Slashdot Mirror
Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The Christian Science Monitor reports that once again, the Obama administration has pushed back a final decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline possibly delaying the final determination until after the November midterm elections. In announcing the delay, the State Department cited a Nebraska Supreme Court case that could affect the route of the pipeline that may not be decided until next year, as well as additional time needed to review 2.5 million public comments on the project. Both supporters and opponents of the pipeline criticized the delay as a political ploy. Democratic incumbents from oil-rich states have urged President Obama to approve the pipeline but approving the pipeline before the election could staunch the flow of money from liberal donors and fund-raisers who oppose the project. The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell said in a statement that "at a time of high unemployment in the Obama economy, it's a shame that the administration has delayed the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline for years." Activists say its construction could devastate the environment, but several State Department reviews have concluded that the pipeline would be safe and was unlikely to significantly increase the rate of carbon pollution in the atmosphere. Even if the pipeline was canceled, it said, the oil sands crude was likely to be extracted and brought to market by other means, such as rail, and then processed and burned."
Every action that increases the cost of gasoline increases the profit in producing it.
What the anti oil people have failed to grasp is that they're making the oil companies rich at everyone else's expense.
If I didn't know better, I'd think the whole anti oil campaign were a conspiracy by the oil companies to raise prices. Because that has been the result.
We are only getting fracking in the first place because oil got expensive enough to justify the practice. If oil were cheaper then there would be no fracking.
Increase the cost further and see what happens next. But it won't be the green revolution.
Long story short, batteries are what is holding back green technology. Batteries are shit. Until that changes the green revolution will mostly be a luxury feel good item for the wealthy. Anyone outside of the elite simply won't be able to afford to go fully solar with an electric car, etc.
Which means we're on gas. And prices for gas will have to get astronomic before it will overwhelm the price advantage that gas has over electric.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It seems he likes to make all of his decisions after november.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What they need to do is build refineries in North Dakota, where there is plenty of oil, and also natural gas to power them.
We don't want all the refining capacity of the nation to be in the Gulf where it could be all shut down by a hurricane. (stronger and more frequent due to climate change)
Why can't we have a pipeline that brings fresh water, instead of oil? That would be a lot more helpful. We've been a serious drought for years, and there's no sign it will let up.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Mitch McConnell is a riot. Always when the turtleman speaks one should verify the facts and when you look at the data from no other than TransCanada about the number of *permanent* jobs this specific pipleline will add to the US economy it tops out at around 3600. Meanwhile you have Americans suing to not have that pipeline cross their land or have their land commandeered by the federal government.
These are both true. The oil companies take a straight percentage as profit.
Every action that increases the cost of gasoline decreases the consumption. For people who believe that climate change is real and caused/exacerbated by human activity, reducing the amount of gasoline consumed is a good thing.
Whether or not the cost rising results in more profits for oil companies (hint: it doesn't -- the profit per unit goes up, but the number of units sold goes down, and profits go down) is irrelevant to those who want less consumption of fossil fuels because, well, the carbon emissions are bad for mankind.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
My part of the country gets about 5% of our electricity from coal. The largest share (though not the majority) is natural gas, with big chunks of hydro, nuclear, and small but growing chunks of wind and solar and biomass/landfill gas. The carbon intensity of the electricity in my region per usable energy (say, per mile the vehicle can go) is less for electric than for gasoline, by a pretty wide margin.
Furthermore, if a person has PV panels on his own house, he can legitimately claim that his vehicle is low carbon emissions even if he does live in Kentucky or Ohio or Arizona or any other significantly-coal-dependent state.
Furthermore, coal plants are being retired all around the country. There's currently about 300 GW of coal fired capacity in tUSA -- by 2020 it will be closer to 220 GW. Folks who want less carbon emissions are opposed to building new capital infrastructure which will facilitate more carbon emissions for decades to come. Those folks would rather spend money (and create jobs) building wind turbines and solar farms and expanding subway and bus lines and switching more truck delivery to rails and switching from the manufacturing of gasoline fired autos to electric vehicles.
