection is about tar sands (and fossil fuels).

Fern

To clarify, the major issue is not that it was routed over the aquifer itself but that it was routed over the primary recharge zone (the Sandhills) where any spill would impact the entire aquifer.