Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

An anonymous reader writes: As expected, President Obama has vetoed a bill that would have given the green light for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. "By saying no to the legislation, Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline. The White House has said the president would decide whether to allow the pipeline when all of the environmental and regulatory reviews are complete. ... Since 2011, the proposed Keystone pipeline, which would deliver up to 800,000 barrels daily of heavy petroleum from the oil sands of Alberta to ports and refineries on the Gulf Coast, has emerged as a broader symbol of the partisan political clash over energy, climate change and the economy."

Comments

Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Tom Steyer got what he paid for.

Hint: "environmentalist" billionaire Steyer made his billions off coal, now owns a huge stake in a Canadian pipeline that would compete with the Keystone, and spent a LOT of money playing an "environmentally concerned" person trying to stop the Keystone pipeline.

And the /tards rant about Fox News and the Kochs...

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bhv]

Pretty sure Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF Railway) is dancing a little jig today as well.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Anonymous Coward]

I could possible be that he is a progressive, marxist, socialist with no real world experience and was a do nothing senator, and has nothing to do with the color of skin. But you go ahead and lap some cum fucktard...

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Penguinisto]

This, especially this. Pushing petroleum through pipelines instead of on his railroads would make him very sad, and nobody wants to make one of the biggest DNC contributors sad, now do they?

Meanwhile the partisans will clog up Facebook and similar with variations of 'yay our Lord and Savior saved teh environmentz!' versus 'teh imperialz president OMG!'... ...while the fat cats laugh at the little people a little before they plan their next chess move (and lobbyists) in Washington DC.

Meanwhile the world begins to do its best impression of Titanic-Meets-Iceberg ever.

Fucking politics, gotta love it (eyeroll).

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[guru42101]

Actually BNSF hates shipping oil. It's too high risk in terms of brand value loss when a spill occurs. Source: I work for a different Berkshire subsidiary.

Now in my own opinion. I prefer the pipeline, however the maintenance of pipes is generally crap and leaks are common. If there was a guarantee of proper maintenance then I'd be all about it vs the other available options. Perhaps this could be done by requiring an environment clean up, but we've seen how well that works in the past

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[xfizik]

Berkshire Hathaway also owns a large stake in Suncor, one of the largest oil sands producers.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[sycodon]

I heard an Oil Train just derailed and blew up the other day.

At least the Oil Clean Up crews and probably funeral homes will have increased business.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

You *do* realize that the oil that would be flowing though the XL Pipe literally goes solid at room temperature? Environmental risk exists, but it's not like this stuff is going to get too far away from a leak before cooling.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[guises]

He made a lot of money how? The pipeline is almost certainly still going to get built, this is an argument over procedure. Congress has been trying to bypass the state department, and the president is standing in the way. That's there is to this.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Anonymous Coward]

*You* do realize that the the tar sands put in there are diluted before being put in the pipe right? They don't magically keep it hot over 3000+ km/s including during -30 *C Alberta winters.

If there's a spill, it will flow pretty much like any spill.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

formation of the tea party were before he had even suggested doing anything.

That much is true. The Tea Party was actually a reaction to the huge bailout reaction to the subprime mess that was suggested PRIOR to Obama taking office. A fair observer would note that while Obama was president-elect, he WASN'T yet president.

There are many valid objections to Obama but they are not from the tea party brigade.

That I disagree with. The Tea Party has issues with Obama's policy which are valid and have nothing to do with Obama's race, yet they get cast as racist by the political commentators in the media, and the media reports this as news. Where I'm sure there are racists who are Tea Party members (just like there are racists who are democrats) this is NOT the official policy nor the basis of the Tea Party's existence. I've not seen or heard any evidence of racism at any of the Tea Party rallies I've attended either from the speakers or attendees, but I'm a middle aged white guy and I obviously don't go to every Tea Party meeting.

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. Fundamentally, Obama wants exactly the opposite, a larger more powerful government that costs more and has to tax more to pay for itself. But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[amicusNYCL]

Hint: "environmentalist" billionaire Steyer made his billions off coal, now owns a huge stake in a Canadian pipeline that would compete with the Keystone, and spent a LOT of money playing an "environmentally concerned" person trying to stop the Keystone pipeline.

What's your point? Are you suggesting that there is in fact no environmental impact by the pipeline? Are you trying to say that this guy stands to make money if the pipeline isn't built, and his money came from environmentally harmful sources, therefore the Keystone pipeline doesn't hurt the environment? I'm unclear what correlation you're trying to draw here.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[mirix]

It's thinned about 25-50% with naphtha so that it flows. "diluted bitumen".

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[amicusNYCL]

You *do* realize that the oil that would be flowing though the XL Pipe literally goes solid at room temperature?

How do you think they push it down the pipe, then? Do they heat it up to such a high level so that it maintains an easy flow throughout the entire pipeline, assuming that it might get re-heated at pumping stations? Or do they mix it with something else to allow it to flow easier regardless of temperature? Assuming they do heat it instead of just adding an agent to make it flow easier, how long would it take to cool and solidify in the open air after spilling? What's the flow rate of the pipeline, if there was a breach how much oil could we expect to escape? It looks like someone took the time to try and answer some of these questions here (if you have another source, please share). In any case, it sounds like in the event of a breach that we're looking at a minimum of tens of thousands of gallons spilling (possibly less if the breach occurred just downstream from a shutoff valve and was detected almost immediately). How far would tens of thousands of gallons of your super-heated oil travel in the time it takes that oil to cool before literally going solid? If instead the oil has an additive to allow it to flow easier, wouldn't that also mean that it can flow easier straight down into the ground?

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Curunir_wolf]

How do you think they push it down the pipe, then?

They use a pig.

Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[kenh]

The first objections to Obama and the formation of the tea party were before he had even suggested doing anything.

Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC didn't start the Tea Party, it was started from the ashes of the Ron Paul campaign in December, 2007 - well before Obama was the presumptive candidate.

But hey, your fantastical 'because they hate brown people' claim is believed by millions of unquestioning Democrats... Probably the same Democrats that "just discovered" they have to pay a fine if they failed to get Obamacare coverage last year...

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[AK Marc]

They don't magically keep it hot over 3000+ km/s including during -30 *C Alberta winters.

Look up how similar works in Alaska. Heated all the way during -40 *C Alaska winters.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[AK Marc]

I've not seen or heard any evidence of racism at any of the Tea Party rallies I've attended either from the speakers or attendees, but I'm a middle aged white guy and I obviously don't go to every Tea Party meeting.

I have, and I'm a middle aged white guy. But then the ones I went to were back when it was "new" (prior to all the mainstreaming of it).

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it.

Yet everything I saw in the meetings I went to were about expanding the government. More prisons, more drug laws, more laws against gays. It was the Bigot party for those who didn't like the Republican Party because it was too inclusive. I've seen news reports that conservative Republicans have said to stop fighting gay marriage because the people have spoken. The anti-democracy teabaggers (yes, they still used that name, not realizing the connotations, back when I went to a few meetings) want to push their beliefs on everyone, regardless of popular support. Teabaggers want a dictatorship, so they can tell everyone how to live.

At least based on the meetings I went to.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[vux984]

Now in my own opinion. I prefer the pipeline, however the maintenance of pipes is generally crap and leaks are common.

The issue of maintenance that you make is spot on. But where things get interesting is that is not a question of the pipelines or no pipelines because that's not realistic. Its pipelines or something else. And what else is actually safer than pipelines? My reading on the subject suggests pipelines are the safest option.

So as bad as the pipeline might be, everything else we might do to transport the oil is even worse. So unless we want to leave the oil in the ground (which we all know isn't likely to happen) then pipelines really make the most sense; environmental concerns and all.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[fatwilbur]

however the maintenance of pipes is generally crap and leaks are common.

Citation needed. (Disclaimer: I work in the pipeline industry, but not for TCPL nor have any stake in KXL).

This simply isn't true and is fear-mongering about pipelines at it's best. Sure, you can point to a few stories, but fact remains pipelines have over a 99.999% safe delivery rate. The vast majority of spills are where there's breaks in the line - eg. pump stations, terminals, manifolds, etc., and those are only are already-contained and monitored property. Opponents like to point to devastating spills, but the unfortunate truth is even in areas where major spills have happened, twenty years after the fact there is little to indicate it ever happened. The earth is very good at cleaning itself up.. not dismissing spills, but the long term effects are SEVERELY overblown, though any suggestion of this truth is impossible to discuss given the politics.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[rwa2]

...while the fat cats laugh at the little people a little before they plan their next chess move (and lobbyists) in Washington DC.

Fucking politics, gotta love it (eyeroll).

Yeah, from everything I've read about the Keystone Pipeline, there's going to be much more money to be gained in DC lobbying for/against this than there ever hopes to be made by anyone building (or not building) it. I can see both parties wanting to drag this out for as long as possible.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[towermac]

I love how, in the meantime, we're sticking it to Canada too.

Apparently, their politicians don't have a big problem being our political football, but eventually Canadians are going to start taking it personally. Their media will play it up, politicians will then use it, and then they'll say fuck it.

They could build the shit to deal with that oil if they had to, but they were under the impression that we had refineries willing to buy it. Heh, we even got them to build the pipeline.

Obama does one thing very well. He beats Republicans. Every time. At any cost.

Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Pope Hagbard]

Which is why the teabagger protests started right after Republicans were safely out of office in the wake of '08, I'm sure. Don't be a fucking tool.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[unitron]

The safest option is to let Canada transport the stuff across Canada to a Canadian port.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[nobuddy]

This report details the tea party astroturf movement very well.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/...

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[towermac]

It's a big tent.

The only thing they all have in common is that they don't want to be oppressed by you leftists.

Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[towermac]

He's sorry about that, so he's giving you extra time this year to avoid the fine for next year.

(And if you sign up, get a policy number, and never pay a premium; that will still get you out of the fine next year. See if I'm right.)

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[vux984]

The safest option is to let Canada transport the stuff across Canada to a Canadian port.

Where they put it in a boat and sail it down the west coast. And we all know nothing bad happens with boats.

Further, in addition to Alberta crude, the keystone pipeline expansion was ALSO going to carry crude from the Williston Basin reserves (Montana and North Dakota) south; and Canada's not going to be taking care of transporting that, either.

Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[sumdumass]

The tea party protests started before the 2008 election even happened.

Remember joe the plumber?

Perhaps you or where ever you get your news from ignored it until later.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[penix1]

Disclaimer: I work Emergency Management in West Virginia. Further disclaimer, I work with people who were personally affected by that derailment and were evacuated...

The cause of the derailment is still under investigation but the Keystone pipeline's existence would not have stopped what happened. The train was transporting oil to Pennsylvania which is not where Keystone goes. So that explosion has exactly zero to do with Keystone.

I just didn't want people thinking the derailment in WV would have been avoided if Keystone was done. It is my personal belief that a combination of factors including the huge snow storm happening at the time had a big influence on the derailment, but I am willing to wait for the final determination.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[dryeo]

It's American (and Chinese and Indochinese) oil companies that want to maximize profits by selling the raw product. Refineries don't have a high enough profit margin.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[dryeo]

You're talking oil. This is bitumen, more like the asphalt you drive on. It needs a lot of dilution before it'll flow as well as heat.
When it spills it floats for a while then the dilutents evaporate and it sinks. Way worse to clean up then crude oil.
Of course the current Canadian government doesn't care about the environment at all, just the profits of getting that bitumen to China and Indochina as they're all oil men who have very good jobs waiting for them.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[dryeo]

They dilute it. Raw bitumen is similar to asphalt and a pig would not push it.
When it spills, it floats at first and then sinks and is way harder to clean up then crude oil. It's nasty stuff and if our government was smart they'd build a nuke in the north and refine it there but there's more short term profits in shipping it raw to China.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[dryeo]

They want to do the oppressing themselves then. We have a right wing government in Canada and they're attitude is pretty simple, you can have rights or you can have safety and they're going to push through their anti-terrorist bill no matter what. No time to listen to experts such as the 7 ex-Supreme Court justices or anyone else, they've already invoked closure before the debate has started. Meanwhile as the left wing (real left wing not the Democrats slightly less right wing) opposition points out, we already have laws on the books that are working fine. These are the same arseholes who said that opposing the government spying was actually supporting the child molesters amongst many other anti-freedom shit they've pulled.
A government just big enough to repress the population, not big enough to have oversight is their motto and they're going full stream ahead in declaring any opposition to them as terrorists who should be locked up before they do anything illegal. Remember we can't afford rights in the modern day.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[fustakrakich]

We shouldn't have to worry about icebergs for much longer.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Darinbob]

Although a Canadian pipeline, used to turn Canadian oil into Chinese gasoline, makes sense. Spending all that money and ignoring environmental concerns to pipe all the way down the US to Texas refineries is just dumb and only helps out a few people. Far better to put some refineries in or near Canada and northern ports. This is not a political statement, it's just common sense. The politics skew the whole thing, especially the whole sale lies about how this will help the US economy or lower gas price.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[khallow]

You got to love the shitty quality of argument on here. Because AK Marc went to a few teabagger meeting, extended his sensory tendrils, and discerned racism, then the Tea Party is forever thoughtcrime. Because as we all know, racists are by the laws of physics incapable of ever having a good idea.

