Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill

Posted by Soulskill on from the time-to-argue-about-oil-some-more dept.

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."

77 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    1. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by bhv · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by guru42101 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    4. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by sycodon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    5. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by bobbied · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *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.

    7. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by bobbied · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    8. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    9. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

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

      They use a pig.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    10. Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by kenh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      --
      Ken
    11. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      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.

    13. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by towermac · · Score: 2

      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.

    14. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by towermac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by penix1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    16. Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent by dryeo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. The Keystone Pipeline already exists by RingDev · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by Gliscameria · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      X
    2. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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!).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by puzzled_decoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...?

    4. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    5. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by RingDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    6. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by RingDev · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    8. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

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

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by chill · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by xfizik · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by hondo77 · · Score: 2

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

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    12. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oil Laundering...

    15. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    16. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative
      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?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    17. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by es330td · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists by es330td · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. Is this his first veto? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    1. Re:Is this his first veto? by Amigan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
    2. Re:Is this his first veto? by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Is this his first veto? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Is this his first veto? by blue9steel · · Score: 4, Informative

      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).

    5. Re:Is this his first veto? by bobbied · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Is this his first veto? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Is this an extension of a unix-pipe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  5. Re:Thanks Obama...for nothing! by Holi · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  6. Re:Obama vetoes jobs by Holi · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  7. Re:Should be damaging by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  8. Re:Should be damaging by SSSnakys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  9. In other news: CN RAIL posts RECORD profits. by musixman · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  10. Re:Thanks Obama...for nothing! by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Should be damaging by SSSnakys · · Score: 2

    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?

  12. Re:Obama vetoes jobs by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >"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.

  13. Re:Your point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  14. Re:Should be damaging by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

    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.)

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  15. Re:Reversable Veto? by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  16. Re:Liberal? by hermitdev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by towermac · · Score: 2

      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...)

    5. Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by maxlybbert · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by thaylin · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    7. Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by dryeo · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      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.

    9. Re: BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      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".

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  18. Re:Obama vetoes jobs by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?...

    --
    "Press to test."
    (click)
    "Release to detonate."
  19. Interesting Move By Mr Obama by bcoinbilly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Now I want to see an endless stream of railcars by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  21. XL is obsolete (for now) ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... 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.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  22. Re:Liberal? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  23. Stupid idea anyway by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  24. Re:Liberal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  25. Re:Bloody dictator by towermac · · Score: 2

    I find that hilarious.

  26. Way more bipartisan than Obamacare by mpercy · · Score: 2

    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.

  27. Trains are a red herring by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    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.

  28. more like polar opposites by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    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.