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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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: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.