Why Obama Killed the Keystone Pipeline

[Mr. H.]

Well, well... looks like the precious Ogallala aquifer that environmentalist want to protect is quickly disappearing:

Thanks "Big Ag".

Farmers Deplete Fossil Water in World's Breadbaskets - Yahoo! News

 

[uscitizen]

Well, well... looks like the precious Ogallala aquifer that environmentalist want to protect is quickly disappearing:

Thanks "Big Ag".

Farmers Deplete Fossil Water in World's Breadbaskets - Yahoo! News

It's Obama's fault.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Been thinking about this ever since he did it. Seems odd doesn't it, to turn down a project that the unions wanted, thousands of new, good-paying jobs, and importing oil from a freindly neighbor rather than an unfriendly country elsewhere.

You really ought to try and keep up. The pipeline wasn't killed. It's moving forward.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

​

August 2, 2012

Keystone Moves North​

"When president Obama halted the Keystone XL pipeline last January, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper revved up an alternative scheme to deliver oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to the international market: Sell the oil to the Chinese. Within weeks, Harper was traveling to China to personally court Chinese president Hu Jintao and push a new route for the pipeline – one that would establish Canada as a leading petro-state, a kind of North American Saudi Arabia with ice hockey.

There was only one problem with Harper's grand scheme: Canadians, it turns out, don't want a new pipeline any more than Americans do."

.

.

.

 

[tinydancer]

Been thinking about this ever since he did it. Seems odd doesn't it, to turn down a project that the unions wanted, thousands of new, good-paying jobs, and importing oil from a freindly neighbor rather than an unfriendly country elsewhere. Well, maybe we now have the answer, the rest of the story. It comes from a San Francisco newspaper story a month back, basically says it was about money.

snippet:

Now we know that the decision to reject the Keystone pipeline really came down to the desires of one ultra-wealthy person: Susie Tompkins Buell, a leading donor to Democrats:
Buell, a co-founder of the Esprit clothing company, has donated millions of dollars to Democratic causes and presidential candidates, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore and her good friend, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In the past 10 years, she has given $25 million to progressive political and charitable causes and has raised $10 million for candidates and committees, her office said.
.
.
So Ms. Buell took to the streets (very tidy, upscale streets, to be sure) to protest:
In October, Buell made headlines after she led a protest of monied Democrats in San Francisco against the controversial 1,700-mile Keystone XL oil pipeline. Her fellow protesters outside an Obama fundraiser included Michael Kieschnick, co-founder of CREDO Mobile and Working Assets, which has donated $75 million to progressive causes; IT executive David desJardins; and Anna Hawken McKay, wife of Rob McKay, a wealthy philanthropist whose father founded Taco Bell.

The Democrats, who could have easily afforded the $5,000-a-plate Obama fundraiser, stood on the curb outside the W Hotel as Buell delivered a tough assessment of the president: “I don’t know where he stands on anything,” she said.

And, like magic, that was the end of Keystone:
Kieschnick said Buell’s decision to take an aggressive stance was pivotal to the eventual outcome – a White House announcement last month that the application for the pipeline from the Canadian province of Alberta to Texas refineries would be rejected.

“Before her involvement, the powers that be clearly dismissed our concerns” about the long-term environmental impacts of the pipeline, said Kieschnick, who has known Buell for 20 years. People inside the White House “clearly noticed,” he said. “Then they realized this was not only bad policy, this was bad politics.”

Obama losing financial backing of big S.F. donor

You should see what's happening up here. I've got Suzuki almost balls to the walls when we started to work how his foundation is completely funded by US lib asswipes.

Keystone will continue of course from Oklahoma down. It really was one of the best moves by the company to just go fuck you to Obama and Hillary.

 

[Mr. H.]

Been thinking about this ever since he did it. Seems odd doesn't it, to turn down a project that the unions wanted, thousands of new, good-paying jobs, and importing oil from a freindly neighbor rather than an unfriendly country elsewhere.

You really ought to try and keep up. The pipeline wasn't killed. It's moving forward.

There was only one problem with Harper's grand scheme: Canadians, it turns out, don't want a new pipeline any more than Americans do."

Are these the same Canadians that "didn't want" the Alberta Clipper pipeline?
In 2009 Obama and the Department of State approved and permitted this similarly purposed pipeline, and even bragged about how much we need Canadian oil and all the "shovel ready" jobs it would create.