The actual tenets of the Tea Party have been expressed numerous times, including the reply you shitted on. It's not about gay marriage or jailing the hippies.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Darinbob]

Tea party is mostly a holdover from an anti-government or reformist movement awhile back; ie, many of the same folks in Perot's Reform party are so called Tea Party members. Many of the same complaints about government were shared by both groups. And the term "Tea Party" was showing up before it had a back-ronym and a few years before the subprime mess.

As for the criticisms against Obama, I agree that the racist part is rare. However there is a huuuge amount of absurd claims about Obama not being really American, or not loving America, or being socialist, or that it's irresponsible to take a vacation when you're president, and what not. Every week I'm seeing a new claim to add to the conspiracy theory. Seriously, when large groups of people start saying he should be tried for treason then you know there's an insanity epidemic spreading.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Uberbah]

The Tea Party has issues with Obama's policy which are valid and have nothing to do with Obama's race, yet they get cast as racist by the political commentators in the media, and the media reports this as news.

Because so ,many of them ARE racist. Your excuses aren't helped by the fact that every issue they've whined about for the last six years was done first by Bush, from deficit spending to pushing immigration reform to signing statements. But they DGAF till the black guy was in office. They only alternative is that they are as willfully stupid as the Obamabots who spent six years bitching about Bush and the Patriot Act only to yawn when Obama not just extended it but signed the NDAA into law.

They're either idiots, or racist idiots. Take your pick.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[tinkerghost]

The original plans went through at least 2 reservations. The governing councils were NOT amused at the idea of eminent domain being used on tribal lands.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Ogive17]

So where were they prior to 2008? They never gave a (public) shit about the absurd level of spending Bush was doing.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

The point is that trains are running through the midwest and will be for the next few years because the pipeline isn't there. The risk of rail accident is higher than pipeline and a pipeline couldn't care less about snow and the weather. No one seriously says Keystone would have prevented this accident, but they cite this accident as what we are making more likely to occur by delaying the pipeline.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Not only that but people complain about the maintenance of old pipelines to stop the construction of new pipelines... Because you know, we don't build better pipelines today than we did 40+ years ago right? The Pinto was not a safe car. Ford doesn't make Pintos anymore. Let us build a Fusion to get more Pintos off the road.

New pipelines have a very good safety record. The DOT regulates their construction and their maintenance. There are heavy fines for non-compliance.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Yes, because the environment of Canada never crosses the border.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Are you saying I can vacation on the gulf coast this year? Hooray, the claims of global doom due to the Deepwater Horizon spill were crazy overblown!

I also work in the pipeline industry, and yes... People don't understand how ridiculous oil companies are about cleaning up the tiny spills they do have. And how even more ridiculous regulatory bodies are on even vapors of crude oil getting out into the environment.

Furthermore, people are against new stuff because old stuff breaks down. How the heck does that make sense? Sure 1940s pipelines have leaks from time to time. That doesn't mean that a 2015 pipeline will be constructed to the same standards.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Good luck with that. A new refinery hasn't been able to be built in the US since 1986. Also new refineries don't help you at all. Then instead of Canadian crude being stuck in North Dakota, you have gasoline stuck in North Dakota. I guess you'll have to approve a products pipeline instead of a crude pipeline which is even more hazardous (still not very) to the environment. The reason it's going to the gulf is because 1) that's where the refineries are and 2) that's where the transportation network is.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Ok they are idiots... The vast majority of the population are idiots. Statistically it would make sense that most political parties are therefore comprised mostly of idiots. Racists however are not as common as idiots, and assuming that an entire political movement is racist because they disagree with you is statistically unlikely.

This is spoken from a Libertarian who dislikes the tea party because it's full of religious nutjobs (who are also statistically common). Of course, we Libertarians also disagree with you and we hear plenty of racism accusation thrown at us too. The question you have to ask yourself is, are there reasons to dislike Obama other than the color of his skin?

Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Actually, in the news today, he's giving you bonus money if the error is in your favor from the incorrect tax documents sent to people who enrolled.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

You didn't here what I said then. Many claim the Tea Party STARTED officially on December 16, 2007 which was prior to the 2008 election season.

So the Tea Party pre-existed Obama the democratic candidate for president by nearly half a year.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

They're either idiots, or racist idiots. Take your pick.

Your logic fails you sir, as do you assumptions. I'll assume you haven't ever attended a Tea Party rally and just say, from THIS eyewitness of multiple rallies, your assumptions are simply not true.

Your argument amounts to a classic Ad Hominem and thus fails on logical grounds.

Bad information based on assumptions + faulty logic = loosing argument

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[frank_adrian314159]

Because [random person] went to a few teabagger meeting, extended his sensory tendrils, and discerned racism, then the Tea Party is forever thoughtcrime.

No, not thoughtcrime. Just not embraced by people who see that together with anything remotely sensible from the TEA Party, there's huge swathes of nonsense that needs to be "honored" to "respect" its crackpot hangers on. It's not the (very few) good ideas, it's the huge number of bad ideas that seem to be pushed along with them. In the future, thank you for not trying to get us to support people who have mostly bad ideas by attempting to whitewash the bad ideas with the good.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[T.E.D.]

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. ... But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.

And yet when a Republican was in office, and was vastly expanding the government for a brand new prescription drug program, they had no problem with it? They only start complaining when the Black Democrat takes office? So no, whatever their real problem is, it clearly isn't about government expansion. It has something to do with the current occupant of the White House.

Now you could argue that its just political Tom-foolery because he's a Democrat, and they would have created this annoyance against any Democrat. But then you have to explain why this didn't happen to the last 2 Democrats.

You could argue that its because of ideology, not actions or party. But then you'd have to explain why they do this to what is a relatively moderate mainstream Democrat. I think the only Demoractic POTUS we've had in the last century to the right of Obama was Clinton.

There's really only one thing left different about the guy: his melanin content.

And this isn't even accounting for all the parallel silly lies being spread about his religion and his birth, his patriotisim, etc. There's a common theme there: He's not one of "us". Its pretty clear there's something they want to say there, but its so ugly that they feel safer about lying about other things than pointing out their true issue.

There is no doubt what the issue here is, and it doesn't do you or anyone else any good to practice the humbuggery of pretending its something else.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

Well.... There are nuts scattered all around...

Where I understand the frustration with Obama and his policies, there ARE some who push a bit too far on how to resolve the differences of opinion. I generally don't entertain such nonsense...

Problem though, some of the charges you bring up are factually true... For instance, his agenda is decidedly socialist leaning and the teachings of his mentors are decidedly un-American and Obama hasn't really distanced himself from these people. Some tend to make this kind of thing into more than it really is, but the media pundits also tend to sensationalize the issues raised because it brings in viewers and sells advertising.

However, the fact here is the Tea Party officially doesn't give voice to the things you object too, even if *some* of it's members do. You should be careful to not get confused by the media reporting that blurs the distinction between what the Tea Party officially is and what some person who may be a member says about something which is not a Tea Party position.

As for the criticisms against Obama, I agree that the racist part is rare.

Yet, it comes up way to often as a critique of those who oppose Obama on ideological grounds, such as the Tea Party. Really it's a political trick to "play the race card" as Bill Clinton calls it, to attempt to control the debate. How does one prove the racist claim is in fact not true? It's really an Ad Hominem for about 99.99% of the times it is used. Problem is people fall for the argument and we get this popular belief that the Tea Party is racist. It's not, it's just political spin to say so.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. ... But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.

And yet when a Republican was in office, and was vastly expanding the government for a brand new prescription drug program, they had no problem with it? They only start complaining when the Black Democrat takes office? So no, whatever their real problem is, it clearly isn't about government expansion. It has something to do with the current occupant of the White House.

STOP RIGHT THERE...

You didn't read my post eh? The Tea Party opposed Bush's expansion of government, in fact it was largely about opposing the abuses of the Republican party of it's day. Come on, it was officially started in 2007, before Obama was the democratic nominee in 2008 obsessively to support Ran (or was it Ron?) Paul in their attempt to get the nomination from the Republican party...

You do remember the "split republican party" story line of the past right? WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WAS ABOUT? Hint: The Tea Party was pushing the Republican party to the right by organizing the Ultra-right and the "establishment" was having nothing of it...

So the Tea Party is NOT the Republican Party persay, but a collation of people who are generally Republicans who are dissatisfied with large government and high taxes.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Dixie_Flatline]

No, not really. Almost everyone outside of Alberta is either ambivalent or pretty much against the pipeline. The tar sands are a disaster enough without giving more incentives to them to mine more bitumen.

I'm delighted to hear that he vetoed the pipeline. Of all the ways to produce oil, the tar sands are among the worst. They use an enormous amount of (fresh) water and energy. There are significant pipeline breaches every few weeks. Some you hear about, some you don't. A pipeline that long, well, I don't give it much of a chance of running for its intended lifetime without a leak. As a former Albertan, I find the idea of a bitumen slurry being dumped on the prairies really sad. I can't imagine it would be any better once it crosses the border.

I think this is great news.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[pnutjam]

The pipeline just shifts the accidents from small scale and more often to large scale and less often. There is no accident prevention magic bullet.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Dixie_Flatline]

There are about 300 spills a year from pipelines. You can do the googling yourself, but that's how many spills were considered 'significant' in the USA in 2014.

I tried to find a source that isn't obviously left-wing so you wouldn't reject it out of hand: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Admittedly, every single method of transporting oil is bad, and all of them lead to environmental problems and costs. So while pipelines may be 'best'--for some meagre definition of 'best'--there is an absolute amount of damage that's done. Conventional bombs are 'safer' if you drop them on my house than nuclear bombs, but it's a distinction without a difference when it comes to whether or not my house is still there.

Maybe the maintenance is as good as we could hope (I doubt it; we're talking about fallible humans and corporations with a bottom line), but this isn't exactly a solved engineering problem.

Nobody really knows how bad a bitumen spill would be. There's a lot of extra chemicals in there to keep it diluted and flowing.

In the end, one catastrophe a year is too many, even if it seems like 20 years later maybe things would be okay. I'm dubious about that number; 25 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, Prince Edward Sound is *mostly* recovered but still has problems. 20-30 years is a big chunk of time to humans, and we still have to live in this world.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[T.E.D.]

So the Tea Party is NOT the Republican Party persay, but a collation of people who are generally Republicans who are dissatisfied with large government and high taxes.

This part is quite correct. They are not the same thing. The Tea Party is merely one recent manifestation of the populist Conservative movement that rich Republicans have been bankrolling and propaganzing since at least the 50's. But their goals (eg: pushing a political agenda that benefits very rich powerful people), do not always align with the Republican party's goals (chiefly: Getting elected and controlling the various branches of government). So they do often clash. But that's inside politics. The Republican Party is their chosen political vehicle, so to someone who isn't a Republican insider, for all intents and purposes they operate as a unit.

That wasn't what I was talking about though. Its where their manpower comes from. The Tea Party was next to nobody during Bush II. It was only after Fox started promoting them and establishment Republicans started Tea Party Express in the summer of 2009 (right after Obama's election), that they became an important political player. I'm not particularly interested in the ideology of the unimportant bit groups that anti-Obama Republicans stole the idea from.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[khallow]

I'll be concerned by your concern when the level of "swathes of nonsense" rise to the level of the two major parties.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[AK Marc]

Bobbied said the are all angels because he went to a few meetings. I posted an opposing viewpoint, with the same source. Yet you complain about me, and not him. You are an illogical hypocrite.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[AK Marc]

You're talking oil.

I'm talking petroleum. That you only hear "oil" indicates your mind is closed and made up. No discussion can be had, so I won't bother.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[david_thornley]

Yup, crap arguments. bobbied made claims about the Tea Party, and then AK Marc reported some experiences that contradicted what bobbied said, as far as AK Marc has first-hand knowledge. Then some prejudiced idiot comes along and says that AK Marc was reporting that the Tea Party was forever thoughtcrime, which is very, very far from the case.

Said prejudiced idiot also referred to published tenets of the Tea Party, which apparently are supposed to negate AK Marc's observations, in some sort of faith-based way.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[david_thornley]

There's a lot of racism around, unfortunately, and there's a lot of kneejerk opposition to Obama, and it's a reasonable supposition that there is a connection. It's a lot more socially acceptable to say that Obama does everything wrong than to express racism. This doesn't mean that all opposition to Obama is racist, but it seems a good bet that much of it is, particularly the more unreasoning part.

It appears to me that Obama is trying to do his best for the USA, although there's lots of room to argue what the best for the USA actually is. His "socialist" leanings might be said to be more "first world" leanings, in that (for example) he's pushed the health care system a bit in the direction of what every other first world country and wannabe already has. There are legitimate ideological differences between Obama and lots of people.

The problem with distinguishing between the Tea Party and its members is that it's the members who vote, and if its candidates believe the rank and file is strongly against red hair dye they're going to come out against red hair dye (substitute whatever position you like for the hair dye). Parties have their formal platforms, and they have what they actually do.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Darinbob]

I think he's only socialist in the sense that we have redefined that word over time. This was a rarer accusation in the past even against people even more to the left than Obama.

Yes, he has past associations with a religious figure who is harsh about American society. The same minister appeared at a White House prayer breakfast when Clinton was president and it didn't get the same level of vitriol as when it was Obama. Obama did resign his membership from the church after a speech that rev Wright gave.

