PDA

View Full Version : Keystone XL Veto



ccmanuals
02-24-2015, 04:38 PM
President just vetoed it. :)


"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety, and environment—it has earned my veto."

Norman Bernstein
02-24-2015, 04:39 PM
Good for him.

Now let's see the GOP try to override the veto.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:41 PM
Great news! I'm sure they will try Norman! So many jobs are at stake!:)

George Jung
02-24-2015, 04:41 PM
It's more a 'stay' than a total rejection - pending the completion of the govts. environmental studies. Still, I'm hopeful.

In unrelated news, It seems McConnell has agreed to bring the Homeland Security bill, and the Immigration bill, in separately/considered on their individual merits - as they should have in the first place. Suspect he/the Republicans caught a lot of flack of how they mishandled this. Wonder how much that little stunt cost us.

Steve McMahon
02-24-2015, 04:44 PM
Yay. Good for him.
Hopefully it will stay dead.
TransCanda should concentrate on the Energy East pipeline so we can risk our own groundwater and process the tar sands ourselves in refineries in Montreal and St John.

RodB
02-24-2015, 04:45 PM
"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety, and environment—it has earned my veto."

Total BS... this administration has stalled this project far too long and it has been studied way more than necessary ... only to stall it.

RodB

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 04:48 PM
To you it is! I'm thrilled it's been stalled at least..

switters
02-24-2015, 05:22 PM
Stalled, sadly, but at least he showed some fortitude. Will he veto it again if they house passes a funding bill with ACA and Keystone in the bill? Looks like we could find out.

George Jung
02-24-2015, 07:32 PM
I don't get the sense this President will blink on vetoing any legislation packaged like the last, the Homeland Security and Immigration. And he knows the voting public is blaming the Republicans for this BS. Clean bills, considered on their merits.

CWSmith
02-24-2015, 07:34 PM
Great news! I'm sure they will try Norman! So many jobs are at stake!:)

Yes. The guy who counts the money, the guy who piles the money, the guy who moves the money...

Phillip Allen
02-24-2015, 07:35 PM
Good for him.

Now let's see the GOP try to override the veto.

it's still a sports event for you, ain't it?

jpb54
02-24-2015, 07:37 PM
I hope it stays dead .

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 07:38 PM
it's still a sports event for you, ain't it?I hope the patriots win!

Tom Montgomery
02-24-2015, 07:39 PM
You don't like how the U.S. Federal government works?

Maybe you should consider relocating.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 07:41 PM
Immigration laws in Mexico is pretty tough! He may have to sneak across the border!

Phillip Allen
02-24-2015, 07:42 PM
You don't like how the U.S. Federal government works?

Maybe you should consider relocating.

I think Tom is drifting to the right... he now says "love it or leave it"

George Jung
02-24-2015, 07:48 PM
This makes as much sense as most of what's posted here:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/bush-says-will-harm-nation-differently-brother

Chip-skiff
02-24-2015, 08:02 PM
Our president is a decent sort, and very patient.

If I'd gotten that Keystone bill, I'd not only have vetoed it, but wiped my arse with it, and then jammed it down Boehner's throat.

I guess that's why he's president. We're fortunate to have a man of his character.

peb
02-24-2015, 08:04 PM
I wonder why all the lib who hate everything having to do with oil/gas continue to drive cars or fly commercial jets.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 08:09 PM
Actually, it is the republican party.
They hate climate change
they appear to hate women
they hate the environment
they hate immigrants
they probably hate themselves.

I'm afraid cars are built into the fabric of this country. It's a little late to ban cars but, we can make improvements on them. Planes too.

George Jung
02-24-2015, 08:22 PM
I wonder why the Republicans seemingly have to state everything in absolutes; 'you're either with us, or against us';

Whatsamatter - you never heard of 'nuance'?

peb
02-24-2015, 08:23 PM
I wonder why the Republicans seemingly have to state everything in absolutes; 'you're either with us, or against us';

Whatsamatter - you never heard of 'nuance'?

George, perhaps you should look at post #20 and see where this problem really resides.

S.V. Airlie
02-24-2015, 08:27 PM
Yup. facts as shown by the workings, goings on, are a problem. All you have to look at are the bills they have passed or tried to pass in the states and the US gov. to realize that

LeeG
02-24-2015, 09:21 PM
I wonder why all the lib who hate everything having to do with oil/gas continue to drive cars or fly commercial jets.

I wonder why an intelligent person such as yourself would construct such a lame red herring. It's like a piñata of wet poo.

LeeG
02-24-2015, 09:39 PM
Total BS... this administration has stalled this project far too long and it has been studied way more than necessary ... only to stall it.

RodB

We know you Texans have more cow pies than anyone. Obama already approved piles o' Keystone that have already been built. You do know that other pipelines have expanded to route oil to Cushing and the Southern section called Phase III is pretty much done. Canadian dilbit imports have been increasing w/o XL, oh my God how could that be?!
Cuz that ol' snake in the grass Obama co-opted all you goofballs! HaHaHaHaHa!