Read it for yourself:

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

The Department found that the addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. These included increasing the diversity of available supplies among the United States’ worldwide crude oil sources in a time of considerable political tension in other major oil producing countries and regions; shortening the transportation pathway for crude oil supplies; and increasing crude oil supplies from a major non-Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries producer. Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

You really are a doofus, Shammy.

 

[Sallow]

Umm because the governor of Nebraska requested it?

You really think Obama gives a crap about what the governor of Nebraska thinks, regardless of what party he belongs to? And BTW, hasn't that governor come out in support of the pipeline a couple of months ago?

Obama didn't kill it..he wanted a more comprehensive DR plan. Which has yet to materialize.

And Obama does care what Governors want. Montana asked that it be slowed down as well.

Just like the executive order on Welfare..that came from Governor requests.

In any case..Tar Sands cause ALOT of damage when things go wrong.

Toxic Tar Sands - Reports - Tar Sands - Dirty Fuels - Sierra Club

On July 26, 2010 an Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured in Michigan, spilling one million gallons of toxic crude into the Kalamazoo River, a major tributary of Lake Michigan. The crude oil contaminated more than 30 miles of river and forced evacuations for dozens of families. The lasting damage to the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan watershed may take years to resolve. This spill, the worst in Midwest history, is only the latest in a string of ongoing environmental disasters stemming from the production and distribution of the world's dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands.

 

[tinydancer]

Been thinking about this ever since he did it. Seems odd doesn't it, to turn down a project that the unions wanted, thousands of new, good-paying jobs, and importing oil from a freindly neighbor rather than an unfriendly country elsewhere.

You really ought to try and keep up. The pipeline wasn't killed. It's moving forward.

That's what Porky Limbaugh says, huh??

​

August 2, 2012

Keystone Moves North​

"When president Obama halted the Keystone XL pipeline last January, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper revved up an alternative scheme to deliver oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta to the international market: Sell the oil to the Chinese. Within weeks, Harper was traveling to China to personally court Chinese president Hu Jintao and push a new route for the pipeline – one that would establish Canada as a leading petro-state, a kind of North American Saudi Arabia with ice hockey.

There was only one problem with Harper's grand scheme: Canadians, it turns out, don't want a new pipeline any more than Americans do."

.

.

.

Get up to speed you fool.

The pipeline is heading to the coast. BC Premiere is all for it but with conditions that I find completely correct.

Of course the Alberta Premiere is balking a bit but what we witness is just two really great Premiers squaring off trying the best they can on the environmental scale to make sure nothing goes wrong and with fail safe procedures in place.

Try reading and not comic books. You really look like such an asshole.

ETA: Keystone continues out of Oklahoma. Ass wipe Obama can only block across the border. Otherwise he can't do jack shit.

 

[Jackson]

“Before her involvement, the powers that be clearly dismissed our concerns” about the long-term environmental impacts of the pipeline, said Kieschnick, who has known Buell for 20 years. People inside the White House “clearly noticed,” he said. “Then they realized this was not only bad policy, this was bad politics.”

Bottom lineL It was bad politics. Obama does everything for what he deems as a "political gain."

 

[tinydancer]

Umm because the governor of Nebraska requested it?

You really think Obama gives a crap about what the governor of Nebraska thinks, regardless of what party he belongs to? And BTW, hasn't that governor come out in support of the pipeline a couple of months ago?

Obama didn't kill it..he wanted a more comprehensive DR plan. Which has yet to materialize.

And Obama does care what Governors want. Montana asked that it be slowed down as well.

Just like the executive order on Welfare..that came from Governor requests.

In any case..Tar Sands cause ALOT of damage when things go wrong.

Toxic Tar Sands - Reports - Tar Sands - Dirty Fuels - Sierra Club

On July 26, 2010 an Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured in Michigan, spilling one million gallons of toxic crude into the Kalamazoo River, a major tributary of Lake Michigan. The crude oil contaminated more than 30 miles of river and forced evacuations for dozens of families. The lasting damage to the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan watershed may take years to resolve. This spill, the worst in Midwest history, is only the latest in a string of ongoing environmental disasters stemming from the production and distribution of the world's dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands.

Ok right from the get go you have to understand that Obama only had the power to block this leg of the Keystone from coming across the border.

Do you trust me with truths so you know I'm not shitting you? You've known me for many a year and I hope you know I tell truths. We may have differing opinions, but I think by now you know I always tell the truth.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Get up to speed you fool.