The folks who oppose the Keystone aren't in favor of coal fired electric power plants. That's pretty freaking obvious.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
If you're going to extract tar sands of their crude, then refining the crude in ND doesn't change anything. You've still got to ship liquid petroleum products from ND to the rest of the country -- and, in fact, the rest of the world since the USA is a net exporter of refined crude -- be it pipe, rail, or truck. Moving the refinery doesn't change the need for transport.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
"The Christian Science Monitors reports".....really?
North Dakota has saturated rail and road traffic trying to get it's crude out of the state. At the same time Natural gas is simply being burned off because there's no pipeline infrastructure to transport it. Pipelines that were being used to transport natural gas to the midwest from the east coast and gulf states will no longer be able to be used next year because they are being converted for use in transporting chemicals needed for tar sand conversion in Canada.
The reason big oil companies want the pipeline from Canada and not North Dakota is because there's a multibillion dollar tax loophole related to foreign oil processed in US refineries for export. Which is why the pipeline runs to the coast. Keystone Excel will have no effect on US fuel prices because it's not designed to sell fuel on the US market. It's quite likely that Keystone will result in refining capacity being taken out of the US market as it's used for export. All the signs point to this project actually costing the tax payer more at the pump in the end.
Let's also not forget the natural gas problems this creates for the upper midwest. They currently get their natural gas from Canada. Tar sand production need incredible amounts of natural gas. That's expected to increase prices people will be paying to heat their home. At the same time there's no plans now or in the future to bring more natural gas to upper midwest from the east coast. If anything they are losing capacity in order to support the tar sand production.
In the present day, the steam plant is located far from the occupants of the car, thus the cars are safer. But otherwise, it's the exact same technology. That's progress(tm)!
Come to think of it, have we made any really startling breakthrus since the internal combustion engine and computer itself? I mean, other than obvious stuff like improving those gadgets and linking them together.
Futurist Traditionalism
Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again
Canada ponders legalizing p2p filesharing for not-for-profit, personal use
Obama Approves Keystone Pipeline and Fast-Tracks Implementation
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Just a reminder: this includes regulation. It's a great excuse to charge more money and use what the laws do not specifically prohibit as a chance to make even more.
Futurist Traditionalism
I would have loved to been a fly on the wall in Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office when this non-decision was announced. Obama has once again taken the cowardly way out and punted a tough decision. He wants to continue to fundraise from environmentalists by saying "We're being tough on the Keystone pipeline and insisting it meets our environmental standards!" and then do the same with the big business crowd by saying, "We haven't said no to Keystone, we just want to make sure it meets our environmental standards." He doesn't actually want to make the decision, because then one crowd or the other will tell him to pound sand. Even though the entire job of being President of the United States is about making those decisions!
Worst president of my lifetime. Not even close.
I know a guy who runs a sandwich shop. Next time I see him I'll tell him to throw away 50% of his ingredients, leave the ovens on full even when he's closed and take on employees whose sole function is to break things.
He'll be pleased as puch at all the extra money he'll make!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Jesus would be trying to figure out how to get young adults off their parents health insurance policies. You know, the ones they still have, intact, that no longer have lifetime caps.
Jesus would be taking away health insurance from millions, making evil insurance companies give back those hundreds of millions in new premiums that are taxed because they can’t be held offshore under Reagan’s offshore asset squirreling rules.
Jesus would be helping states who have refused to cover their citizens with Medicaid explain how it’s actually making those who qualify, weaker, and even more sick.
Jesus would bring back pre-existing conditions.
Jesus, would be asking for his shirt back
Let's not be so quick to the default presumption that his African heritage won out over the Irish he got from his Mum.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
yet another politician on the payroll of the oil companies.
but as long as it's a Democrat, it's A Okay.
No, its not OK. Obama is a DINO (Democrat In Name Only), and unlike RINOs, which is just an insult because the person isn't far enough right, Obama is actually one of the most far right presidents we've had in a long time. He has instituted far too many straight-Republican policies (which they then oppose, despite being their own fucking policies simply because "Oh noes, he's a 'Democrat'!") to be an actual Democrat.