Why that card shark, everyone is gettin something! Darn that Obama!
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/19/how-enbridge-quietly-cloning-keystone-xl-tar-sands-pipeline

BrianW
02-25-2015, 10:16 AM
Some interesting numbers from a Fiscal times (I don't know them) article that was posted on Yahoo News...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/keystone-xl-veto-demonstrates-obama-091500666.html



That makes the veto Obama issued even more instructive. Obama killed a bill that would have forced the authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline, designed to bring crude from Alberta tar sands in Canada to refiners on the Gulf coast. The project would create 40,000 jobs in construction and pipefitting over the two years it would take to finish it.


For that reason, unions strongly backed the Keystone XL project, while environmentalists bitterly opposed it. Both of those are important constituencies for the Democratic Party, and the tension was reflected in the votes on the bill in both chambers. Twenty-nine House Democrats joined all but one of the House Republicans in passing the bill 270-152, while nine Senate Democrats joined all 53 GOP Senators for a 62-36 passage in the upper chamber.


Related: These 9 Democrats Went Out on a Limb for Keystone

(http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/01/30/These-9-Democrats-Went-Out-Limb-Keystone)

The bipartisan nature of the vote represented, and perhaps underrepresented, the broad approval of Keystone XL among the American electorate. A CNN poll in January (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/01/14/keystone.pdf) showed that 57 percent of Americans wanted it approved, while only 28 percent opposed it. The bill had majority or double-digit plurality support in almost every demographic – age, region, gender, income, education. Only among Democrats and self-described liberals did opposition exceed support, and in those cases only by single digits.



This vote was fairly bi-partisan and popular with the public.

Given his quoted above reason for the veto...


"Because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest—including our security, safety, and environment—it has earned my veto."

I can see only one of the four which is reasonable. That's being the environmental issue. I don't think this "act of Congress" (scary!) was in any way out of order, nor do I see it as a safety issue, in fact the pipeline is safer, and what's this other scare tactic wording about our security? Are the Canadians going to secretly send rogue Canadians down the pipeline, and overtake Texas?

I'm open to hearing arguments from his supporters about his 4 listed reasons. Because at first (and second reading) they come off as pretty lame.

genglandoh
02-25-2015, 10:21 AM
Total BS... this administration has stalled this project far too long and it has been studied way more than necessary ... only to stall it.

RodB

I wonder if the State Department will ever finish their report.

The Veto did not kill the Keystone Pipeline.
It just left the decision in the hands of the State Department.

RonW
02-25-2015, 10:27 AM
Related: These 9 Democrats Went Out on a Limb for Keystone



Nine Democrats voted with 53 Republicans to approve a measure staunchly opposed by the White House that would clear the way for the construction project, one proponents say will generate thousands of jobs and increase energy independence.

Those Democrats are Michael Bennet of Colorado, Robert Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jon Tester of Montana and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Heitkamp has been a strong advocate of Keystone, which would pass through her state on its way to Gulf Coast refineries and ports. As a key Democratic leader in the effort to advance U.S. energy infrastructure, Heitkamp built a coalition of pipeline supporters, successfully recruiting 10 other Democratic senators last June to join her in calling on President Obama to make a final decision.


“The Keystone pipeline will make our nation more energy secure and it will create jobs in Montana,” he said after the vote. “I urge President Obama to sign the bill into law. But Keystone is not the only solution for our energy future. We must step up our work to make cleaner energy alternatives a larger part of our nation’s energy strategy.”

While the legislation was approved after nearly three weeks of debate, McConnell and the Republicans are several votes short of the 67 votes needed to override the president’s promised veto. The House likely would have an even tougher time getting a two-thirds majority.

The proposed pipeline application has languished for years while the State Department and other federal and state authorities did feasibility and environmental impact studies.

....

switters
02-25-2015, 10:28 AM
One of the things holding up the pipeline from the administrations point of view, eminent domain. This hasn't been getting a lot of press and is pretty important. Important enough that the Nebraska Supreme court has split on some decisions regarding this. I have been trying to wrap my head around the red team wanting to charge ahead with this regardless of a foreign company forcing private land owners to sell.

That is a pretty big deal. Second to that and related is the native america treaties.

Personally I would veto based on the environmental concerns. The irony is going to be if this eventually does get shut down, it will be for private property rights, a very important cornerstone of the red kool aid drinkers screaming for the pipeline to be built.

ccmanuals
02-25-2015, 10:31 AM
Wonder what people say about a foreign corporation seizing land belonging to a US Citizen through eminent domain.

slug
02-25-2015, 10:41 AM
One of the things holding up the pipeline from the administrations point of view, eminent domain. This hasn't been getting a lot of press and is pretty important. Important enough that the Nebraska Supreme court has split on some decisions regarding this. I have been trying to wrap my head around the red team wanting to charge ahead with this regardless of a foreign company forcing private land owners to sell.

That is a pretty big deal. Second to that and related is the native america treaties.