Canadians, it turns out, don't want a new pipeline any more than Americans do.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

[tinydancer]

OK libs. Why do you care only now? See this is why you asswipes on the board are fools.And so quickly caught out.

Before Keystone proposed these are the pipelines across the Ogalla aquifer. Get back to me douchebags when you have some sense of decency.

Why do you care now? Why did you let this happen?

 

[tinydancer]

Get up to speed you fool.

Canadians, it turns out, don't want a new pipeline any more than Americans do.

.

.

.

.

.

.

You are insane.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why Obama Killed the Keystone Pipeline

Because that is what responsible adults do.

Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

Main Findings

The main points in this briefing paper can be summarized as follows:

» The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget. However, the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion. A lower project budget means fewer jobs.

» The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State Department.

» The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

» There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline permit issuance.

» The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by TransCanada (The Perryman Group study). Perryman wrongly includes over $1 billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built.

» KXL will not be a major source of US jobs, nor will it play any substantial role at all in putting Americans back to work. Even if the Perryman figures were accurate, and all of the workers for the next phase of the project were hired immediately, the US seasonally adjusted unemployment rate would remain at 9.1%—exactly where it is now.

» KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other spending and will therefore cost jobs.

» Pipeline spills incur costs and therefore kill jobs. Clean-up operations and permanent pipeline spill damage will divert public and private funds away from productive economic activity. In 2010 US pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people, released over 170,000 barrels of petroleum into the environment, and caused $1 billion dollars worth of damage in the United States.

» Rising carbon emissions and other pollutants from the heavy crude transported by Keystone XL will also incur increased health care costs. Emissions also increase both the risk and costs of further climate instability.

» By helping to lock in US dependence on fossil fuels, Keystone XL will impede progress toward green and sustainable economic renewal and will have a chilling effect on green investments and green jobs creation. The green economy has already generated 2.7 million jobs in the US and could generate many more.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_012312_FIN.pdf

 

[Sallow]

You really think Obama gives a crap about what the governor of Nebraska thinks, regardless of what party he belongs to? And BTW, hasn't that governor come out in support of the pipeline a couple of months ago?

Obama didn't kill it..he wanted a more comprehensive DR plan. Which has yet to materialize.

And Obama does care what Governors want. Montana asked that it be slowed down as well.

Just like the executive order on Welfare..that came from Governor requests.

In any case..Tar Sands cause ALOT of damage when things go wrong.

Toxic Tar Sands - Reports - Tar Sands - Dirty Fuels - Sierra Club

On July 26, 2010 an Enbridge tar sands pipeline ruptured in Michigan, spilling one million gallons of toxic crude into the Kalamazoo River, a major tributary of Lake Michigan. The crude oil contaminated more than 30 miles of river and forced evacuations for dozens of families. The lasting damage to the Kalamazoo River and Lake Michigan watershed may take years to resolve. This spill, the worst in Midwest history, is only the latest in a string of ongoing environmental disasters stemming from the production and distribution of the world's dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands.

Ok right from the get go you have to understand that Obama only had the power to block this leg of the Keystone from coming across the border.

Do you trust me with truths so you know I'm not shitting you? You've known me for many a year and I hope you know I tell truths. We may have differing opinions, but I think by now you know I always tell the truth.

Sorry?

What are you taking exception too?

President Obama never said he wanted to "kill" the plan. And it was Republicans that forced a vote on it before the President's objections were fully vetted. Seems he was right about Tar Sands..as the Missouri oil spill has demonstrated. That took years to clean up and caused billions in environmental damage. It also recieved alot less coverage then the BP oil spill, which despite an immense amount of criticism, was handled fairly well and caused far less expense to the Federal government.

In any case..the liabilities are pretty big..but what assets are gained? There's nothing that compels Keystone to sell any oil to the US. The number of jobs created by most estimates seems to be in the range of 5000 short term positions.

So really..not much is gained by this deal. It's interesting why conservatives that conflating something that isn't really a big benefit to America or Americans in general.

 

[Mr. H.]

The Ogalla aquifer is polluted by agriculture and it is practically drained dry by agriculture.
No Liberal backlash?

Carter created a climate of "Petrophobia", Clinton perpetuated it, and Obama is now out to bury the industry for good.

 

[Sallow]

Get up to speed you fool.

Canadians, it turns out, don't want a new pipeline any more than Americans do.

.

.

.

.

.

.