"People who showed up to help Bundy in Nevada are domestic terrorists" - Harry Reid
"People complaining they are having issues with Obamacare are outright liars" - Harry Reid
"The only reason to oppose Obama is because of racism" - Jimmy Carter
"People protesting against the ACA were waving their flags around like Nazis" - Nancy Pelosi
"Help me to get reelected to destroy my political enemies" - Barak Obama
Lets see. I can list a ton of quotes from the LEADERS of the DNC. If you want I'll go on and list some from Bill Maher that you won't be able to match from anyone on the right. Perhaps you can show examples of the GOP doing the same? No? For how bad they are you can't find anything?
Perhaps if you weren't such a twat you would see that the partsianship is being instigated from the leadership of the DNC, period.
I like how articles forget to mention that the State Dpt. reports were made up of people who had ties to, or paid by those in the gas and oil industry. That is why environmentalists are still up in arms. Feel free to look up who put the report together and see who they work for. It's all there.
Responding to a post complaining about partisan attacks with an endless stream of partisan attacks.
Way to show that "your side" isn't full of vitriol and hatefulness.
Keystone is at best a waste for America and at worst a natural disaster waiting to happen. It's a pipeline down to Mexican refineries so Canada can sell cheap tar sands oil to China. The problem is it's a _long_ pipe line, and they have a history of breaking and nobody noticing (since it costs lots of $$$ to monitor them) until after a community's ground water is heavily contaminated. If it happens in a mid sized town or city where it's too expensive to buy everyone out those people are just screwed.
The problem is these sorts of things are only a matter of time. With current tech maintenance costs more than allowing the disaster to happen. If the companies were severely punished for the spills that wouldn't be an issue. But if BP had to clean up their last mess they wouldn't exist as a company, and the owners would be broke. Those guys just buy off politicians until their in the clear. Heck, the CEO of TEP cried a little on Camera and got away with giving thousands of people cancer because he wouldn't pay to upgrade the safety on his factory. It was called a "Once in a 100 year event", but there were records showing it had been 100 years since the last one. That's some Mighty fine work there, Lou.
So to summarize my rant: You're asking me, as an American, to take a big risk that sooner or later is practically guaranteed to end in an etiological disaster in exchange for at best a few thousand jobs and a bit of cheap oil for China? I think This just about sums up my feelings.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Fascinating. Quoting people on the other side directly is tantamount to "attacking them".
If you think that, you might consider what you think about people who say such things.
Do you have ESP?
Obama only acts fecklessly after endless dithering.
THAT is why you don't elect a "community organizer" (the politically correct term for "street agitator") President. They don't know how to lead.
Corporatism != Free Market
Hmm, I wonder if our beloved President 1% knows any 1%ers who, say, owns a railroad company?
Oh.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
I wonder how Burlington Northern's doing on this latest news.
Do you have ESP?
...That Jesus would bring back pre-existing conditions. You know, by re-blinding that guy he healed.
A) Construction Jobs
B) Tax revenues
C) Lower energy costs (because oil is fungible, so it doesn't matter who they sell it to.)
To liars, the truth is an attack...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Why not just put the refineries in the Dakota's rather piping it to Texas to refine. Or is the oil for export and the Dakotas do not have a port to ship it to other countries?
Meaningless vitriol. I suppose you will debunk the IPCC's 5th report on global warming next. This world has serious problems, and there is no time for the idiotic stall tactics of politics of the plutocracy. If the human race cannot cut through the damn red tape, then it will go extiinct with the rest of life that already has disappeared in this current man-made mass extinction all life is in. You want to believe Jesus is going to appear and save everyone from themselves, then get out of the way.
Who said anything about attacking individuals? You're twisting the poster's comment out of context in order to suit your own attack.
Here, let me help you better understand by giving you the definition of the word, which you clearly don't understand:
partisan 1 (pärt-zn)
adj.
2. Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause
Anyone that makes an effort just to make the other "side" look bad is making a "partisan attack". Everyone in America should be all on the same "side" - American. It doesn't matter which "side" is responsible. "But he started it!" is the argument of a five year old. How about everybody grow the fuck up and start acting like adults, and start working towards improving the country instead of selling it off to be raped by the highest bidder, regardless of which "side" is doing the buying or selling.