Personally I would veto based on the environmental concerns. The irony is going to be if this eventually does get shut down, it will be for private property rights, a very important cornerstone of the red kool aid drinkers screaming for the pipeline to be built.

Who cares .

Foreigner, space aliens...once permission has been granted to build the pipeline it makes no difference who the owner is.

Canoez
02-25-2015, 10:42 AM
Some interesting numbers from a Fiscal times (I don't know them) article that was posted on Yahoo News...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/keystone-xl-veto-demonstrates-obama-091500666.html




This vote was fairly bi-partisan and popular with the public.

Given his quoted above reason for the veto...



I can see only one of the four which is reasonable. That's being the environmental issue. I don't think this "act of Congress" (scary!) was in any way out of order, nor do I see it as a safety issue, in fact the pipeline is safer, and what's this other scare tactic wording about our security? Are the Canadians going to secretly send rogue Canadians down the pipeline, and overtake Texas?

I'm open to hearing arguments from his supporters about his 4 listed reasons. Because at first (and second reading) they come off as pretty lame.

That 40,000 or 42,000 temporary job number has been pushed around a lot. It's not really true. In actuality, that figure was "job years", so basically 20,000-21,000 jobs for two years. It's a very, very fluid thing. From Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/):


In January of 2010, Trans-Canada CEO Russell Girling claimed that the project would produce 13,000 construction jobs. In April of 2011 the number grew to 20,000, which the Canadian Ambassador reiterated in August 2011. In January 2012 the number was revised back down to 13,000 and this past April the company revised that number even lower, to 9,000 construction jobs. Meanwhile, both the federal government and the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University’s College of Industrial and Labor Relations (http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf) examined TransCanada’s application and made their own job creation estimates, at 6,000-6,500 and 2,500-4,500 respectively. A State Department study (http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/205719.pdf) projects only 35 permanent jobs in pipeline maintenance and inspection. Although it seems likely that the Keystone XL Pipeline’s application will eventually be approved by the Obama Administration, firmer numbers will not be available until the project gets underway.

Norman Bernstein
02-25-2015, 10:43 AM
I wonder why all the lib who hate everything having to do with oil/gas continue to drive cars or fly commercial jets.

Really? 'libs' hate everything to do with oil/gas?

I didn't know that! :)

(Really, peb.... you honestly BELIEVE that crap? you don't think the perspective is just a teeny bit more nuanced than that?)

RichKrough
02-25-2015, 10:48 AM
I consider the environmental conflicts a wash. Rail vs Pipeline IMO both have about equal risk and impact. 40K jobs? Those numbers are always grossly inflated by both sides. There isn't enough pipe laying equipment to support that many jobs. More likely about 5,000 directly and indirectly. The bigger issue to me is seizing through imminent domain the property of US citizens to support a foreign entity with not much long term benefit to country as a whole. If the pipeline was also carrying crude from the Dakota oil fields maybe I would feel better about it.

I had always thought that one of the cornerstones of Conservative ideology for years was the protection of property owners against government seizure. We just had a dust up in Nevada last year over grazing rights by that rancher with folks showing up with guns to protect his rights. But now the rights of landowners in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska don't matter? Has the ideology changed or has it sold out to the highest bidder?

LeeG
02-25-2015, 10:53 AM
Really? 'libs' hate everything to do with oil/gas?

I didn't know that! :)

(Really, peb.... you honestly BELIEVE that crap? you don't think the perspective is just a teeny bit more nuanced than that?)

Must be a Texas thing

genglandoh
02-25-2015, 10:56 AM
The US has 190,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines today.
I do not understand why the Keystone Pipeline is such a big deal.

http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/transporting-oil-and-natural-gas/pipeline/where-are-the-oil-pipelines

slug
02-25-2015, 10:58 AM
I consider the environmental conflicts a wash. Rail vs Pipeline IMO both have about equal risk and impact. 40K jobs? Those numbers are always grossly inflated by both sides. There isn't enough pipe laying equipment to support that many jobs. More likely about 5,000 directly and indirectly. The bigger issue to me is seizing through imminent domain the property of US citizens to support a foreign entity with not much long term benefit to country as a whole. If the pipeline was also carrying crude from the Dakota oil fields maybe I would feel better about it.

I had always thought that one of the cornerstones of Conservative ideology for years was the protection of property owners against government seizure. We just had a dust up in Nevada last year over grazing rights by that rancher with folks showing up with guns to protect his rights. But now the rights of landowners in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska don't matter? Has the ideology changed or has it sold out to the highest bidder?


40 k jobs is an underestimate. Shale oil, fracking gas, oil sands, deep water oil have supplied the market with so much oil that the price has collapsed. This low oil price has created hundreds of thousands , millions of jobs.

And your nationalist arguments is woolly headed. Makes you sound like a Greek. Any foriegn investment is positive. The highest bidder wins.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 11:15 AM
There it is again - 'millions of jobs'. That's just 'an incredibly unintelligent thing to say'*. Makes you sound unintelligent*

One thing I've been mulling - they have all these various pipelines; why such a 'need' for this one? More importantly, why this route? If they need more capacity, why not simply add a line along an already established route?