You are insane.

Pretty much..

 

[Sallow]

The Ogalla aquifer is polluted by agriculture and it is practically drained dry by agriculture.
No Liberal backlash?

Carter created a climate of "Petrophobia", Clinton perpetuated it, and Obama is now out to bury the industry for good.

Carter created Petrophobia? The Alaskan Pipeline was built during the Carter administration despite many protests. And..it wasn't the big money maker it was suppose to be. Add in..it cost and still costs the US big. Seems that big oil forgot the little clause that they were supposed to check and repair..or decommission damaged or unused pipe. It's now up to the Federal Government to do that.

Clinton? Why didn't he give those Oil companies huge tax breaks to find new sources of oil? Well yeah..he did. And it's tax breaks conservatives are now fighting tooth and nail to preserve..even though it's no longer needed.

Obama? He basically gave big oil a free pass up until the BP oil spill. Then after a very short Moratorium..which conservatives had a baby about..it was BAU.

 

[Bfgrn]

The Impact of Tar Sands Pipeline Spills on Employment and the Economy
A report by Cornell University global labor institute

About this report

This report examines the potentially negative impacts of tar sands oil spills on employment and the economy. It draws attention to economic sectors at risk from a tar sands pipeline spill, particularly in the six states along Keystone XL’s proposed route Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This report also shows how Michigan’s Kalamazoo River spill in 2010—to date the largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S.—caused significant economic damage and negatively impacted the quality of life of local communities.

The information was collected from employment and economic data in the pipeline states, as well as from interviews with businesspeople, landowners, farmers, and ranchers who live and work along the proposed route for the Keystone XL or near the Kalamazoo River oil spill.

Main Findings

» The negative impacts on employment and the economy of tar sands pipelines have largely been ignored. To date, a comprehensive spills risk assessment for the proposed Keystone XL pipeline has not been conducted. Such an assessment would provide an independent review of both the risk of spills and their economic consequences.

» The Keystone XL pipeline would cut through America’s breadbasket. Agricultural land and rangeland comprise 79 percent of the land that would be affected by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It would cross more than 1,700 bodies of water, including the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers and the Ogallala and Carrizo-Wilcox aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer alone supplies 30 percent of the groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S. It also supplies two million people with drinking water.

» Farming, ranching, and tourism are major sources of employment along the Keystone XL pipeline’s proposed route. Water contamination resulting from a Keystone XL spill, or the cumulative effect of spills over the lifetime of the pipeline, would have significant economic costs and could result in job loss in these sectors. Approximately 571,000 workers are directly employed in the agricultural sector in the six states along the Keystone XL corridor. Total agricultural output for these states is about $76 billion annually.

» Many of the land areas and bodies of water that Keystone XL will cross provide recreational opportunities vital to the tourism industry. Keystone XL would traverse 90.5 miles of recreation and special interest areas, including federal public lands, state parks and forests, and national historic trails. About 780,000 workers are employed in the tourism sector in the states along the Keystone XL pipeline. Tourism spending in these states totaled more than $67 billion in 2009.

» Recent experience has demonstrated that tar sands spills pose additional dangers to the public and present special challenges in terms of clean up. There is strong evidence that tar sands pipeline spills occur more frequently than spills from pipelines carrying conventional crude oil because of the diluted bitumen’s toxic, corrosive, and heavy composition. Tar sands oil spills have the potential to be more damaging than conventional crude oil spills because they are more difficult and more costly to clean up, and because they have the potential to pose more serious health risks. Therefore both the frequency and particular nature of the spills have negative economic implications.

» The Kalamazoo River tar sands spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The largest tar sands oil spill in the U.S. occurred on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan in 2010. This spill affected the health of hundreds of residents, displaced residents, hurt businesses, and caused a loss of jobs. The Kalamazoo spill is the most expensive tar sands pipeline oil spill in U.S. history, with overall costs estimated at $725 million.

» The public debate around Keystone XL has focused almost exclusively on job creation from the project, yet existing jobs and economic sectors could suffer significantly from one or more spills from Keystone XL. According to the U.S. State Department, the six states along the pipeline route are expected to gain a total of 20 permanent pipeline operation jobs. Meanwhile, the agricultural and tourism sectors are already a major employer in these states. Potential job losses to these sectors resulting from one or more spills from Keystone XL could be considerable.

» Renewable energy provides a safer route to creating new jobs and a sustainable environment. The U.S. is leading the world in renewable energy investments, and employment in this sector has expanded in recent years.