I'm all for the End of Oil. But the tar-sands vilification got so it pissed me off and I find myself in a surprising place - in the trench with companies I've never liked. What gets to me:
- Greenpeace created the "world's dirtiest oil" moniker with a large, sustained media campaign. I'm amazed it survived the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe. I mean, really, it's worse than just spewing a fantastic amount of raw crude right into one of the world's most fecund ocean biomes and commercial fisheries, no way to clean it up at all? Greenpeace isn't a bunch of guys around a card table anymore, their budget is $300M/year. They love theatrical campaigns more than scientific ones; it's about what creates emotion, not real ecological results.
- Presuming (perhaps, a big presumption) that we keep on top of them with regulation, the open-pit mines are eventually filled back in and trees stuck on top - the ones where they've already done it are of course the first stop on the tour. Yes, the current mines are 200 sq. mi., "you can see them from space" ...where they look like a brown postage stamp on a green billiards table, the boreal forest being over 200,000 sq.mi. Know what else is 200 sq. mi. or so? New York City, which was a rich hunting and fishing land of the Manhattan Indians. It's not being restored to forest any time soon, because it provides living space for 8 million people, rather than 8000 Manhattans. The tar sands are providing what currently is an (unfortunate) necessity of life for 20 million people.
- Accounts vary (for some reason) but I tend to trust New Scientist Magazine as pretty objective - their figure was that it takes the release of 70kg of carbon to extract tar sands oil, compared to 50kg for conventional. But both barrels are then *burned* releasing 200-300kg (depends on gas/diesel/etc), so the total lifecyle increase of carbon is under 10%. Yes, that's bad, but concentrating all hatred of carbon onto one source of it is, again, theatre, not science. It's like banning 3000lb SUVs and feeling very virtuous as you buy a 2700 lb SUV.
- But above all, picking on these companies and their pipeline schemes is attacking the *producer*, not the consumption end. Speaking of "America is addicted to oil", how has that strategy worked out for the War on Drugs? It's funny, the same very liberal folks who will shake their heads at the raw stupidity of the Drug War ("all it does is drive up the costs and bring in more ruthless producers to fill the hole") imagine it will work on energy that everybody wants to buy.
I'm all for shutting down the tar sands - but by hitting the consumption end, with research and incentives for batteries, electric cars, thorium and fusion power plants...the latter having the much greater benefit of first killing off coal-powered electric generation, a greater greenhouse issue than all oil. But when the inflection point hits with electric transportation and oil consumption actually goes *down*, the most expensive sources (tar sands) will be the first ones shuttered. Speed the day.
PS: Yes, I'm from Calgary. But I don't work in oil/gas, nor does anybody close to me. This is not as much about Canada as you may imagine. Almost all the $200B invested up there is from American companies. We barely tax them - less for oil than Palin's Alaska or Cheney's Wyoming. Our cut was just jobs building it. My family pioneered Alberta for two generations before oil was discovered - and they'll be around after it's all gone. Good riddance; but the ridding has to *work*. To make it work, we have to change a whole technological base of a society, not just rail at scapegoats.
It's about bringing the oil to an export facility folks...They industry minimally "processes" it to make it legal then sends it away. They can't wait to short our own supply. Like BP did with Alaskan oil sent directly to China. Sell at a loss, just to short us for the last years. That's what drove it from $2 to $4 a gallon remember? Don't forget it. About natural gas...this was done in the west...or tried to. But we saw what they were doing and denied passage of the pipeline. First it was a facility to IMPORT, but actually was for EXPORT the industry tried. But lied - is the important thing. It hasn't hurt one bit but now they are rail shipping crude for export here! Ask yourself and big oil... Where's it going?. Like someone else here said Why not build a refinery on North Dakota soil where they could use the gasoline/diesel??? Because THAT would bring the cost down. Here's the only way to bring the cost down... build a life with out oil, it is possible no matter what others would have you believe. Don't be scared.
He only adopted the failed ones ... common core, Romneycare, abdication to the NSA, etc...