For the Tea Party, I do see postings on social media from people or communities with "Tea Party" included as part of their names, and they do have these ridiculous conspiracy theories being put forward. The problem here I think is that early on the Tea Party did not tightly delineate what their beliefs or agendas were and so it attracted a far wider audience and ended up being a mixed bag of everything. So once it was just a group of lower-tax pro-reform people that ended being a group of anti-everything wingnuts, with strong views about immigration, foreign policy, social values, etc.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Darinbob]

I wasn't necessarily referring to North Dakota, but something next to a port for easier shipping. Not even in the US necessarily.

Of course, we *already* have a pipeline from Canada tar sands down to Texas, the XL pipeline is about making on leg of it bigger. The issue is from the politics around it, the notion that we'll have lots of jobs (not likely to actually heppen) versus needing the standard environmental review..

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[khallow]

I just happen to not believe you.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[AK Marc]

Ah, so you are calling me a liar because my observations of fact don't match your opinions. Your opinions don't trump reality. And I was there.

And I think you are a liar. I think you do believe me, but refuse to let facts form your fact-less opinion. You have no reason to not believe me, and have never been able to prove anything I said was ever a lie, so you believe me, but refuse to accept the facts you have no reason to doubt, because your self-worth is linked to your world-view. And you refuse to think about or consider anything that might affect that. Independent thought scares you, so you never practice it.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

Calling the Tea Party into account for perceived logical failings of individuals who may support the Tea Party is a failure of logic born of simple intellectual laziness at best or politically biased punditry (aka lying) at worse. You have to judge by the official platform of the group, by their official contacts, and not by what somebody wants to say they stand for.

So, where you frown on people who dis Obama for things he's not done or voiced support for directly or though his representatives, you must be fair and use the same standards for those who would dis the Tea Party. Both sides have their dishonest politically biased brokers, both sides have their nutcases who fall for the rhetoric of the former. The trick is to recognize who's who and try to stay out of both groups...

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

Not to try and split hairs about this.... Ok.. I am...

You cannot define the "tea party" by anything but the OFFICAL platform of the organization. It may be filled with people who advocate for open carry rights (and it is) but that does NOT mean that the Tea Party is involved with such efforts.

It would be like equating the democratic party with opposition to the civil rights act, after all Strom Thurmond (and others) strongly opposed the passage of these laws. Such conclusions would NOT be fair, though members of the party still have the same position today. (Yes, they do, trust me, I know some...)

So, be fair here and recognize that it's not the "Tea Party" you are thinking about for some of this stuff you (and others) falsely say is part of the group. Guilt by association is an invalid approach, just like it would be unfair to judge Obama by what his friends (past and present) may have said and done.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Darinbob]

I didn't think there was an "official" platform of the tea party, or an official organization.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[AK Marc]

And you are an idiot stalker, coward.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[fatwilbur]

This is false, pigs are used for inspection, not flow. Pumps maintain flow. The bitumen is diluted with (actually the term) diluent before injection into the pipe.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[fatwilbur]

In the end, one catastrophe a year is too many

Right, I hear this all the time too, and we still fly airplanes.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[unitron]

So we should let them pipe it down to a Gulf of Mexico port and put it on a ship because nothing bad will happen to those ships?

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

I dunno, these train derailings seem pretty large scale to me. Comparing to trucking, yes it's more frequent but smaller scale, but trains can do an immense amount of damage to a large area.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

Riiiight.... LOL!

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[pnutjam]

Compare how much oil can burn on a train to how much the minimum volume of oil will be if there is a pipeline rupture. Hint, They can't just shut it off, they have to wait for the line to empty.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[vux984]

So we should let them pipe it down to a Gulf of Mexico port and put it on a ship because nothing bad will happen to those ships?

ok...

First, the crude from the pipeline is delivered to refineries in Illinois and Texas. So no, it doesn't all get loaded into a boat in the Gulf of Mexico.

Second, refined fuel poses less threat to the environment, so if it ends up on a boat after its refined that's an improvement.

Third, even if it needs to end up on a boat at some point because its going overseas, so be it. That doesn't mean you don't want it in a pipeline for as much of the journey as possible.

Thus your argument really has no legs to stand on. You are right of course that any shipping accident is bad, but all scenarios are categorically an improvement over alternatives.

All that said, I think Canada should refine it and export themselves; in-source the industry and take a larger share of the profits; and reduce environmental risks of a pipeline. There is a refinery in the works north of Edmonton - The Sturgeon Refinery. But even so refineries are spectacularly expensive and difficult to get built for regulatory/environmental and NIMBY reasons so once built it makes sense to bring the oil to them; so if the Texas / Illinois ones have capacity sending oil there makes sense.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Umm they can and certainly DO shut it off. Automatic leak detection shuts off the pumps and block valves close to isolate sections of the pipeline. Even then, the entire pipe doesn't drain out in a leak because 1) the hole is unlikely to be at the bottom of the pipe, 2) the pipe isn't level and 3) there is nowhere for air to get in the system. Sure if you have a leak at the bottom of the pipe at a low spot and another leak at the high spot where all the dirt was missing you might get an entire section to spill out, but even then it would probably still be less than the volume of rail cars.

You sir have no idea how hydraulic systems work and should stop commenting on this thread.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Uberbah]

Classic butthurt, classic non-response. You guys should throw a party with the Obamabots, who are running around right now insisting that anyone pointing out Hillary's hypocrisy on using private email accounts for state business is suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome. You have so much in common.

Or, you could try a response-response. How do you explain the Birther obsession and being a secret muslim without racism. What's your justification from snoozing through 8 years of Bush's signing statements, record deficits and attempts at immigration reform to suddenly lose your minds when Obama continued on the same path.

Face it, the teabaggers are hacks, just like the Obamabots who will suddenly start objecting to Patriot Act extensions and drones the second it's President Jeb Bush at the helm.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[Uberbah]

The question you have to ask yourself is, are there reasons to dislike Obama other than the color of his skin?

You could write an entire encyclopedia about such reasons, but the legit ones all come from the left. There is some Venn overlapping with Libertarians, who are refreshingly not FOS when they object to Obama's drone wars, unconstitutional spying, or continuing the War on Poor Drug Users.

But then there's the rest of the time, where Libertarians want to bring back all the worst aspects of the 19th Century, save chattel slavery. But they'd be just fine with the next best things: indentured servitude, sharecropping, and workers living in Company Towns and being paid in Company Script.

But I'm not FOS like an Obamabot. I will happily work with Libertarians who want to see bankers prosecuted for fraud or ending the War on Poor Drug Users. It's just that will also happily tell them to pound sand when they want to turn the U.S. into another Libertarian Paradise.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[danbert8]

Why is it that everyone claims Somalia is even remotely Libertarian? Anarchist Paradise would even be a stretch. The closest thing to Libertarianism in the world is Hong Kong if anything. Especially pre-China return to ownership. I'm not claiming Hong Kong is Libertarian, but in the current world, it's the closest thing. A small government that allows a maximum of economic and personal freedom. Singapore would probably be close behind, but they are not so hot on the personal freedom side of things.

Somalia being Libertarian is a bullshit strawman by people who think Libertarians want no government and no laws. That is simply incorrect.

Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent

[bobbied]

Actually the Third party option has been considered and rejected as STUPID. Of course the left in the country would LOVE for that to happen, which is why they keep suggesting it, but don't hold your breath on that one.

The only thing a third party does (assuming it's a right leaning party) is strip the major party of any hope and grant power to the very people who will do absolutely the wrong thing. So The Tea Party stays within the Republican party. They run candidates at the primary level and back candidates at election time that pull the republicans to the right overall.

Which, in the long run, will be good for the republicans overall. How do I know? Think about the last election, what happened? Um, the left lost, and lost bigger than the incumbent's party usually looses in the middle of the last term. Me thinks the country is a bit tired of the tax and spend mantra and that race card is looking tattered from being played so often and stuffed back up the sleeve. Of course the republicans can screw this up (and currently seem well on their way) and blow their advantage, but the democrats are obviously holding a pretty weak hand having lost the senate and are facing an election w/o a clear successor for president. Hillary is your best bet, but there is a lot of ground between now and the fall of 2016 and she's facing some serious issues that could disqualify her holding office. Of course that race card gets turned into a "Gender" card as soon as she "officially" starts running, but I don't think that card is as powerful for the left. Could be wrong though...

The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[RingDev]

This bill would move forward with the XL portion of the pipeline. The Keystone pipeline currently terminates at the refineries near Chicago, Il. The XL portion of the pipeline would extends the line to the Gulf Coast, allowing for the oil to be more easily re-sold on the world market as opposed to being land locked into the US market.

The XL portion was never meant to reduce oil prices in the US, it was meant to increase profit margins by reducing costs to transport the oil and oil products to higher priced markets.

Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?

-Rick

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Gliscameria]

My biggest complaint about this is that they were using eminent domain to take people's land for a project that is not primarily for the public good.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

Follow the money: When it doesn't ship by pipeline, it ships by RAIL. Who owns the railroads now? Warren Buffett. Who contributed huge sums to Obama and the Dems? Warren Buffett. (Buffett == BershireHathaway == BurlingtonNorthernSantaFeRailRoad)

Now, who continues to make money hand-over-fist by shipping crude oil by RAIL? Warren Buffett.

Coincidence?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[lgw]

The XL portion was never meant to reduce oil prices in the US, it was meant to increase profit margins by reducing costs to transport the oil and oil products to higher priced markets.

Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?

Nope - because oil is a world market. It will certainly reduce prices in the US by increasing the global oil supply.

The US is a net exporter of everything energy-related except oil. Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic - both for environmental reasons (using less), and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East (of course, oil supply form there also affects world markets, but we'd be self-sufficient if it came to a real war, and so would maybe engage in fewer small wars over there!).

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty much. if they use someone's land for this the landowner should at least be entitled to a cut of their revenue.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[puzzled_decoy]

What?

The Keystone pipeline has four phases, three of which are complete. The first three bring oil down to the Gulf Coast from Canada. XL has nothing to do with that.

The XL potion brings oil from Canada through Montana and Nebraska before it connects to the rest of the pipe. It has an initial capacity of 700,000 barrels, and can be increased to 900,000. http://www.downstreamtoday.com...

Also, there is massive shipping operations in Texas that allows the oil to easily be transported to coastal parts of the U.S.

So I really don't know where you got that info, but maybe double check it next time...?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[hondo77]

Um, Buffett already makes money hand-over-fist on all kinds of other things already (including railroad regardless of whether the pipeline is approved or not). If you think Obama vetoed Keystone XL just so Buffett can make even more money hand-over-fist, you're seriously deluded.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[RingDev]

"Nope - because oil is a world market"

Correct, except that it costs money to move. Having a continuous pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast makes it dramatically cheaper to get the crude to the world market. Having the line terminate in Chicago makes it cheaper to refine and distribute regionally. This offsets shipping costs of bringing imported fuels in to the middle of the country. While oil as a whole is a fungible commodity in the concept of investment and pricing, the realistic implementation of it is still dependent on infrastructure and transportation.

"It will certainly reduce prices in the US by increasing the global oil supply."

The XL pipeline doesn't alter the world's supply. The same oil is already being pumped and refined, it just makes it cheaper to get to higher priced markets. It would reduce prices in the US if it were more profitable to sell in the US, which is largely what we currently see with the Keystone pipeline terminating in Chicago. With the termination point in the Gulf, the reduced cost of international distribution allows a greater profit to be earned by shipping it to other countries.

"Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic"

And the XL pipeline would have no meaningful impact here. This is Canadian oil.

"and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East "

The US doesn't currently have any strategic oil interests of our own in the Middle-East, and the XL pipeline would not impact that. The US only imports ~1/4 of our total oil consumption, the vast majority of that comes from Canada and Central America because it's closer and cheaper than floating barges over from Saudi Arabia.

Europe on the other hand, has extremely limited oil supplies, they are quite dependent on Russia, the eastern block states, and the Middle East for their fuel. And the XL pipeline, even with direct access to the coast, isn't going to push enough oil to offset any sort of major disruption from Saudi Arabia or Russia.

So in closing, no, the XL pipeline would not change us into a net exporter, it would not reduce gas prices in the US, and it would not have a meaningful impact on the global oil supply.

-Rick

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[riverat1]

The cost of producing the tar sands oil is high enough ($75-$95/barrel) that at current prices (below $55/barrel) it's uneconomical to produce so it won't help reduce prices until the price goes back up over $95/barrel.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[mjm1231]

That depends. Can we take down the "job creation" straw man while we're at it?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[jeffmflanagan]

You'd think the conservatives would protest that, but the wingnut media chose to make Keystone XL a conservative fetish-object, and most conservatives go along with whatever talking points are released by the far-right-wing propagandists.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[RingDev]

Ahh good call. My knowledge is dated. The 3rd phase was the leg that connected the gulf cost and it was completed last year.

I should have double checked. If you excuse me, I'm going to go wipe this egg of my face.

-Rick

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you're joking, or if you've actually gone full-retard. Never go full-retard.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[MillionthMonkey]

Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic - both for environmental reasons (using less)

Using less only here? You mean it doesn't get burned by anyone once it's ben exported? Or are you talking about the diesel for the trains?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[riskkeyesq]

Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?

-Rick

Nope. It runs over the Yellowstone River and our largest aquifer.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[BarbaraHudson]

How would importing oil from Canada and then exporting it elsewhere make the US a net exporter of oil?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[mrchaotica]

In what way is Chicago landlocked? The entire point of its existence is the fact that it's a good port to ship things from the interior of the US out the St. Lawrence Seaway to the rest of the world.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[chill]

Almost.

The Keystone-Cushing extension (Phase II), running away480-kilometre (300 mi) from Steele City to storage and distribution facilities (tank farm) at Cushing, Oklahoma, completed in February 2011.

The Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III), running 784-kilometre (487 mi) from Cushing to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas was completed in January 2014, and a lateral pipeline to refineries at Houston, Texas and a terminal will be completed in mid-2015.

It is only the Phase IV leg, running from between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska that wasn't approved. That part crosses the U.S.-Canadian border.

Obama signed off on the rest (symbolically, I believe, as I don't think it required Federal approval), back in 2011.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[sjames]

But the pipeline wouldn't make the U.S. an exporter. It would be carrying Canadian oil so they could bypass the U.S. market and sell it to others who are willing to pay more.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[xfizik]

Wouldn't being self-sufficient make the US engage in more wars? No dependence on others would mean no real consequences... Pretty much like now.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[maxlybbert]

Do you remember in 2008 when Obama took heat for encouraging people to save energy by making sure their car tires were properly inflated? And how he responded by saying he supported an "all of the above" energy policy?

Some media outlets have been hammering on the Keystone pipeline because the "all of the above" strategy looks an awful lot like a "some of the above, if approved by the right interest groups" strategy.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Cro Magnon]

Just because Buffet is richer than God doesn't mean he thinks he has enough.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[hondo77]

Yes. Of course. That's it. Because Warren Buffett is well-known for his ostentatious displays of wealth and mean-spirited greed. 8-|

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to understand what you mean. The US is a net exporter of oil products but not total oil which includes crude oil. The US was the world's top oil producer in 2014 (thanks to commie socialist oil-hating pig dog Obama!). We're not a net exporter, yet, because laws limit oil exportation due to some nonsense in the 70s regarding foreign oil interests restricting supply or whatever so we made moves to bring the production of the national defense resource in house. Whatever happened then, and who knows really it's unknowable, but it's probably most assuredly Obama's fault.

Anyway, Nebraska hasn't approved the Keystone pipeline, yet, either because those liberal dogs are trying to allow TransCanada to use eminent domain to seize private property from US citizens. Fortunately, the freedom-loving Republicans are fighting this in Nebraska to keep Big Government from STEALING more from the people.

I'm assuming what I just wrote is correct, because if it weren't this all would be very ironic and hypocritical of certain people/factions/parties.

But, overall, my point remains: Igw is right. If we just removed the Dictator Obama rules restricting oil exports that make sure we are more self-sufficient here then we'd ship more oil overseas making us even more self-sufficient since our oil would be over there instead of here! In fact, if we could just pump all our oil out of the ground as fast as possible and ship it to China and India we'd be out of oil fast and yet have more oil than ever! Brilliant!

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[PopeRatzo]

My biggest complaint about this is that they were using eminent domain to take people's land for a project that is not primarily for the public good.

Even better, taking peoples' land for the sole benefit of a foreign corporation.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[PopeRatzo]

The KeystoneXL has nothing to do with energy policy. It does not move the meter one bit in regard to US energy. It is all about profits policy for a foreign corporation.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[PopeRatzo]

Nope - because oil is a world market. It will certainly reduce prices in the US by increasing the global oil supply.

Not one bit. It will not reduce the price of oil one bit.

You should know by now that "supply and demand" does not exist in regard to the oil market, because both sides of the equation are easily manipulated by energy producers.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[the_skywise]

Oil Laundering...

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[danbob999]

The US is a net exporter of everything energy-related except oil.

Everything enegry-related? Like what? The US is a net importer of natural gas, uranium, and probably electricity too, as Canada is a net exporter to the US
The only thing US is a net exporter must be coal.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[bobbied]

I can't tell if you're joking, or if you've actually gone full-retard. Never go full-retard.

Unless you are driving a train and need to stop....

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[bobbied]

Not to mention the Chicago River and how it connects eventually to the Mississippi River... Chicago is ANYTHING but land locked....

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we talking about the same Warren Buffet that said he should be taxed more?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/warren-buffett-raise-taxes-wealthy-friends/story?id=14307993

Don't let your talking points hit you in the butt on your way out the door.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[rmdingler]

You sound like a poster who knows a thing or two about the oil business. Since through three of your posts, and I haven't read down very far, there has been no mention of the quality of your tar sands crude, perhaps we should start there. It's not Brent sweet light crude, it's not West Texas Intermediate, shit, it's fucking bitumen. It's great for asphault, roofing shingles, and sealing your canoe per the First Canadians first use.

The shit's dirty. If we needed fuel to escape orbit to avoid imminent planetary disaster, and we've squandered our other options, maybe, but damn, just on the outside chance the climate change scientists are correct in their hypothesis... right?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[tlhIngan]

This bill would move forward with the XL portion of the pipeline. The Keystone pipeline currently terminates at the refineries near Chicago, Il. The XL portion of the pipeline would extends the line to the Gulf Coast, allowing for the oil to be more easily re-sold on the world market as opposed to being land locked into the US market.

Exactly.

In fact, the US has tried to compromise with Canada on this issue. They asked if they could buy the oil and refine it on the gulf coast (more refineries) - we said no. They asked if they could buy it and sell it - again, we said no. Also asked if they could buy capacity to ship oil around - no. Absolutely no benefit other than having a big fat pipe through your land that you can look at and practically not touch.

Etc.

In effect, Keystone XL is less about US oil interests and more about getting Canadian oil to the sea. There will be a small US benefit in the form of construction jobs and maybe the odd person for monitoring, but that's it - most of the benefit goes to Canada who can sell their oil at higher prices. If a leak happens, too bad, so sad.

It's quite funny what a wedge issue it is, when it's clear that other than a few jobs, the US is getting shafted by having this pipeline that not only can the US not use, but is basically just for another country's benefit. Which is a completely strange situation since it's usually the other way around and it's the US throwing its weight around.

Hell, gas prices could very well go UP because of this - think Canada would want to sell to Chicago when they could sell to oil tankers in the gulf coast?

I'm thinking some people really don't understand what they're agreeing to by accepting Keystone XL. Yeah, pipelines are generally better, but what good is a pipeline that's a look-but-don't-touch? You can't get at the oil inside, you can't use it move your oil, you can't even go and buy/sell the oil inside.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[sl149q]

See: http://business.financialpost....

Oil producers are increasing output. Oil would need to drop have to get down to $30-$35 and stay there for for six months before they start shutting things down.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[sl149q]

Ice locked right now.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[PopeRatzo]

Speaking of the Yellowstone River and oil pipelines:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/...

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Nethemas the Great]

Why would I as an American want to make it easy for Canada to get their oil out of our country. By not extending the pipeline, it incentivizes Canada to keep it in the U.S. and thus our prices low.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Nethemas the Great]

Um, how would allowing Canada to bypass the US and put the oil instead on ships bound for elsewhere increase US oil exports? The US isn't exporting that oil, Canada is exporting that oil. Right now, Canada is incentivized to sell the oil for cheap to the US since access to more lucrative markets come with higher costs. Letting Canada extend their pipeline might help Canada and China, but it will do precious little for the US and quite probably hurt it.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Nethemas the Great]

Don't be a ditto head, think for your self man. The oil is being pumped, the oil is being transported, and the oil is being burned regardless of how it gets from point A to point B. If anything the pipeline would have the "environmental" scale pan tipping towards it. Pipes don't necessarily have to be powered by fossil fuel and piles don't derail. This is Canadian interests trying to hijack American politics and you're party to the Kool-aid chugging.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[bcoinbilly]

It sounds like what he vetoed was a major project.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[es330td]

The only reason people don't think Buffet is flashy is that they don't understand flashy. In these days of celebrity bling people think with his money Buffet should be driving a platinum plated bespoke Bentley driven by a staff of nude Swedish supermodels. What people don't understand is that the deal he made with Goldman Sachs for the preferred stock and warrants to bail them out in 2008 is the most ostentatious display of wealth in the history of mankind. He forced the so called Masters of the Universe to accept a deal that must have made the corpses of Marcus Goldman and Samuel Sachs puke in their graves. $5 BILLION in preferred stock with a 10% dividend and warrants to buy another $5B in GS stock at $115 a share. To put this in perspective, there are 12 countries in the world whose GDP is less than the amount GS had to pay Buffet in annual dividends on that preferred stock. The profit on the warrants rank Buffet as the 154th out of 194 biggest economy in the world. He used his wealth to perform the equivalent of anal rape with a spiked baseball bat in front of a live tv audience to the most powerful financial firm in history. It doesn't get flashier than that to those that understand what he did.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[puzzled_decoy]

It's really cool that you own up to your info as an honest mistake.

I was/am kinda scared about how quickly your post got modded as informative. Just a reality check about stuff one reads on the internet, I suppose. Easy to make a mistake, and easy for others not to recognize it as such.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[puzzled_decoy]

Just to give some perspective to that figure, however, the average flow for the Yellowstone around Glendive is almost 40,000 gallons per second. A 50,000 gallon spill really isn't that much.

That being said, True oil has a history of spill, in part because of the poor government incentives in place. Instead of suing them for millions in damages when a spill occurs, making a spills incredibly costly, the govt. issues compliance regulations. Not only are the industry leader consulted when creating compliance (so the oil industry regulates itself), but if an oil pipeline company meets those standards they are far more difficult to sue, because they have the best defense: they followed all the rules.

I hope collectively we will wake up some day and realize that regulations don't work, only massive punishment. The U.S. government shouldn't be in the business of telling companies what the proper safety is for their industry. The industry should be figuring that out, and if they figure it out wrong, oh well, you owe millions in damages and you go out of business. Should have invested more in research and better equipment. Maybe your competitor will get it right.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Pope Hagbard]

To say nothing of speculators.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but Goldman Sachs deserved it and more. They are one of the orchestrators of 2008 crash in the first place.If all they lost is a few billion, then who cares?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[penguinoid]

"and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East "

The US doesn't currently have any strategic oil interests of our own in the Middle-East, and the XL pipeline would not impact that. The US only imports ~1/4 of our total oil consumption, the vast majority of that comes from Canada and Central America because it's closer and cheaper than floating barges over from Saudi Arabia.

While I agree with most of your post, this I have to disagree with. Oil is a fungible commodity, and it doesn't really make a difference whether the oil we specifically use comes from Canada or the Middle East. The price of oil is first set by global supply and demand, and only slightly affected by shipping costs. So, for example, OPEC increasing their oil output means we pay less for oil, even though the oil we get is from the Americas.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[aliquis]

Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?

Tar sand is still worse, better infrastructure and higher availability would likely make things worse because more of it would be consumed, more oil available = lower prices = higher usage.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Darinbob]

Sadly, the typical case of eminent domain is not used for the public good.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[Darinbob]

Talking points just make me angry, and sad. No one bothers to think anymore, on the right or left. Most don't even bother to get past the headline. I hate to say it, but I expect bouts of political violence in the US within a decade.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[danbert8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

No one is taking people's land. There is just restricted use of the part of the land that will contain the pipeline. The property owners are compensated for this.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[danbert8]

Property owners are compensated for the easement that crosses their property.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[es330td]

They absolutely deserved it. I think the executives of all the money center banks should be handed as a group over to ISIS, or better yet, to the average Mom & Pops that got hosed by the mortgage meltdown.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[hondo77]

How did he force Goldman Sachs to take the deal?

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[es330td]

In addition to the $5B GS got from Buffet, GS also got $10B from the US Treasury. For the use of the Treasury's money GS paid about 23%. For the use of Buffet's money the cost was around 100%. I don't know what Buffet did, but GS would not have paid four times as much to use Buffet's money unless it truly was a deal they could not refuse.

Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists

[hondo77]

So Goldman put itself in a position where it was desperate enough to take Buffett's deal and, somehow, that is his fault?

Re:Should be damaging

[halivar]

not to mention he has chosen to offend Canada for no reason..

This presumes that the oil will not reach the intended refineries, which is false. The oil is already getting there, albeit via a shorter pipe and lots of trucks and trains (ironically, less environment-friendly than the Keyston XL). The current pipeline is owned by some very deep pockets, however.

Is this his first veto?

[WhiteDragon]

Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?

Re:Is this his first veto?

[TrancePhreak]

From what I have read, it is because congress sent him so few bills. http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Re:Is this his first veto?

[Amigan]

Harry Reid served as backstop to make sure unpopular vetoes (and Senate votes) wouldn't take place 2009-2014. Republican majority in the Senate means more bills *might* make it to the President's desk, but only if Dems don't use that evil 'filibuster' thingee that Republicans used.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[the_skywise]

Few bills - His first two years was a Democrat controlled congress so anything that reached his desk was something he wanted.

Ever since, until this year, the Republicans controlled the house and the Democrats the Senate and Reid basically played bad cop to Obama's good cop. Reid would block and deflect any legislation that wasn't in the Democrats interest so all legislation was slowed down considerably as most bills originate in the house. (which is why there's been no budget bill for years just continuing resolutions on the one passed years ago, Reid would never act on them). Now the Republicans have control of the congress so legislation Obama doesn't want has reached his desk.

Even though this legislation could be reasonably stated to be a bipartisan bill. There's not enough votes currently to override but it's not an insurmountable number, either.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[Trepidity]

Even though this legislation could be reasonably stated to be a bipartisan bill.

Eh, that's stretching it a bit, at least in the Senate. It's bipartisan in the sense that it got more than 0% of the Democrats to vote for it, but not much more: 20% of the D caucus voted for it, 80% against.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[bobbied]

Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?

It's been the Senate under democrat control that's been blocking just about everything of any political consequence from reaching his desk. Even now, with the cloture 2/3'rds cloture rule, the democrats are generally preventing debate on anything they don't want to see on Obama's desk. The XL pipeline happened to garner enough support to get though the series of 4 (I think) of the 66% required votes to get it passed though the Senate.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[dwye]

There is a simple cure for the filibuster threat - demand that they actually hold one. You try speaking for 12 or more hours straight with no bathroom breaks and no sitting down. Supposedly, back in the 1960s when Southern senators were holding them fairly often, it took the designated speaker a week to get ready and almost as long to recover.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[jeffmflanagan]

The freedom of not being able to breathe due to pollution, not having clean water available, getting enslaved by the local warlord, etc... Libertarians are not clear thinkers. At best they're teenagers who will grow out of their selfish phase, at worst arrested-development cases who will never grow up.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[bobbied]

Harry Reid had been acting as a firewall for the past 6 years keeping anything that could possibly embarrass Obama from reaching Obama's desk.

He still is.

Remember that it takes multiple supermajority votes to get a bill though the Senate. Reid controls enough votes (assuming his party's Senators stick together) to stop any bill he wants from making it though the process. Of course these "Rules" can be changed with a majority vote, but so far this idea hasn't been advanced by the majority, even though the last party in control of the Senate suspended parts of the rules for some nominations.

So minority leader Reid is blocking just about any bill he chooses. Some will slip though, but only if the majority can peal enough votes from Reid so he cannot obstruct it's progress. But it doesn't really matter, Obama would still have his veto unless you can get a veto proof final vote.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[meustrus]

...I was about to say something about reconciliation and making the first gesture toward peace, but you've discredited yourself fairly well. Anarchy only appeals to a rather small minority of the population, and the minority is even smaller once people start really thinking about what it would be like without a government to maintain roads, staff fire departments, hire teachers...hell screw that, what really whittles down the minority is thinking about how fast the terrorists would take over the country without any - ANY - military left to stop them.

That is, if Canada doesn't annex us first.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[blue9steel]

Libertarianism is a big tent, you might not want to paint with such a broad brush. The main stream position is that they support strong property rights and issues of that nature should be solved in court. Personally I think that's fantasy land since it would just mean rulings in favor of those who can afford the best lawyers (something I haven't heard a Libertarian answer to) Personally, and I'm registered Libertarian currently, my view is that one of the proper roles of government (yes, there are such a things unless you're an anarchist) is to ensure that externalities are re-internalized, though preferably in the least distorting way possible. (pigovian taxes generally being the most straightforward solution).

Re:Is this his first veto?

[Dragonslicer]

A bill requires multiple 2/3rds Senate votes to make it to the president... I wonder how many US born citizens understand this?

Apparently not you, otherwise you would know that normal filibuster votes are 3/5, not 2/3.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[bobbied]

You can only filibuster a bill that has jumped enough of the procedural wickets to be debated on the floor. As the Senate rules now stand, a number of these wickets involve super majority votes. So to block a bill, you only need to pick one of these choke points and kill it there. The filibuster is only a last ditch effort to delay a bill by a vocal minority who can manage to get the floor during a debate on a bill. Once a senator starts talking during a debate, the floor is his for as long as he keeps talking. This is really only a way to delay a bill once the final cloture vote has been taken which starts the stop watch on how much longer debate can take. A filibuster is when a Senator takes the floor before the time is up, and uses the fact that he cannot be interrupted by rule to delay the final vote.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[bobbied]

Ouch....Made a bad assumption there. I confused "super majority" and 2/3rds required to override a veto, one is by Senate Rules the other by the US Constitution... Very sorry...

As a bit of history, Cloture started out as 2/3rds, but in 1974 this was changed to 3/5ths because almost no bill was getting 2/3rds needed to proceed, but after 1974 the wicket was lowered to 3/5ths.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[drinkypoo]

Personally I think that's fantasy land since it would just mean rulings in favor of those who can afford the best lawyers (something I haven't heard a Libertarian answer to)

I've had that answered here on slashdot. The only answer so far was that you should have a kickstarter to pay your legal fees. That's right. Pass the fucking hat, citizen! Then you can afford justice! So, really no different from capitalism, then.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[Nethemas the Great]

I think that was rhetorical... just saying.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[Magius_AR]

Eh, that's stretching it a bit, at least in the Senate. It's bipartisan in the sense that it got more than 0% of the Democrats to vote for it, but not much more: 20% of the D caucus voted for it, 80% against.

These days, 20% is incredibly bipartisan, if you go by typical voting percentages over the past decade or so (in our hyperpartisan era).

Re:Is this his first veto?

[Uberbah]

Ever since, until this year, the Republicans controlled the house and the Democrats the Senate and Reid basically played bad cop to Obama's good cop.

On the contrary, Obama finally has the Congress he's always wanted. Now he doesn't even have to go through the motions of supporting his party's platform, as he did his first two years in in office. In public, it's all meaningless gestures that he knows will go nowhere, like minimum wage increase/free community college/sick leave. Behind the scenes, it's full steam ahead for the TPP and a new cold war with Russia.

Re:Is this his first veto?

[SuiteSisterMary]

That is, if Canada doesn't annex us first.

Shhh. Shhh shhh shh. Just like back and let it happen, America. Just go with it. You'll enjoy the beer.

Straw man

[Anonymous Coward]

The burning rail cars strewn about the US would suggest otherwise. The efficient flow of oil to world energy markets can do nothing but lower its price, but you knew that.

Re:Straw man

[rossdee]

The exploding rail cars had the volitile Bakken crude oil, not the tar sands oil (which wouldn't explode if you put 4 million volts through it.)

The pipeline that is going to take the Bakken crude is called Sandpiper, and will run through MN to Duluth where it csn be shipped through the great lakes and St Lawrence to refineries. There is also a refinery being completed near Minot, ND

We don't need no stinking tar sand oil, and the cost of refining it makes it uneconomical at current world prices and it probably creates as much Co2 per megajoule as coal with the energy it takes to refine it.

Is this an extension of a unix-pipe?

[Anonymous Coward]

or why the fuck is' this on slashdot (beside every fucking news-channel/-site/-blog in the us)...?

Re:Is this an extension of a unix-pipe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's about teh Obama.

And any mention of teh Obama gets the nerds all riled up and their blood boiling. And furious clicks! And page views! And money, money, money!

So now you see. It's all down to profit.

Re:Thanks Obama...for nothing!

[Holi]

Never understood why it's called an Obamaphone since he actually had fuck all to do with it.

no no no no NO!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama has vetoed 3,879 bills. The people of America are crying, pleading for the terror to stop. For any of the bills they so desperately support to get passed!

(Goes back to sucking on Coke, eating plate of cheeseburgers and watching Fox News)

Re:Obama vetoes jobs

[Holi]

interesting. Not sure how allowing Canada to sell it's oil out of Texas effects our energy needs at all.

Re:Should be damaging

[Trepidity]

It might damage Obama, but I'll wager that one way the GOP is not going to capitalize on this is by playing up how much they support unionized labor.

Re:Should be damaging

[Wrath0fb0b]

The point about offending Canada isn't about whether he allows it or not, it's about the convoluted and interminable process that they have gone through to find out whether it is allowed. Realistically, they cannot start entertaining other (more costly) options, until the final rejection is received.

If there's one thing I hope could unite people that disagree on whether it should be completed or not is that the process should have a deterministic end point where a final decision is reached. It doesn't have to be quick -- it ought to take as long as necessary to thoroughly develop the factual record -- but there should never be a process that goes on indefinitely.

Re:Should be damaging

[SSSnakys]

As a Canadian, I find the Keystone pipeline offensive. We should be investing our tax dollars into the future and in clean energy than in dirty tar sand oil. Can't wait till Harper is turfed to put the final nail in the coffin of this giant waste of taxpayer money.

Re:Thanks Obama...for nothing!

[sribe]

Never understood why it's called an Obamaphone since he actually had fuck all to do with it.

Because his administration allowed the ~$9/month subsidy to be applied to cell phones, instead of being restricted to land lines.

And it's clear that lazy unmotivated poor people deserve to be tied down to land lines, rather than be allowed the chance to bask in the stunning luxury of having a cell phone when looking for a job.

Reversable Veto?

[xdor]

Is this legal?

Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline

I mean, if congress passes it first, that makes it potentially law if the President agrees. But can a president sit on something until any time he chooses or veto his previous veto?

If so, I can see some strategic uses for that:

1. 1. Congress declares war
2. 2. President vetos declaration of war
3. 3. Six months later President vetos his veto of war and simultaneously authorizes surprise attack.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[oodaloop]

If I'm not mistaken, Congress can override the veto with a 2/3rds majority. It's all part of the checks and balances we supposedly have.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes this is legal and Congress can either over turn the veto (unlikely - not enough votes) or pass a new bill with the same language - wash rinse repeat - until the President changes his mind and signs it - or they find enough votes to over ride.

Then too, the President can withdraw his objections and allow the pipeline to go ahead on a Department level, via the normal process of issuing permits. This is not the same as passing a LAW that REQUIRES that the pipeline be built.

  It's a game that's played over and over, this just happens to be more "Visible" then some.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[xdor]

How does issuing permits fund such a project? I thought only Congress could authorize monies.

(Well at least in theory anyway; i.e. before Harry Reid and the Republicans gave the presidency unlimited spending power.)

Re:Reversable Veto?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a pocket veto. The President has ten days to decide if he wants to sign it.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[xdor]

Thanks. Answers my question.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[sjames]

Yes, it is absolutely legal. He already had the authority to make the decision so he would in no way be "vetoing his veto".

If Congress is unsatisfied with this outcome, they may attempt to override that veto, but they probably can't get enough votes for that.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[maxlybbert]

Obama's spent the last six years saying that he won't approve anything without a review from the State Department. The State Department is made up of people who work for him, but they haven't managed to get that review done. I'm pretty sure "his own timeline" means "only when it becomes politically damaging to continue stalling."

But, as already mentioned, since he vetoed the bill, Congress gets a chance to override (it looks like they'll lose that, once that happens *this* bill is dead). If he hadn't vetoed or signed the bill, it would have died ten days after Congress passed it (not counting Sundays).

So if the President changes his mind, he'll have to ask for another bill. That shouldn't be too hard.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if he didn't veto or sign it, it *would become law* in 10 days.

The exception is if congress adjourns before those 10 days are up, in which it doesn't become law. (This last option is called the pocket veto)

Re:Reversable Veto?

[riverat1]

I doubt there is much if any US Government money going in to building the Keystone XL pipeline. It's a private venture. Of course a lot of government money has been spent on analyzing it.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Something like this:

Keystone says 'we want to put a great big pipe from Here to There.'

The various Departments of Whatever say 'no.'

Keystone says 'Hey, congress guy, here's some money.' Aka, lobbying.

Congress says 'Here's a law saying 'Departments of whatever shall issue the following permits.'

President says 'Nope.'

Eventually, President says 'Ok, departments of whatever, issue the permits with the following requirements/conditions/standards built in.'

Keystone then says either 'Hmm, it's no longer profitable to build, with all these requirements' or 'great!' and goes ahead.

Re:Reversable Veto?

[david_thornley]

Wrong. The President has ten days to sign or veto a bill, after which it becomes law. (This played a part in FDR's summit talks during WWII: there had to be a reliable way to get bills from Congress to him and back.) The exception is when Congress is not in session. I think the idea is that, if Congress is not in session, there's nobody to receive the signatures or vetoes, but in that case inaction is a veto that's not going to be overridden.

Congress can override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers, which is very unlikely to happen this session. Otherwise, a presidential veto stands.

In other news: CN RAIL posts RECORD profits.

[musixman]

It's simple, the oil will be shipped by train as it is now. Which obviously emits way more greenhouse gasses then a pipeline. Rich people aren't gonna "stop" trying to make money of energy because of no pipeline lol.

Re:Obama vetoes jobs

[jbeaupre]

It's where a lot of refineries are located. The infrastructure there is also set up for distribution of refined products throughout the US.

the oil already moves

[mr_mischief]

Right now this oil moves via rail, which is far riskier than a pipeline.

Re:Thanks Obama...for nothing!

[jeffmflanagan]

Because of wingnut propaganda from hate radio, far-right-wing blogs, and Fox "News."

Some really rotten people realized that conservatives couldn't cope with a cooperative civilization, so set up fake news outlets to exploit the fears of these limited-thinkers. They feed them lies every single day, which keeps the rubes afraid, angry, and unthinking. This psychological terrorism to delay the end of the archaic Republican party was intentional, and should be criminal.

Re:Should be damaging

[SSSnakys]

Well if you want to keep living in the past that's your problem, but other than Alberta support for Keystone is quite low. Oil is not the future. Clean energy is. What I don't understand is why we have to keep funding with our tax dollars an industry of the past that benefits very few already quite rich Canadians? Can't they support themselves if this is so profitable?

Re:Obama vetoes jobs

[jeffmflanagan]

>"I hate America", said the lame duck President. "I hope you all lose your jobs. Less energy means less economy

Some of the nuttiest of the Republican propaganda victims actually believe this nonsense. We should all feel sorry for them, even though they've been taught to hate modern people. They can't help the fact that they were brainwashed, often from birth.

Re:Your point?

[Penguinisto]

His point was that you just proved it. :/

Re:Your point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fox News is a news channel with a history of saying things I don't want to hear, and was founded to be a "conservative" media outlet because of the demonstrably true fact that other media outlets are "liberal".

Fixed that for you.

Re:Should be damaging

[alvinrod]

They wouldn't call it by that name, but they would talk about the potential jobs that could have been created to build and maintain the pipeline. Realistically most politicians on either side of the aisle care very little about the pipeline. A few of them might represent vested interests and have more reason than others to care, but for most it's just about slinging mud or using it as a means to attack the opposition.

It would be interesting to put some measure to vote before Congress without allowing the party wranglers to establish the party line beforehand. Outside of a few hot-button issues, I suspect that there wouldn't be anywhere near as much of a pattern to the votes as there is after one party decides that they need to vote for or against something just to oppose the other side.

For most issues, your average Congress critter simply does not care one way or the other and is entirely happy to fall into line as it removes the burden of actually making a decision.

wrong they will use trains

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/26/pick-your-poison-for-crude-pipeline-rail-truck-or-boat/

The short answer is: truck worse than train worse than pipeline worse than boat (Oilprice.com). But that’s only for human death and property destruction. For the normalized amount of oil spilled, it’s truck worse than pipeline worse than rail worse than boat (Congressional Research Service). Different yet again is for environmental impact (dominated by impact to aquatic habitat), where it’s boat worse than pipeline worse than truck worse than rail.

Re:wrong they will use trains

[xrobertcmx]

My problem isn't the method, but the route. The likelyhood of leakage is to high to allow it to follow rivers that also act as major sources of drinking water for fairly large cities.

Re:Should be damaging

[mrchaotica]

Capacity begets usage. It's so true it's even been a meme ("if you build it, they will come") from before the Internet made "memes" a meme! Building a pipeline to ship the oil faster will cause more oil to be shipped in a shorter period of time.

If you don't like having the oil shipped by rail, then fix that problem instead! (Make the rail cars safer, prohibit shipping oil by rail -- whatever.)

Re:Obama vetoes jobs

[sjames]

It puts a big pinch on us since without the pipeline we have a natural advantage if we want to buy the oil. With the pipeline we get to watch it flow right past us and on to somewhere else.

Re:Should be damaging

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American, I don't want you to socialize your risk of spilling your oil in our soil and rivers with no benefit to us.

In fact it is likely to raise gas prices in our mid-west. By up to 20 cents a gallon.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-25/keystone-weirdonomics-means-gas-prices-won-t-be-getting-any-cheaper-

It is also likely to only create a few hundred jobs. (Long term jobs, not construction or manufacture.)

So keep your pipeline, I don't want it.

Re:Should be damaging

[PopeRatzo]

They wouldn't call it by that name, but they would talk about the potential jobs that could have been created to build and maintain the pipeline.

A grand total of fewer than 50 permanent jobs.

Re:Should be damaging

[Applehu Akbar]

I hope Canada makes a huge deal with China to ship their oil through Hudson's Bay. The union folks who once supported Obama will be mightily impressed by the number of tankers taking it straight to Asia.

Re:Should be damaging

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian myself, I find the alternatives to the Keystone pipeline offensive.

Agreed. Some alternatives have the pipe going through our land to reach the sea. We really don't want that. Why won't the Americans just let us stick our pipe down there?

Re:Liberal?

[hermitdev]

The media bias is evident when you look at who and why they attack certain individuals. Biden has gotten away with a lot of stuff. He basically groped a woman in public, in front of cameras, and the reaction was "Oh, Biden....", but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified. Another example of bias is look at DHS funding: some media outlets are blaming Republicans of denying funding, yet it's Dems that are blocking the vote through parliamentary measures because they don't have the votes to outright block it.

As I've seen it, the Koch brothers are not for gay marriage, one has said he's basically fine with it and doesn't get why everyone's in a big fuss about it.

I, for one, tend to be fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal or, rather, laissez faire. I don't care to subsidize others lifestyles, but I won't comment on or condemn others' lifestyle choices. However, I'm willing to state that marriage is not a constitutional right, and as such, should be left as an issue of states' rights. I'm also willing to state that the primary reason this is an issue is because the federal government grants certain privileges (nominally in the form of tax breaks) to such qualifying "couples". The argument to extend such protections is under the 14th Amendment "equal protection" clause, yet neither sexual orientation nor marital status is listed, under that amendment, as protected classes. Thus, if you extend that qualification to same-sex couples, you're still alienating another class: single individuals and still violating the spirit of the 14th Amendment. What it boils down to, if you treated all people equally, as individuals, regardless of marital status, gay or otherwise marriage would be a non-existent issue.

Re:Should be damaging

[Applehu Akbar]

If you want to look beyond oil I would like to see you use more of that uranium you have around Great Slave Lake. Send that directly to Asia too, where they will be only too happy to use it.

BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the smoke coming from the left and right, is the Keystone XL pipeline a good or bad idea?

Right now, gas prices are relatively low, but they are rising, and oil will be back in the triple digits soon enough, almost definitely by Memorial Day. So, having the ability to use oil sands is a good thing since oil prices have replaced standard inflation for the reason for price hikes on virtually any type of good/service out there, and once oil starts going to $150-250 a barrel, the economy here in the US will grind to a halt, just like it did in 1972 and 2008. Plus, an oil sands pipeline is a lot cheaper than another theater of conflict in the Middle East.

Of course, there are the downsides of the pipeline:

It paralyzes growth in alternative energies, because medium term to long term, oil needs to be relegated for making plastic, not causing more climate change.

It makes people rich who are not exactly good global citizens. ISIS just destroyed a major part of mankind's history today by torching museums and libraries in Mosul today, and demand for oil just supports nations and groups like that. Oil used now just means wars later.

The record of oil pipelines isn't exactly sterling, with regards to leaks. Assuming it follows most construction done by the absolute lowest bidder, it won't exactly be leak-proof, and it will be a crap-shoot of what the pipeline fouls up.

tl;dr... is this pipeline a net good, or a net bad overall?

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The oil sands are already being refined.. much in the upper midwest.
The pipeline will bypass the midwest refinery's and send the oil down to a duty free port on the gulf of mexico where it can be exported.
This will cause gas prices to RISE in the midwest, as well as cause more oil products to leave north america causing energy to rise overall.

The pipeline is ONLY being built to get to the pre-existing duty free port so that they can manipulate a higher price for the oil.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[sycodon]

Oil will never be back into the triple digits until the natural pace of inflation puts them there, or there is some kind of natural disaster, or the Feds do something stupid.

As soon as the prices inches back up, Frackers, Wildcatters, etc will start back up. We know how to produce cheap oil now and if the MidEast gets greedy, we'll just start producing more according to the price points.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[The Grim Reefer]

It makes people rich who are not exactly good global citizens. ISIS just destroyed a major part of mankind's history today by torching museums and libraries in Mosul today, and demand for oil just supports nations and groups like that. Oil used now just means wars later.

Um, when did Canada join ISIS?

I really don't know if the pipeline is as great as those who support it claim. But the oil is coming out of the tar sands with or without it. So I think think the argument for keeping that from happening is moot. The question is, is do we want to transport it via pipeline part of the way, then transfer it to trains and/or trucks and deal with all of the added cost and possible other issues in doing so? Or the possibility of it getting shipped to China. Or simply build the damn thing?

I realize how incompetent the government can be, but just how long is this environmental impact study going to take? It's been going on for at least 4 years that I'm aware of.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Brad Eleven]

Net bad overall for these United States. The pipeline's route includes one or more Nebraska refineries, but all of the petroleum is destined for the Gulf Coast, i.e., to be shipped elsewhere. I have yet to understand what the US has to gain by building a pipeline which does not benefit the US. All I can see for the US with this pipeline is risk -- and a few thousand temporary jobs.

Methinks the fix is in, whether it involves Tom Steyer or other interests who are only anti-this-pipeline.

FYI, my brother-in-law sells pipe for pipelines (and the SCADA to go with it). He says that sales have strictly increased since the pipeline was first publicized in 2008.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

4 years of no oil leaks doesn't sound bad.

I'm guessing it won't be going near your drinking water supply.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[kenh]

I realize how incompetent the government can be, but just how long is this environmental impact study going to take? It's been going on for at least 4 years that I'm aware of.

I think it's fair to say that if the government had found that letting the pipeline go forward would pose an exceptional threat to the environment they would have announced the threat and denied the pipeline. That they are still 'investigating' the environmental impact of the proposed pipeline speaks volumes to the lack of impact the pipeline would have on the environment.

I suspect that the reason(s) Obama doesn't just deny the application are simple: to deny the project would alienate organized labor (that stands in support of the thousands of construction jobs the pipeline means, just for the construction phase), and once denied, the Canadian firm can appeal the denial and probably has the right to demand a justification for the denial, and a Presidential 'I don't wanna' won't stand up in court.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[TheReaperD]

>

I realize how incompetent the government can be, but just how long is this environmental impact study going to take? It's been going on for at least 4 years that I'm aware of.

Actually, from what I have read, the environmental impact study is complete and the project was approved on that basis. The holdup now is that because this project has foreign governments involved there is a review that has to be done by the U.S. State Department to see if the project is in the national interests of the United States. This is the process the oil companies and Republicans are trying to bypass. The environmental issue is a smokescreen at this point to avoid answering why they want to bypass the national interest question.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Gorobei]

Right now, gas prices are relatively low, but they are rising, and oil will be back in the triple digits soon enough, almost definitely by Memorial Day.

Then you can make a ton of money right now by buying WTI futures or options. The consensus Memorial day price is under $60 - you can clean up to the tune of 1000%s of profit if you put money on your "almost definite" knowledge.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[rwa2]

Er, hello? Oil is cheap right now because there's a price war going on... The Saudis voted to keep OPEC overproducing for the time being, probably at the prodding of the US Sec of State to hurt Russia in retaliation for the Ukraine thing. Russia's economy is very dependent on oil right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01...

Yes, this hurts US oil production too, which is probably why the Saudis agreed to do this. The US has been producing more of its own shale oil through fracking, which is relatively expensive. This will probably make some of the smaller players go bankrupt, so their assets can be seized and utilized by the larger oil companies at fire sale rates.

US demand for oil has also dropped (by about as much as US domestic production increased), we like to think due to more efficient use of renewables and electric vehicles, but probably mostly due to the recession. The US appears to be recovering from the recession, and certainly these cheap oil prices has gas guzzler sales bouncing back. So it's likely gas prices will bounce back in a big way once OPEC goes back to "normal" market-adjusted production capacity in a few months.

In any case, there are several good reasons for OPEC to delay competition by temporarily cutting prices, but the prices are certainly artificially low now and can easily be bumped back artificially high once we're a bit more distracted from developing our energy independency.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[towermac]

Relatively expensive fracking is, but not that expensive.

The Saudis have been soaking us for years. Along with Russia. (Even now, Rosneft? takes revenue in dollars and pays expenses and salaries in rubles.)

North Dakota has changed that equation, and it's looking like about $60 a barrel right now. Even the tar sands make money well under $100.

So it won't go back to where it was for a while. (knock on wood...)

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[maxlybbert]

A train carrying some of this oil derailed in West Virginia. So it's not like the alternative is all that much better for the environment.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[towermac]

The delay is it's own reward.

There are several (more) lawsuits against the pipeline now than there were, in South Dakota and Nebraska, meaning a minimum of 2 years now before anything could move. Even if everything was fast tracked. At least one case is going to the SD Supreme Court.

They've killed it already.

The Republicans are used to losing; I think they mean to lose; they like being the 'valiant opposition'. Losers. The real loser here is Canada. They could have been selling that oil at $120 if we had let them build it when they started. They're probably just going to cancel it, losing millions in prepaid stuff. Also, they already built the bottom half. Now, they still have to start on one over the mountains. I'd call that Royally Screwed.

Hope it was worth fucking over Canada just to beat the Republicans one more time.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[towermac]

We have refineries on the Gulf coast.

Are you saying they can't use this oil? They take in oil from overseas now. But you're saying the Canadian oil has to go overseas?

Also, why can't we just do business with Canada? Does there have to be a national interest in it? If they get more out of it than we do, and we just make a little money off the deal; is that so bad?

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[thaylin]

How long does it take in your mind to prove that something does not harm you? Studies showing smoking was harmful took decades to show, that does not "speak volumes to the lack of impact" smoking had on people. There may or may not be an impact but your logic on it is fairly weak.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[ember42]

Do you realize that most of the refining capacity for the grade of heavy oil that would be in Keystone is refined in the US gulf coast? There may be exports of refined products and there definitely would be reduced imports from other sources, but unlikely much of this oil would be exported because very few others can handle it.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[mjtaylor24601]

Not really. Look up the "proportional sharing" clause in the NAFTA treaty. I suppose Canada could back out of NAFTA but trade with the US is such a big part of our economy that doing so would be economically disastrous.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

American refineries don't pay as good as China so the whole idea is to build the 3 pipelines to ports where it can be shipped to China and refined there.
The Canadian government has repeated this over and over, we need to sell it as quick as possible and it is stupid to create jobs in N. America when China will pay more.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

The whole point of keystone is to get oil to China as they pay better then the American refineries, of course it is possible that the American refineries will outbid China but there is more money in just shipping it to China and profit is the name of the game.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[maxlybbert]

OK, that's what I get for believing Slashdot: according to a followup comment, the train wasn't carrying *this* oil. But it is certainly true that trains carrying oil do derail, and in fact one derailed in West Virginia recently.