The full report can be downloaded here: Cornell University - ILR School: Global Labor Institute - Tar Sands Pipeline Spill

 

[Mr. H.]

The Ogalla aquifer is polluted by agriculture and it is practically drained dry by agriculture.
No Liberal backlash?

Carter created a climate of "Petrophobia", Clinton perpetuated it, and Obama is now out to bury the industry for good.

Carter created Petrophobia? The Alaskan Pipeline was built during the Carter administration despite many protests. And..it wasn't the big money maker it was suppose to be. Add in..it cost and still costs the US big. Seems that big oil forgot the little clause that they were supposed to check and repair..or decommission damaged or unused pipe. It's now up to the Federal Government to do that.

Clinton? Why didn't he give those Oil companies huge tax breaks to find new sources of oil? Well yeah..he did. And it's tax breaks conservatives are now fighting tooth and nail to preserve..even though it's no longer needed.

Obama? He basically gave big oil a free pass up until the BP oil spill. Then after a very short Moratorium..which conservatives had a baby about..it was BAU.

Carter instituted the Windfall Profits Tax that was neither a tax nor was it based on profits. I used to work with the formula. It was a confiscation of personal property.
Tens of thousands lost their jobs and hundreds of companies went out of business. Domestic production fell, imports rose. "Big Oil" and "Obscene Profits" are a couple of Carter's catch-phrases.

Clinton presided over one of the biggest crashes in the Petroleum industy. While oil languished at $10/barrel he allowed foreign countries to dump their product on our market at below production cost. Again, companies went belly up and even more industry workers lost their jobs.

Obama has no credit to his name for any of the advances in domestic production contrary to his lies. He's keeping offshore acreage locked up as well as federal lands. In his proposed budget still sits $40- $80 billion in taxes on oil and natural gas.
He's a flunky who flunked out the day he took office.

 

[Sallow]

The Ogalla aquifer is polluted by agriculture and it is practically drained dry by agriculture.
No Liberal backlash?

Carter created a climate of "Petrophobia", Clinton perpetuated it, and Obama is now out to bury the industry for good.

Carter created Petrophobia? The Alaskan Pipeline was built during the Carter administration despite many protests. And..it wasn't the big money maker it was suppose to be. Add in..it cost and still costs the US big. Seems that big oil forgot the little clause that they were supposed to check and repair..or decommission damaged or unused pipe. It's now up to the Federal Government to do that.

Clinton? Why didn't he give those Oil companies huge tax breaks to find new sources of oil? Well yeah..he did. And it's tax breaks conservatives are now fighting tooth and nail to preserve..even though it's no longer needed.

Obama? He basically gave big oil a free pass up until the BP oil spill. Then after a very short Moratorium..which conservatives had a baby about..it was BAU.

Carter instituted the Windfall Profits Tax that was neither a tax nor was it based on profits. I used to work with the formula. It was a confiscation of personal property.
Tens of thousands lost their jobs and hundreds of companies went out of business. Domestic production fell, imports rose. "Big Oil" and "Obscene Profits" are a couple of Carter's catch-phrases.

Clinton presided over one of the biggest crashes in the Petroleum industy. While oil languished at $10/barrel he allowed foreign countries to dump their product on our market at below production cost. Again, companies went belly up and even more industry workers lost their jobs.

Obama has no credit to his name for any of the advances in domestic production contrary to his lies. He's keeping offshore acreage locked up as well as federal lands. In his proposed budget still sits $40- $80 billion in taxes on oil and natural gas.
He's a flunky who flunked out the day he took office.

1. Well given that since the discovery of oil in the Middle East, the "invisible hand" of the "free market" has been influencing US foreign policy in the region ever since. From such notable luminary operations..like "Operation Ajax" which co-opted a Democratically elected government to further the interest of Big Oil as well as the billions we spend today to keep the oil flowing from the region..a little pay back shouldn't be a big deal. And it's constitutionally mandated.

2. Presided doesn't mean created. That's the thing about the "Free Market". It's volatile. And generally..it becomes less "free" when Big interests run into big trouble. Then all of a sudden..Socialism is "good".

3. Of course he does. He appointed one of the most oil friendly Secretaries of the Interior in memory. Had Ken Salazar been more strict on off shore oil, the BP disaster might never have happened. And big oil should see more taxes. And that should be used to fund new green energy to get off big oil.