When the Nebraska legislator approved the pipeline they specifically stripped approval power from the Nebraska Public Service Commission (NPSC). The NPSC usually approves stuff like this. There was a lawsuit saying that what the legislator did was wrong. The court recently ruled that the stripping of power from the NPSC was improper. Now the NPSC has to review the project, because it has not reviewed it at all at this point. So now TransCanada either has to file an application with the NPSC or allow the Republicans to fight the ruling in court. Either way, Nebraska can't approve the pipeline at this time. So who cares if Obama doesn't approve it from the feds end at this time? Should he just tell Nebraska they'll do it? What about states rights? I thought Republicans were in favor of states rights but not in this case? Or just in issues they think the feds should dictate (stem cell research)? I don't see how this makes much any difference at this point. The pipeline is already being built in Texas, hell, it is already transporting oil. We're waiting for Nebraska to work out its internal governance and it's Obama's fault? His ruling or not is irrelevant at the moment. He can't make Nebraska take the pipeline, so until they've approved it what he thinks doesn't matter.
I could carve a better man out of a banana.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Canada can build their own export facilities and deal with the environmental mess when their pipeline bursts (and their taxpayers can pick up that bill.
The problem isn't just that it's not _benefiting_ America, the problem is that it's not benefiting America AND there's a substantial risk that there will be a large scale environmental disaster that the company who owns the pipeline will never pay to clean up.
We have no reason to OK it and every reason _not_ to OK it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
None of the given 'quotes' are actual quotes, though.
As Keystone falters and tar sands mining provokes mounting protests, our nation is compelled to end political bickering on climate legislation. Obama's decision has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with leadership. See my op-ed at http://www.theecoreport.com/gr...
Name ONE that wasn't politically motivated? Obama's achievements are:
1. Played more games than basketball than all previous presidents.
2. Has more television and radio 'press releases' than the past two presidents combined.
3. Has played more golf than the past four presidents combined.
4. Can't really sing nor dance but holds the record for most 'sound bites' for these.
5. Has accomplished more destruction to the Constitution, economy, space program (what's left to call a space program is a nothing but propagandists), the defense of the U.S., not to mention the solvency of the nation with over doubling the national debt and still out of control.
When will the children stop and realize that a president is not a song or dance contestant.
The government didn't delay to choose, they have chosen to delay.
Not building the pipeline does not mean the oil won't be produced in Canada and shipped to refineries in the USA, it just means it will cost more to do so. More cost because it takes more energy. More energy means more waste. More waste is bad for the environment.
I thought this president was supposed to stop the oceans from rising or something.
I remember Obama debating McCain when the issue of nuclear power came up. Obama said some non-sense about investigating safe nuclear power. McCain said something about actually building nuclear power plants. We don't stop the rising of the oceans by taxing coal, banning oil drilling, and pouring money into unproductive solar panel factories. We reduce carbon output by building alternatives to coal and oil that actually produce power with less carbon output at a lower price. That means nuclear power.
President Obama, where is this nuclear power research you promised? Shouldn't research in nuclear power involve building nuclear reactors? The research reactors don't have to produce power I suppose but we should see them go critical. Computer simulations can tell us a lot but the theories they provide need to be tested in real life.
We'll verify nuclear weapons designs with real detonations but no government official or agency seems willing to verify nuclear reactor designs with reactors achieving criticality. Perhaps it's more accurate to say no Democrat would allow new nuclear reactors to go critical.
I also thought we were going to get an "all of the above" energy policy from the Democrats. No nuclear power so far but we've got windmills that kill endangered birds. Maybe I need a Republican in office to get energy choices that mean reduced carbon output. Maybe we'd get pipelines to transport natural gas to wells aren't forced to burn it off on site. Maybe we'd get oil wells in places that don't involve polluting large areas of the ocean floor. Maybe we'd get solar panel factories that produce product. Maybe we'd get electric cars that someone other than the 1% could afford.
Let's assume the Republicans take control of both the House and Senate. Does that end the delay? Or, would the Democrats not allow the Republicans to take credit? What if the Democrats win both houses? Would they still decide or keep holding on so they can use the issue again for the next election? Something tells me that only the Republicans will allow this pipeline. Then we can stop spilling oil into our oceans, killing endangered birds, and see real transition to nuclear power.
The Republicans are greedy, corrupt, assholes that don't deserve any government office. At least they have a plan to produce energy that doesn't involve killing rare birds, covering beaches with oil, or burning off natural gas at the well head when it could be burned for heat.
I hate having to choose the lesser evil.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Seriously, can we stop using false information and stop treating straight up lies as fact? Per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment is on the decline and the lowest it's been since the recession.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve