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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[the_skywise]

Oil Laundering...

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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.

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: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: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.

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?

[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: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?...

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: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.

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.

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.