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."

12 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Irrelevant... by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Irrelevant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I power my car with the energy produced from coal therefore I am better than you lowly gas guzzling people.

      The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

    2. Re:Irrelevant... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you fail to realize is that most of them could care less if the oil companies get rich or not. They are more concerned with controlling you and getting your vote. The evil oil companies is just a windmill for you to tilt at while they cheer you on claiming to do something about it while you gladly vote for them.

  2. after november... by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  3. Build refineries in ND by rossdee · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

  4. Texas needs water, not oil by LordNimon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Turtleman speaks by andydread · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Tax Gift for Oil - ND Needs the Pipeline by Kagato · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Not at all by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    Every action that increases the cost of gasoline decreases the consumption.

    Oil has a very flat demand curve. When the price doubled from $2 to $4 per gallon, demand went down about 3%. In the long run, people will buy more efficient cars and change their commuting patterns, but in the short run most people have no choice but to just suck it up and pay.

    America produces most, but not all, of the oil it consumes. The oil companies make WAY more profit on domestically produced oil, because foreign governments capture most of the profit on their oil exports. If demand drops due to higher prices, the oil companies import less foreign oil (the least profitable) and make a windfall on domestic oil.

  8. Re:Does. Not. Compute. by mikeabbott420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they might not be in favor of shipping oil by rail either, but that's what's happening because of them.

    --
    This program was made possible by a grant from the Ultra-Humanite, and viewers like you.
  9. Dither dither dither dither feckless dither by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  10. I wonder who profits... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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.