I suspect the answer lies in their 'contract', if approved - which allows them to re-purpose the line, at any time, for whatever they choose - including water. There's a reason they want to cross the Ogallala Aquifer. Big money has been buying up water rights in recent years, the next 'Big War' purportedly will be for access to fresh water.

slug
02-25-2015, 11:28 AM
Millions of jobs. The entire industrial world depends on energy. The cheaper the energy, the more growth and employment

you should be careful who you call unintelligent, makes you sound like a parochial hillbilly

LeeG
02-25-2015, 11:29 AM
The US has 190,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines today.
I do not understand why the Keystone Pipeline is such a big deal.

http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/transporting-oil-and-natural-gas/pipeline/where-are-the-oil-pipelines

It's symbolic for multiple political forces. In the big picture for what really matters to Dems, Reps, Ind, Greenies, bat-crazy Texans, reptilian overlords and BDSM fans it's IRRELEVANT.

If you look up the other recent pipelines constructed to get Canadian dilbit to Cushing and the recently completed southern portion of Keystone we have been getting as much Canadian tar sands oil we can buy and process. The amount of Canadian tar sands oil has increased w/o the XL portion.

Things are going to get weirder if prices stay low.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 11:29 AM
Another swing...

and a 'whiff'.

So it goes.

Norman Bernstein
02-25-2015, 11:32 AM
The US has 190,000 miles of liquid petroleum pipelines today.
I do not understand why the Keystone Pipeline is such a big deal.

Because it doesn't make sense, from the perspective of national energy security, it represents greater-than-normal risk, it requires significant eminent domain and may abrogate treaties with native Americans, and it privatizes the profits while putting the American taxpayer on the hook for the liabilities.

Aren't those enough reasons?

LeeG
02-25-2015, 11:37 AM
Millions of jobs. The entire industrial world depends on energy. The cheaper the energy, the more growth and employment

you should be careful who you call unintelligent, makes you sound like a parochial hillbilly


. "Cheap" requires a context and the supply of cheap oil stopped growing about 8yrs ago. The fillers since then, especially tar sands and light tight fracked "oil" are our transition to depowering that we are blowing out the exhaust pipes of an unsustainable infrastructure.
We are seriously missing opportunities.

Paul Pless
02-25-2015, 11:37 AM
Because it doesn't make sense, from the perspective of national energy security, it represents greater-than-normal risk. . .spew

greater risk than oil from the mideast?
greater risk than deepwater horizon oil?

slug
02-25-2015, 11:39 AM
Because it doesn't make sense, from the perspective of national energy security, it represents greater-than-normal risk, it requires significant eminent domain and may abrogate treaties with native Americans, and it privatizes the profits while putting the American taxpayer on the hook for the liabilities.

Aren't those enough reasons?
Everyone of your points are fabricated and popularized by liberal special interest groups. Energy policy should not be decided by special interest , only the national interest.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 11:42 AM
I like that *spew*....

President Obama is awaiting a determination of 'national interest', as opposed to your moneyed interests and their paid politicians (Republicans, it seems) trying to ram it through, abrogating the process.

There's a certain irony in your talking out of both ends on this.

slug
02-25-2015, 11:47 AM
http://s17.postimg.org/lf8ci0cjz/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/rg61f2z63/full/)
subir fotos online (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

George Jung
02-25-2015, 11:57 AM
Last years news.

Norman Bernstein
02-25-2015, 11:58 AM
Everyone of your points are fabricated and popularized by liberal special interest groups. Energy policy should not be decided by special interest , only the national interest.

Hmmm... are you trying to suggest that support for the Keystone XL pipeline isn't coming from conservative special interest groups? Or that big money interests aren't a factor? :)

By the way, your graph is 17 months old. Public opinion has changed a LOT since it was created.

slug
02-25-2015, 12:01 PM
I dont believe in dark forces or conspriacy theories.

Norman Bernstein
02-25-2015, 12:02 PM
greater risk than oil from the mideast?

Greater risk to the continental US, environmentally, than mideast oil, which arrives largely by ship and is delivered to coastal refineries.


greater risk than deepwater horizon oil?

To the continental US, absolutely, since 'dilution' as the solution to pollution, never a good solution, is even less a solution, when on land. The environmental disaster of Deepwater Horizon isn't fully evaluated yet, and is probably far greater than most people realize.... but it's not in their back yards, and it's not potentially polluting rivers, streams, and aquifers.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 12:02 PM
slug (http://forum.woodenboat.com/member.php?42266-slug)

View Profile (http://forum.woodenboat.com/member.php?42266-slug)
View Forum Posts (http://forum.woodenboat.com/search.php?do=finduser&userid=42266&contenttype=vBForum_Post&showposts=1)
Private Message (http://forum.woodenboat.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=42266)
Send Email (http://forum.woodenboat.com/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=42266)

http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/statusicon/user-online.png Senior Member
Join DateDec 2012LocationHigh plains drifterPosts6,140
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/icons/icon1.png Re: Keystone XL Veto
I dont believe in dark forces or conspriacy theories.





How about facts? Do you believe in facts?

BrianY
02-25-2015, 12:03 PM
Energy policy should not be decided by special interest , only the national interest.


I agree 10000000%. So, how about your side pulling the oil and gas companies and financial companies and their lobbyists out of the debate and we'll pull the "liberal special interest groups" ? You cannot pretend that the conservative/energy industry/ financial industry special interest groups supporting this thing are acting "only in the national interest" - unless, of course, you're completely biased and willfully ignorant.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 12:05 PM
I suspect slug was right with you, right until '...completely biased and willfully ignorant'. That's kinda a deal killer.

Paul Pless
02-25-2015, 12:05 PM
I like that *spew*....

President Obama is awaiting a determination of 'national interest', as opposed to your moneyed interests and their paid politicians (Republicans, it seems) trying to ram it through, abrogating the process.

There's a certain irony in your talking out of both ends on this.I don't mind the veto, and I'm not a fan of 'big oil'. But, Canada's oil sands are going to be developed one way or another. I'd like to see Obama get something in return for signing a future bill - maybe some responsibility for safety concessions. I think Norman and others have taken one of those political positions that happens to be at odds with the facts, so they hue and cry and bend the facts to their will. The irony in this case is that Norman is more often than not the one making that accusation of others. . .

switters
02-25-2015, 12:07 PM
Greater risk to the continental US, environmentally, than mideast oil, which arrives largely by ship and is delivered to coastal refineries.



To the continental US, absolutely, since 'dilution' as the solution to pollution, never a good solution, is even less a solution, when on land. The environmental disaster of Deepwater Horizon isn't fully evaluated yet, and is probably far greater than most people realize.... but it's not in their back yards, and it's not potentially polluting rivers, streams, and aquifers.

The myth is more comfortable than the often difficult search for truth.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 12:07 PM
Ah yes, 'fatalism'. If ya can't beat 'em, may as well lay back and enjoy it, eh?

The more I see of KXL, the less of a 'plus' it seemingly represents. I don't trust them; and there's way too much downside to allowing this.

If it's going to be 'developed anyway' - let Canada do it.

ccmanuals
02-25-2015, 12:08 PM
I don't mind the veto, and I'm not a fan of 'big oil'. But, Canada's oil sands are going to be developed one way or another. I'd like to see Obama get something in return for signing a future bill - maybe some responsibility for safety concessions. I think Norman and others have taken one of those political positions that happens to be at odds with the facts. . .

Democrats tired to add a bunch of stuff to the bill, i.e. safety stuff, paying into the cleanup fund, the companies responsibility to cleanup in case of a spill etc. The republicans would not even allow debate on these things.

Paul Pless
02-25-2015, 12:17 PM
Ah yes, 'fatalism'. If ya can't beat 'em, may as well lay back and enjoy it, eh?

The more I see of KXL, the less of a 'plus' it seemingly represents. I don't trust them; and there's way too much downside to allowing this.

If it's going to be 'developed anyway' - let Canada do it.The alternative development routes also involve risk to the U.S., including the burning of that all that not very clean oil, with less benefits to the United States.

Norman Bernstein
02-25-2015, 12:20 PM
I don't mind the veto, and I'm not a fan of 'big oil'. But, Canada's oil sands are going to be developed one way or another. I'd like to see Obama get something in return for signing a future bill - maybe some responsibility for safety concessions. I think Norman and others have taken one of those political positions that happens to be at odds with the facts. . .

The topic is full of facts... and even more full of speculation.

'Responsibility for safety concessions'? We can't even hold a corporation fully responsible for EXISTING environmental threats, let alone a new one. There is nothing, as far as I can tell, in the Keystone XL proposal that makes the slightest change to the way in which corporations are held to be fully responsible, and as long as the fines are a small percentage of the potential profits, corporations will have very little incentive to care.

However, it is fair to point out that many of these threats already exist, and an argument MIGHT be made that XL doesn't represent a big incremental threat. That may indeed be true, but there are other factors to argue against it.

Perhaps the MOST compelling evidence against XL requires little more than plain logic, and a rudimentary knowledge of the global energy market. Oil is a global commodity... it flows to where it can find the best price, and NOT to where it is found, as a primary motivation. Only a complete fool would think that the XL oil ends up in domestic consumption... it simply will add to the global market, and will go where the demand is.... we're already a net exporter of energy WITHOUT the XL project, so the additional oil from XL is headed OUT of the US, not into it.

But what does it cost us? Tar sands oil is abrasive, and must be heated to be pipelined... and a pipeline failure may will be FAR harder to clean up, than conventional oil. The pipeline will require substantial eminent domain takings... but don't we reserve eminent domain takings for just situations where the public enjoys the primary benefit? WHO will be the primary beneficiary of XL? It's owners, and its' users.... the Koch brothers will be some of the biggest winners, since they own all sorts of leases on oil sands territory in Canada. How does America benefit? 50 jobs, after construction is complete?

It's a screw job, with taxpayers holding the bag. Thousands of landowners will have to live with the pipeline, and suffer the primary effects of a spill... and the country will not benefit economically, as a whole....

....but a couple of Big Oil interests will make MILLIONS.

LeeG
02-25-2015, 12:20 PM
I consider the environmental conflicts a wash. Rail vs Pipeline IMO both have about equal risk and impact. 40K jobs? Those numbers are always grossly inflated by both sides. There isn't enough pipe laying equipment to support that many jobs. More likely about 5,000 directly and indirectly. The bigger issue to me is seizing through imminent domain the property of US citizens to support a foreign entity with not much long term benefit to country as a whole. If the pipeline was also carrying crude from the Dakota oil fields maybe I would feel better about it.

I had always thought that one of the cornerstones of Conservative ideology for years was the protection of property owners against government seizure. We just had a dust up in Nevada last year over grazing rights by that rancher with folks showing up with guns to protect his rights. But now the rights of landowners in Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska don't matter? Has the ideology changed or has it sold out to the highest bidder?

I think there's a provision in the XL deal for a small portion to allow domestic fracked oil but most of our explosion, er, fantastic increase, in oil by rail is fracking not dilbit from Canada. From the Desmoblog article I posted above there are a few cranky property owners who lost property through eminent domain for the lower portion of Keystone that was long ago approved and constructed.

George Jung
02-25-2015, 12:21 PM
Wrong, I'd say. This is an export line - 'benefits' won't accrue to the USA, but only the owners and refiners. Spills - most definitely will fall on the taxpayers and the unfortunate landowners who happen to be directly affected. Let Canada despoil their own lands and waters.

LeeG
02-25-2015, 12:31 PM
Energy policy should not be decided by special interest , only the national interest.

Ok!
Now all you need to do is define a well informed understanding of the national interest.
For most people on either side it's doing the same damn thing but "better" with short term reward and identity overcoming sacrifice and delayed benefit for the general population in the long term.

LeeG
02-25-2015, 12:35 PM
I like that *spew*....

President Obama is awaiting a determination of 'national interest', as opposed to your moneyed interests and their paid politicians (Republicans, it seems) trying to ram it through, abrogating the process.

There's a certain irony in your talking out of both ends on this.

I can't imagine what kind of decompression a person must go through after two terms of presidency.

"Well this will be fun to act out for Saturday Night Live in 2020"

LeeG
02-25-2015, 12:45 PM
Wrong, I'd say. This is an export line - 'benefits' won't accrue to the USA, but only the owners and refiners. Spills - most definitely will fall on the taxpayers and the unfortunate landowners who happen to be directly affected. Let Canada despoil their own lands and waters.

The problem with this line of argument is the idea it's the only pipeline to the U.S. In a general long term sense it'll be some benefit simply because it'll be a new pipeline and it'll be built while we can as opposed to later when it may not be affordable. Many of our sources of imported oil have been despoiling their lands with little concern from us, it only seems fair we experience and adjust to the full cycle cost. I think more enlightened environmental policies and international agreements can come from that.

chas
02-25-2015, 02:17 PM
"I suspect the answer lies in their 'contract', if approved - which allows them to re-purpose the line, at any time, for whatever they choose - including water. There's a reason they want to cross the Ogallala Aquifer. Big money has been buying up water rights in recent years, the next 'Big War' purportedly will be for access to fresh water."

You've seen right through to the endgame, George. We figure if we provide the means for you to pump your water north/south you might not dip into our supply. I'll tell you one fact; Canada would cancel Keystone XL in a flash if ya'll would sign up to the promise of keeping your thirsty mitts away from our water resources. Other than what we might sell you of course.

"Many of our sources of imported oil have been despoiling their lands with little concern from us, it only seems fair we experience and adjust to the full cycle cost. I think more enlightened environmental policies and international agreements can come from that."

Yee-haw to that Lee. Let us know when you are ready for that conversa....err....conversion. :d / Jim

slug
02-26-2015, 02:50 AM
The problem with this line of argument is the idea it's the only pipeline to the U.S. In a general long term sense it'll be some benefit simply because it'll be a new pipeline and it'll be built while we can as opposed to later when it may not be affordable. Many of our sources of imported oil have been despoiling their lands with little concern from us, it only seems fair we experience and adjust to the full cycle cost. I think more enlightened environmental policies and international agreements can come from that.

every barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas harvested and exported works to bring global CO2 emissions down by displacing coal as an energy source.

every barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas exported adds to the national tax budget, the money needed to adapt to climate change.

liberals cant figure this out. They are stuck on stupid.





http://s15.postimg.org/rtjfxlzfv/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/ty3syp12f/full/)
share image (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)


http://s18.postimg.org/mjqz0dynd/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/tmyug042t/full/)
hosting imagenes (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

LeeG
02-26-2015, 03:25 AM
every barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas harvested and exported works to bring global CO2 emissions down by displacing coal as an energy source.

every barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas exported adds to the national tax budget, the money needed to adapt to climate change.

liberals cant figure this out. They are stuck on stupid.
]

Nonsense, oil will not be displacing coal for electrical power especially in light of it's peaking production. It is too valuable as a transportation fuel. The US is a net importer of oil. You speak as though these supplies are invariable. Your earlier characterization that expensive tight oil drove high oil prices down is nonsense. The only were viable with high prices.
You get some things right and some totally wrong and you're really not making yourself sound intelligent with such a partisan insult.

Wrt your chart it shows total resource extracted not emissions right now. If the term "resource" is used it can mean what is in the ground not what can be economically extracted as in reserves.

George Jung
02-26-2015, 08:56 AM
"I suspect the answer lies in their 'contract', if approved - which allows them to re-purpose the line, at any time, for whatever they choose - including water. There's a reason they want to cross the Ogallala Aquifer. Big money has been buying up water rights in recent years, the next 'Big War' purportedly will be for access to fresh water."

You've seen right through to the endgame, George. We figure if we provide the means for you to pump your water north/south you might not dip into our supply. I'll tell you one fact; Canada would cancel Keystone XL in a flash if ya'll would sign up to the promise of keeping your thirsty mitts away from our water resources. Other than what we might sell you of course.

"Many of our sources of imported oil have been despoiling their lands with little concern from us, it only seems fair we experience and adjust to the full cycle cost. I think more enlightened environmental policies and international agreements can come from that."

Yee-haw to that Lee. Let us know when you are ready for that conversa....err....conversion. :d / Jim

You shouldn't be so crass about subjects you're unfamiliar with. We'll see.

Norman Bernstein
02-26-2015, 09:02 AM
every barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas harvested and exported works to bring global CO2 emissions down by displacing coal as an energy source.

every barrel of oil or cubic meter of gas exported adds to the national tax budget, the money needed to adapt to climate change.

liberals cant figure this out. They are stuck on stupid.


Useless chart: it doesn't tell us whether the 'warming potential' is based on the actual volumes of different fuels, or not.

Furthermore, there isn't the slightest reason to think that Alberta oil sands fuel will be displacing coal.

Finally, there are many arguments against Keystone XL, but this is the first I've heard which 'pretends' to base an argument for it on global warming issues. You can't simultaneously dismiss global warming as a hoax, AND argue that Keystone XL will help reduce global warming! :):)

Conservatives could figure this out, if the wanted to, but they don't. They're not stuck on stupid... they're just stuck on disingenuous.

John Smith
02-26-2015, 09:03 AM
How long can we continue to destroy our planet before we can no longer live on it?

LeeG
02-26-2015, 09:31 AM
Useless chart: it doesn't tell us whether the 'warming potential' is based on the actual volumes of different fuels, or not.

Furthermore, there isn't the slightest reason to think that Alberta oil sands fuel will be displacing coal.

Finally, there are many arguments against Keystone XL, but this is the first I've heard which 'pretends' to base an argument for it on global warming issues. You can't simultaneously dismiss global warming as a hoax, AND argue that Keystone XL will help reduce global warming! :):)

Conservatives could figure this out, if the wanted to, but they don't. They're not stuck on stupid... they're just stuck on disingenuous.

That's the goofy part of slugs argument, my sense is that coal does have greater long term potential for emitting CO2 but burning up more fossil fuels won't displace coal, it's simply burning more leaving coal to continue.

LeeG
02-26-2015, 09:34 AM
How long can we continue to destroy our planet before we can no longer live on it?

The planet won't be destroyed, just another extinction event under way and something else will appear in a few million years

chas
02-26-2015, 12:21 PM
"I suspect the answer lies in their 'contract', if approved - which allows them to re-purpose the line, at any time, for whatever they choose - including water. There's a reason they want to cross the Ogallala Aquifer. Big money has been buying up water rights in recent years, the next 'Big War' purportedly will be for access to fresh water."

You do remember this statement, George? I was unfamiliar with your use of the accusation of 'crass' but I have a better understanding now. :d / Jim

RonW
02-26-2015, 12:28 PM
The planet won't be destroyed, just another extinction event under way and something else will appear in a few million years

So...........
science says its perhaps not surprising that taken over 4.5 *billion* years, over 99% of all species that have ever lived are no longer with us.

So now it is your turn, keep your chin up and take it like a man and don't go out wimpering.

LeeG
02-26-2015, 12:55 PM
So...........

So now it is your turn, keep your chin up and take it like a man and don't go out wimpering.

And use that organ between your ears for other things than making up stories.

switters
01-24-2017, 12:01 PM
Day four, more damage to the planet, which most agree is a "bad, very bad thing".

A large boost in short term jobs, because boom and bust economy is also a bad thing, unless your whole life is built around short term profit and walking away from the collateral damage.

And in order to complete it we come back to eminent domain again. Also bad. Why dont we route one of the damn things under a trump property for once.

So Pi$$ed I cant even get going on a good rant.

I like to play devils advocate and poke a little fun at the partisans, but I will go on record here that the sooner Pres. Trump is (legally) removed from office the better off we will be as a nation and a planet.

GRRRR swearing, curses and anger.

Paul Pless
01-24-2017, 05:09 PM
which most agree is a "bad, very bad thing".i think a lot of people don't give a flying ****

Chris Smith porter maine
01-24-2017, 05:19 PM
It pretty much runs right through the heart of the red states, kinda like that old saying you pet him you get him, when it leaks I hope they have a good fund set up so tax dollars are not needed to bail them out.

skuthorp
01-24-2017, 05:30 PM
So...........

So now it is your turn, keep your chin up and take it like a man and don't go out wimpering.

Yup. I used to say 'drip,drip' but now it's more like a flood.

redeye1962
01-24-2017, 06:37 PM
pipe vs truck, train etc. good and bad on both sides............has anyone seen the pipelines we have already. Thank you Rockefeller

Chris Coose
01-24-2017, 06:42 PM
It's gonna be an early spring in the Dakotas. Temps. predicted to rise quickly.

Sky Blue
01-24-2017, 07:07 PM
We will revisit this theme again, gentlemen, as President Obama's agenda is dismantled, piece by piece, but what you are witnessing here is one of the ramifications of failing to govern with a bipartisan consensus. The Democrats spent 8 years screaming about "obstruction." The reality is that effective government is achieved through leadership compromise and that "my way or the highway" is a road to nowhere. President Clinton provided a wonderful example of how this is done when the opposition controls the legislative branch, but President Obama was either too inexperienced, arrogant or stupid to learn from that lesson. Most every "achievement" of his Presidency will be dismantled because he failed to find a way to cause his opposition to become invested in these programs/decisions.

This is ultimately why history will regard him as one of our poorest Presidents, rather than one of our better ones.

SKIP KILPATRICK
01-24-2017, 07:12 PM
I repeat myself.

Jesus wept.

bob winter
01-24-2017, 07:19 PM
We will revisit this theme again, gentlemen, as President Obama's agenda is dismantled, piece by piece, but what you are witnessing here is one of the ramifications of failing to govern with a bipartisan consensus. The Democrats spent 8 years screaming about "obstruction." The reality is that effective government is achieved through leadership compromise and that "my way or the highway" is a road to nowhere. President Clinton provided a wonderful example of how this is done when the opposition controls the legislative branch, but President Obama was either too inexperienced, arrogant or stupid to learn from that lesson. Most every "achievement" of his Presidency will be dismantled because he failed with an American friend wto find a way to cause his opposition to become invested in these programs/decisions.

This is ultimately why history will regard him as one of our poorest Presidents, rather than one of our better ones.

Gimme a break, this is questionable. I would say more but descretion prevents me.

ccmanuals
01-25-2017, 10:42 AM
Gimme a break, this is questionable. I would say more but descretion prevents me.

You don't need to say more Bob. We all see it for what it is. Pure BS.

Tom Wilkinson
01-25-2017, 01:34 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/11/26/trump-owns-stake-in-hotly-disputed-3-8-billion-oil-pipeline-conflict-of-interest-looms/2/#72669823ed8a

How is Trumps stake in the pipeline companies not a conflict of interest?

CWSmith
01-25-2017, 02:27 PM
How is Trumps stake in the pipeline companies not a conflict of interest?

Nixon said that because the President does it, it cannot be a crime. Of course, he was wrong.

Likewise, Trump's position that by law he cannot have a conflict of interest may be a position that is not supported in the voting booth.

Sky Blue
01-25-2017, 02:39 PM
Gimme a break, this is questionable. I would say more but descretion prevents me.


You don't need to say more Bob. We all see it for what it is. Pure BS.

Or, in other words, neither of you have a rebuttal because the basic truth of it makes you angry. Mr. Obama's agenda is being dismantled, as we speak, in part because there was no bipartisan consensus supporting it. As the Democratic Party slid away into oblivion, Democrats continued to scream and holler about obstruction, as they do to this day, not allowing, even for a moment, the idea that Republicans were given majorities to do just that.

Mr. Obama failed America, his party, and ultimately, himself.

George Jung
01-25-2017, 02:54 PM
Nah. We're all just sick of your steady stream (hey! something in common with Trump!) of BS.

ccmanuals
01-25-2017, 03:44 PM
Or, in other words, neither of you have a rebuttal because the basic truth of it makes you angry. Mr. Obama's agenda is being dismantled, as we speak, in part because there was no bipartisan consensus supporting it. As the Democratic Party slid away into oblivion, Democrats continued to scream and holler about obstruction, as they do to this day, not allowing, even for a moment, the idea that Republicans were given majorities to do just that.

Mr. Obama failed America, his party, and ultimately, himself.

Sorry, you don't see a rebuttal because your post was BS. Kinda simple.