There are quite a few questions about how this will play out, but some things are basically determined already: the oil's coming out of the ground (and getting burned), Canada isn't going to build more refineries to process it, so it's going to get transported. The questions are (1) where will it be sent, and (2) how will it get there?

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

Canada, or rather the foreign oil companies are already planning to build 2 oil pipelines to the west coast as well as reverse the oil pipeline to the east coast. This government really wants to give China the oil as quick as possible, whether through the ports on the Gulf, Kitimat, or Vancouver.
China can outbid America now and has.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[maxlybbert]

They aren't trying to bypass the review; they're trying to get it done. It's been six years. How much longer will the State Department need to decide what kind of impact the pipeline will have on US-Canadian relations?

To put it another way, imagine trains start derailing, wiping out orphanages and polluting national parks. It doesn't take long for the same experts who criticized the moratorium on Gulf drilling to mention that the trains wouldn't be necessary if the pipeline were approved. If President Obama's popularity started to suffer, how long do you think it would take for John Kerry to deliver a report from the State Department clearing the project?

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

China is willing to pay more then the American refineries, so it is more profitable to ship it then to refine it. The same thing here in Canada, the local refinery, which is right at the terminus of a pipeline, has to import oil as all the oil sands bitumen is promised to China and we signed a free trade deal that says China gets the bitumen.
Personally I wish the bitumen benefited Canadians and gas would drop below $5 a gallon.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[ArcadeMan]

Personally I wish the bitumen benefited Canadians and gas would drop below $5 a gallon.

That's never going to happen because we use the metric system.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Darinbob]

This pipeline will not be used to help out US demand for oil, it is all going to be exported. Price of oil is completely unrelated to the keystone pipeline, except as a rallying cry to get inattentive voters to call their congressional representatives.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[LynnwoodRooster]

So China pays more for oil than the rest of the world? Oil isn't a global commodity?

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Maxo-Texas]

Shale wells have much shorter life spans and lower investments than traditional wells.

By hedging, they can come online rapidly whenever the price rises- pump out the presold oil and then wait until the price drops again.

It would mean less job stability for sure tho and that would effect rampup time some.

But prices are unlikely to get over $100 again for 6-8 years. It was held artificially high for too long.

Now that the alternative technologies have been invented, they can be optimized. They wouldn't have been invented yet if oil prices had been allowed to fluctuate in the past.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Maxo-Texas]

Actual FTE jobs created are about 2 years at 1,950 jobs. Many of the jobs are for 4 or 8 months and seasonal.

Permanent jobs created will be under three dozen. Check politifact.

That's one more reason why the oil companies want a pipeline. Much cheaper to operate. Lots less jobs. Truckers and railroad unions will lose jobs when the pipeline is built.

Mainly, I just don't see the government taking the 20% of the property along the line from people who don't want to sell. I'm surprised conservatives are for that.

So it's not really going to create jobs... and it's probably going to increase the price of that oil when prices go back up ( not for several years to eight years tho and it may increase the oil glut holding prices down a while more until supply goes up).

I don't really care if they build it or not. But it is very "stinky".

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[sycodon]

Price is a function of Supply.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

No, America pays less for Canadian bitumen then the rest of the world. Currently Canada has one major market for its bitumen and that market knows it and pays less. This is why the Northern Gateway, Energy East, the southern BC pipeline twining whose name slips my mind right now and Keystone XL are so important to Alberta, get the heavy oil to world markets and get world prices rather then Texas prices.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[khallow]

American refineries don't pay as good as China so the whole idea is to build the 3 pipelines to ports where it can be shipped to China and refined there.

I agree with the grandparent. It doesn't make sense to build to Gulf coast, if you're just shipping to China. Better to make a second pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is easily the closest shipping to China.

OTOH, if you're shipping to US refineries, then it makes a lot of sense.

The Canadian government has repeated this over and over, we need to sell it as quick as possible and it is stupid to create jobs in N. America when China will pay more.

I doubt they've said that. And so what if they did. Canada isn't building the Keystone XL pipeline.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[khallow]

How long does it take in your mind to prove that something does not harm you?

Less than four years obviously. And let us keep in mind that pipelines have been known about for decades. Implying as you do here that we'll need decades more to figure out the impact of Keystone XL is just like you claiming we'll need decades more to figure out the consequences of your current smoking habit.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[danbert8]

Oil sands are already being refined, by low throughput refineries in the upper midwest.
The pipeline will allow the crude to be sent to much larger capacity refineries. There is no such thing as a "duty free port."
Those same gulf coast refineries also have products pipelines that bring the refined gasoline and diesel back to the midwest and all down the eastern half of the US.

Only crazy people would mod an AC to +5 Interesting with bullshit paranoia and even worse, one that uses an apostrophe for a plural.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[danbert8]

Trucks and rail are more likely to leak than a pipeline. Even more true of a new pipeline. Drinking water supplies are not as badly influenced by oil spills as you might think. Oil and water are pretty easy to separate.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[danbert8]

No one is taking property from those that won't lease. There is no selling or taking of land for a pipeline (except maybe minimal amounts for stations along the way). This shows the ignorance of those opposed to it. The land used by the pipeline is called "right-of-way." The property owner remains owning the land. They are just restricted from digging and constructing certain things in a safe zone area where the pipeline crosses their property. The property owners are compensated on a yearly basis for the use of their land.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[danbert8]

Or maybe it could be that the gulf coast has the majority of refining capacity in the United States. In addition to water access, the gulf coast also has these things called "product pipelines" that can move refined products back to the Midwest and eastern half of the country. The alternative to piping it to the gulf coast would be to build new refineries in North and South Dakoka (not going to happen) and then build products pipelines to where it needs to go.

The point of the pipeline is to bring the oil to a transportation and refining hub. Without mentioning China, it's still the damn gulf coast.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Talderas]

I agree with the grandparent. It doesn't make sense to build to Gulf coast, if you're just shipping to China. Better to make a second pipeline to Canada's west coast, which is easily the closest shipping to China.

The only reason you wouldn't ship it to the west coast is if you lack ports capable of servicing the tankers and I'm talking the depth of the ports and not whether you have the facilities themselves since the latter can be built up at the same time that the pipeline is being built.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[budgenator]

Doesn't matter the Canadians have most of the pipelines they need to ship the crude east, then they can load the crude on an Canadian Atlantic port instead of an American Gulf port. Building off a spur to Lamton county would bring feedstock to chemical valley refineries, further helping the Canadian economy. My understanding is the US get a 10% discount on the oil, which would go away with a more global competition for Alberta crude.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[rwa2]

Heh, yeah, that's exactly why I bothered to stick the word "probably" in there. Plenty of less reputable news sources have been making hay of Kerry's Sept 11 visit with the king of Saudi Arabia ahead of the Nov 27 OPEC proclamation.

But yeah, the Saudis have enough of their own reasons to try to slow down the energy production of other states.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great...

They know their supply of ridiculously cheap oil is finite, and a lot of the middle East /is/ starting to look forwards for ways to diversify their economies. This move might buy them a little more time in the... long/medium run.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Rhipf]

Actually the reason it isn't being shipped west is that British Columbia won't allow the pipeline to be built through their territory either.

I don't recall if this is just a money obstacle (BC wants more than Alberta is willing to give) or a philosophical issue (e.g. BC is concerned about environmental impact).

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[rwa2]

Yes, I'm with you there. Losing Ukraine to the West is even worse than the Cuban missile crises... maybe more analogous to the 13 colonies seceding from the US.

Though my favorite conspiracy site explains it more in terms of thwacking Russia for trying to sell oil in Rubles, the same way we thwacked Iraq and Libya for making moves to sell oil in anything other than USD:
http://scgnews.com/the-geopoli...

Sure helps make the world make a lot more sense :P

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

They are building a second pipeline (twinning the existent one) to Vancouver but the port of Vancouver ca only handle a tanker a day plus the people are not happy with the risk and lack of benefits. They are also pushing ahead with the Northern Gateway to Kitimat (just south of Alaska) but no one wants that either and the natives have sovereignty over much of the route and once again even if built it can only handle so many supertankers. They're also planning on reversing the flow of the pipeline to the Atlantic.
The point is that they (the oil companies, the Government of Alberta and the Federal Government) want to move as much product as possible as the Federal Government (ran by a failed economist) knows oil will never drop in price and we should be a one trick pony with oil being the one trick.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[khallow]

Which is easily solvable by building deep water ports. What problems of the world can Slashdot solve next?

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[khallow]

Apparently, they're already allowing a pipeline to be built.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[khallow]

The point is that they (the oil companies, the Government of Alberta and the Federal Government) want to move as much product as possible as the Federal Government (ran by a failed economist) knows oil will never drop in price and we should be a one trick pony with oil being the one trick.

So they should instead wait till oil is no longer in demand and then build all this expensive infrastructure? Sounds like I'll have to go with the failed economist on this one.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[orgelspieler]

Are you daft? If the goal was to ship to China, why would they go through the US, when they could just pipe it to Vancouver?

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[macpacheco]

Wrong. Oil is cheap because of shale oil. The USA was almost self sufficient before the Saudis decided to try to undercut shale oil.
But guess what, shale oil is getting more and more competitive. Some of it is still competitive @ US$ 60, which will eventually make it hard for oil to go above US$ 70-80. At US$ 80 most of the oil in the world is economical.
It's really sad when people don't want to discuss with facts, but would rather cherry pick the argument that fits his agenda.
You should watch Fareed Zakaria GPS and some other facts based programs, that focuses on educating us and finding solution to problems rather than creating 24x7 sensationalism.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[rwa2]

Heh, I get your point, but the google search on "Fareed Zakaria oil" is pure comedy...

Zakaria: Why oil prices will stay high – Global Public Square ...
globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/.../zakaria-why-oil...
Fareed Zakaria GPS
Jan 15, 2012 - By Fareed Zakaria, CNN The next time you pay $3.50 dollars for a ... So why is oil trading high at $113 a barrel, more than twice the price it was ...

Zakaria: 2015 the year of America? - CNN.com
www.cnn.com/2015/01/05/opinion/zakaria-year-america/
CNN
Jan 5, 2015 - Falling oil prices and a vibrant society could help make 2015 America's year, says Fareed Zakaria.

There are some good graphs of US production vs. imports at: http://cassandralegacy.blogspo... ... but having trouble finding a good graph showing that US oil consumption also fell due to the recession, and that's just as much responsible for the reduction in US imports as the increase in US production.

Anyway, by all reports, US gas consumption will shoot up again since everyone's been out buying gas-guzzling these past couple of months:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/oi...

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Maxo-Texas]

I get your point, if I have 20 acres, losing a .5 acre strip across the property isn't that much relatively speaking. But the 20% of the property owners are saying no and will be forced to give up parts of their land.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

Getting the people of BC to agree to pipelines and oil tankers navigating some of the more treacherous waters of N. America for little benefit to them besides the most expensive gas in N. America

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

Back in the '50's.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

Edit, I misread your post.
The Federal government has OKed a pipeline. Perhaps it'll get built depending on whether the Federal government can overwhelm the Supreme Court with unconstitutional laws.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[dryeo]

Only so many supertankers can fit into Burrard Inlet and the people of Vancouver really don't want a stream of supertankers sailing through the narrows.

Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[khallow]

Getting the people of BC to agree to pipelines and oil tankers navigating some of the more treacherous waters of N. America for little benefit to them besides the most expensive gas in N. America

I got this one too. We'll just build it and regulate it to mitigate the above problems. One wonders why we should care about opinions from people who don't have anything at stake.

Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not?

[Agripa]

I suspect that the reason(s) Obama doesn't just deny the application are simple: to deny the project would alienate organized labor (that stands in support of the thousands of construction jobs the pipeline means, just for the construction phase), and once denied, the Canadian firm can appeal the denial and probably has the right to demand a justification for the denial, and a Presidential 'I don't wanna' won't stand up in court.

Not issuing a denial prevents court review and the delay is equivalent to denying it anyway.

Foreign Companies and Eminent Domain?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't the base argument about letting a foreign held company own a strip of the United States from Canada to the Gulf Coast (boarder to boarder) and using eminent domain to grab some of that land?

Also, don't be fooled by "oil independence." The oil companies are making sure oil stays independent from the US, because it can fetch more on the global market.

Re:Bloody dictator

[darthsilun]

Don't forget:

Mitch McConnell

Harry Reid

Ted Cruz

Re:Bloody dictator

[darthsilun]

Oops, no, not Harry Reid. My bad

Keystone Beer already exists

[Just Some Guy]

As long as we're throwing out irrelevant information, there's also a Keystone Beer, the Keystone Cops, and Pennsylvania. Neither these nor the existence of a Keystone Pipeline on a different route changes the fact that someone wants to build a pipeline where there isn't one today. I think it's intellectually honest to minimize this as "they're just extending something that's already there!", when in reality the proposal is to build a brand new pipeline 1,179 miles long along a new path.

That's an "extension" in the same way that I-70 is an "extension" to I-80 because you can take either one from Denver to Chicago, except that those routes are about 150 miles short than the XL would be. You should be ashamed for trying to make it seem otherwise.

Re:Keystone Beer already exists

[danbert8]

I-70 could be considered an extension the to Interstate system... As the Keystone XL pipeline could be considered an extension to the national network of pipelines. Sure it's a new route, but denying it based on the environment is ridiculous because as you pointed out, it's already getting there, a new pipeline would merely make it more efficient to transport.

Re:Obama vetoes jobs

[Brad Eleven]

The XL pipeline would provide only temporary jobs for the construction of the pipeline. It might require a few dozen permanent jobs for maintenance and other costs associated with any ongoing concern. Then again, the US firms (if any) charged with maintaining the pipeline once it's built may not hire anyone new for these roles.

I get the impression that you're joking, but it's more important than at any time in the past to correct false assertions: Most everyone has lost his sense of humor, and facts are routinely confused with personal or group truths. It will be more important to correct false assertions tomorrow -- why not procrastinate in order to ramp up the significance of your unfounded exaggerations?

Better suggestion for you -- from Len Grossman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Should be damaging

[Kernel Kurtz]

Of course the oil is going to get to market. People are deluded if they think this is going to stop the oil sands.

CALGARY Shipments of oil by rail from Western Canada are expected to more than triple in the next two years, as the sector heads into a severe shortage of pipeline capacity by next year, according to a new forecast by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

http://business.financialpost....

At the right price point (admittedly not right now) even trucks may become economical. I'm betting they would find a way to ship it by carrier pigeon before they would leave it in the ground. Makes no difference to me so long as there is no shortage.

Re:Should be damaging

[MachDelta]

Why would we take the long way around the planet? There's a shorter route already in the works, although who knows if it will ever be approved.

Interesting Move By Mr Obama

[bcoinbilly]

Sounds like he researched this bill and came to a conclusion that it would be better to veto it. I doubt any partisan behavior had anything to do with as he never striked me as a partisan President. I bet even some republicans secretly wanted this bill vetoed.

Re:Interesting Move By Mr Obama

[bigmattana]

I doubt any partisan behavior had anything to do with as he never striked me as a partisan President.

That is a joke, right?

Re:Interesting Move By Mr Obama

[KermodeBear]

The "Troll" moderation is for people who are genuinely trolling - not for people you happen to disagree with, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Re:Interesting Move By Mr Obama

[bcoinbilly]

Why would you say this. He seems to be the more conservative than some Republicans

Re:Interesting Move By Mr Obama

[bcoinbilly]

Who do you think should be the next President?

Re:Now I want to see an endless stream of railcars

[amicusNYCL]

FYI - oil is currently flowing through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast, and it's been flowing that far for over a year. It's been flowing to Illinois refineries for almost 5 years. But don't let facts like that stop your hatred for Obama.

It's a Nothingburger

[Anonymous Coward]

Not important either way. Not worth vetoing, not worth crying about. No change will ensue from signing or vetoing the bill. It's the Benghazi of the left, a nothing burger to rally around.

Re:Should be damaging

[Layzej]

At the right price point (admittedly not right now) even trucks may become economical.

At the current price point - trains may not remain economical: http://www.cbc.ca/news/busines...

XL is obsolete (for now) ...

[CaptainDork]

... Bakken oil came through and made Canadian shale unnecessary. The US has more oil than God, now.

Oil companies are going to go all OPEC on us and start cutting back on production to manipulate prices for maximizing profits.

Canadian oil is a buzz killer. That's why you won't see much opposition to the veto.

Re:XL is obsolete (for now) ...

[fatwilbur]

The Canadian oil deposits being mined for the source of KXL oil are not shale deposits.

Re:XL is obsolete (for now) ...

[Uberbah]

Oil companies are going to go all OPEC on us and start cutting back on production to manipulate prices for maximizing profits.

That would be a change from the current manipulation, where the U.S. and Saudis are flooding the markets with cheap oil to hurt Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

Re:XL is obsolete (for now) ...

[CaptainDork]

Mod +1 (Accurate)

I stand corrected. Canadian oil, as regards the XL pipeline is sand oil.

Thank you.

Re:XL is obsolete (for now) ...

[CaptainDork]

Yes.

I see you picked up on the difference between the United States and Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

Re:Liberal?

[GrumpySteen]

but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified

That's not what happened. The kid actually spelled potato correctly and Dan Quayle 'corrected' him into spelling it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And Quayle wasn't vilified. He was the butt of many jokes, but he deserved to be the butt of all those jokes for being so damned stupid. Recognizing someone's stupidity isn't the same as vilifying them.

Re: Yeah, right.

[kenh]

How do you think votes on the Oscars?

Re: Yeah, right.

[kenh]

Should be "Who do you think votes on Oscars?"

It's not The People's Choice Awards, it's not a reflection of ticket sales...

Re:Should be damaging

[Hartree]

"other than Alberta"

Well, Alberta's politics don't fit well with a lot of Canadians. However, it fits quite well with our western states just to the south. So, strictly as a favor to help you out, all us US-ians would be happy to take it off your hands for a small handling fee. We'd even guarantee no pipelines to be built on Canadian soil.

Deal?

Stupid idea anyway

[WillAffleckUW]

Unless you want to live in a 140 F (40 C) world, you need to leave 2/3 of all the coal and tar sands in the ground and not export them like morons.

Earth will get along fine after we kill ourselves off due to our shortsighted nature.

Re:Stupid idea anyway

[penguinoid]

Yeah, all those Canadians complaining about the heat, amiright?

Re:Should be damaging

[Kernel Kurtz]

Oh I don't disagree at all. But the oil will still be there when prices rise again.

I'm not complaining about the current plentiful cheap oil myself.

Re:Should be damaging

[fatwilbur]

As a Canadian myself, I fully support your right to have the viewpoint you do - as long as you realize you're in the minority and that most Canadians in-the-know don't see investing in additional pipeline infrastructure and new energy technologies as mutually exclusive activities.

Re:Liberal?

[Pope Hagbard]

Pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps conservatives make the most hilarious self-appointed victims, don't they?

Re:Should be damaging

[Layzej]

It's a bit of a mixed bag. It hasn't helped the dollar any - but that's a bit of a mixed bag too I guess.

Re:Liberal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "irregardlessly".

Re:Liberal?

[Anonymous Coward]

but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified

That's not what happened. The kid actually spelled potato correctly and Dan Quayle 'corrected' him into spelling it wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And Quayle wasn't vilified. He was the butt of many jokes, but he deserved to be the butt of all those jokes for being so damned stupid. Recognizing someone's stupidity isn't the same as vilifying them.

So, what's worse?

Making a simple spelling mistake or a self-proclaimed Constitutional law professor saying the US has 57 states?

One is being talked about thirty years later, the other has been pretty much swept under the rug.

Thanks for helping to make the GP's point.

Re:Bloody dictator

[towermac]

I find that hilarious.

Way more bipartisan than Obamacare

[mpercy]

OTOH, more than 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war as did 40% of the House Democrats.

I guess Democrats wanted the Iraq war a lot more than they want the pipeline, and they wanted the war *way* more than Republicans ever wanted Obamacare.

Re:Way more bipartisan than Obamacare

[Trepidity]

That's definitely true. But does anybody even call Obamacare "bipartisan"? I've never heard it described as "bipartisan healthcare reform".

Re:Should be damaging

[Applehu Akbar]

Going through BC would be shorter, but there's that little matter of the Rocky Mountains in the way. The route to Hudson's Bay is flat and easier to build through.

Re:Liberal?

[GrumpySteen]

Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction assuming I was doing anything other than correcting the misinformation in the GP's post despite the fact that I offered no opinions about anything else.

Obama has solved global warming already

[unixisc]

Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?

-Rick

Well, when Obama came to power, global warming was pretty big on the agenda. Now, w/ the freezing temparatures even in the south, doesn't look like it's an issue anymore. With all the snow, he's really scaled global warming back to the point where we're now freezing. So Mr Obama, can you accept that you've done this job very successfully, and stop trying to stop global warming by vetoing this pipeline deal? Too much of a good thing....

Re:Liberal?

[maxlybbert]

A better example would be to compare Romney's comment about "binders full of women" as part of a (successful) affirmative action plan to Biden's (repeated) inappropriate contact with females -- including several teenagers.

As a canadian...

[n3r0.m4dski11z]

I looked forward to shipping our dirty oil to the americans! Now it has to go east or west. Ontario is much too strong to let it go through there, and the people of BC will never let the pipeline be built to the west.

Boo! Canadians will hate obama because of this. It was such a great solution to our domestic tar sands blight.

Trains are a red herring

[Uberbah]

Rail is a bottleneck on the tar sands, as the developers aren't going to mine far beyond their capcity to transport the product, which is why they want the pipeline. Which gives more time for a less fascist government to replace Harper, or just forget about the whole project with the current cheap price of oil. But once you've got an investment like a completed pipeline, you're going to want to get your money back, even if means waiting years for the price of oil to go back up.

Re:Liberal?

[Darinbob]

The stupidity is that Quayle didn't realize there were two valid and correct spellings of potato/potatoe, and refused to accept a valid spelling.
That is to be clear, "potatoe" was a spelling accepted in the 20th century, used by some respected publishers, up until the "Quayle incident". See: http://blog.oxforddictionaries...

See, I showed that a person on the right and on the left can both be wrong about the same subject.

more like polar opposites

[Uberbah]

Anarchists aren't against rules, they're against rulers. Libertarians are just fine with rulers, so long as they are "job creators", otherwise known as robber barons and oligarchs. Oh, and the "property rights" fetish, when the property is owned by the aforementioned barons and oligarchs.

Re:more like polar opposites

[blue9steel]

Anarchists aren't against rules, they're against rulers.

That hasn't been my experience with Anarchists, but even if true it's a bit of a moot point since they oppose any sort of enforcement mechanism for the rules beyond voluntary cooperation. Like or not there is always a percentage of humans that are willing to optimize for their own welfare regardless of the impact to others and that pretty much makes all voluntary only societies unworkable.

Libertarians are just fine with rulers, so long as they are "job creators", otherwise known as robber barons and oligarchs.

That's certainly a fair description of the corporate shill faction, though they are certainly not the only group within the party. In general Libertarians believe that government is a necessary evil that should be minimized but not eliminated. Of course there are endless arguments on what the necessary minimums are.

Re:Liberal?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a doofus. He was handed a card with the semi-archaic and less preferred spelling "Potatoe" by the teacher. He accepted the spelling he was given by the class teacher, exactly as hermitdev stated. Your team blinders have you so wrapped up in the echo chamber that you can't see it even when it is shoved in your face. Not only that, but the spelling "potatoe" was still in widespread use at the time... Even the vaunted New York Times used that spelling through the 80's. So no, not "so damned stupid". (interestingly, after this event the use of the alternate spelling completely disappeared, so he served at least one function).

He was and still is vilified. Team politics requires that someone must be vilified. Team R has been less adept at this, but they had Bill and Hillary for most of the pre-Obama era. Team D fully demonized Gingrich, then Dole, Bush, Reagan before them.... This enables taking things out of the realm of discussing the merits of one economic policy over another policy and into the world of "good versus evil", which requires much less thinking. Despite what I'll presume is your opinion of yourself as an intelligent and informed citizen, you a one of the useful idiots that you decry when they cheer on the other team. The only difference is whether you are wearing a red shirt or a blue shirt while you cheer.

Re:Should be damaging

[PopeRatzo]

Public vs private.

Re:Obama vetoes jobs

[acoustix]

The XL pipeline would provide only temporary jobs for the construction of the pipeline. It might require a few dozen permanent jobs for maintenance and other costs associated with any ongoing concern. Then again, the US firms (if any) charged with maintaining the pipeline once it's built may not hire anyone new for these roles.

Not quite. This is from the US state department:

"The Keystone XL project, if built, would support 42,000 jobs over its two-year construction period. The report notes that building the pipeline would support approximately 42,100 direct and indirect jobs and contribute roughly $3.4 billion to the economy (that's about 0.02 percent of GDP).

About 3,900 of those jobs would be temporary construction jobs. After two years, once built, the pipeline would support 50 jobs."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/31/four-takeaways-from-the-state-departments-review-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/

Also:

"The State Department thinks blocking the Keystone XL pipeline would have only a small impact on tar-sands production and climate change. So what happens if Keystone XL gets blocked? Here the State Department seems pretty confident that the oil will find its way to market anyway — especially by rail."

"Transporting oil by rail carries more environmental risks than by pipeline. The report adds that, if the pipeline gets blocked and producers are forced to ship by rail or truck instead, overall transportation emissions for the oil in question could even increase by 28 to 42 percent. That's because there would be more trains and trucks burning diesel fuel and more rail terminals using electricity."

No to KeyStone (X)port (L)ikely pipeline

[__aanbvm4272]

At least the President can't be bought. His terms almost over Way to go Barry!

Re:You can do better Marc.

[AK Marc]

Go upstairs, mom finished heating up the frozen pizza for you.

Re:Now I want to see an endless stream of railcars

[khallow]

FYI - oil is currently flowing through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast, and it's been flowing that far for over a year. It's been flowing to Illinois refineries for almost 5 years. But don't let facts like that stop your hatred for Obama.

The proposed XL extension would almost double the capacity of the pipeline and add access to the pipeline from eastern Montana. So I think the grandparent was correct in asserting that rail accidents would decrease as a result of the pipeline extension.