Republicans stop pipeline then lie and say it was Obama. Business as usual.

[Charles_Main]

Nebraska's Republican Gov. Dave Heineman sent a letter today to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asking them to deny a federal permit for a pipeline that would carry Canadian oil through his state, all the way to the Texas Gulf Coast.

Heineman wrote that he is opposed to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline because its planned route lies directly over a critical aquifer.

GOP Nebraska gov. asks Obama to stop tar sands pipeline - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

“The key decision for current pipeline discussions is the permitting decision that will be made by the Obama administration, which is why I have urged President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to deny the permit,” (Republican) Governor Heineman said in announcing the special legislative session. (The majority in Nebraska are Republicans who also control the state legislature).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/b...ystone-xl-oil-pipeline.html?_r=1&ref=nebraska

---------------------

So what is it right wingers? Are you liars? Stupid? Remember "state's rights"? Is that for everyone but Nebraska?

Or do you Confederate right wingers just have to have something about Obama to ***** about. You lie about the scope of the project. You lie about the project. I thought you weren't supposed to lie. Isn't that like a commandment in one of your occult texts? I guess if you see people like Romney and Gingrich at "leaders", you'll stoop to any level.

Quiet the Reach there Pal. 1 Governor Does not the Republican Party Make.

 

[Charles_Main]

I read that the reapplication process will cost the company around $15 million.
And no, there isn't any guarantee it will be approved this time either.

That's It, Obama is Smart he is going to Balance the Budget 15 Million at a time of this pipe line.

Wooo Hooo.

lol

 

[Care4all]

I read that the reapplication process will cost the company around $15 million.
And no, there isn't any guarantee it will be approved this time either.

that's a lot of money!

maybe the republicans, who added that super short deadline for a keystone decision in to the extension of the tax cut for SS bill, shouldn't have tried to press their luck and corner the state dept and whitehouse as they did.....??? IT BACKFIRED and is now costing the company 15 million.

there is ALWAYS 2 sides to a STORY!

 

[francoHFW]

One thing's for sure- Obamahhhh did the right thing by PUTTING OFF, not vetoing, a project that wasn't READY to be decided on...PUB DUPES!! LOL! Thank God for no drama Obama...

 

[rdean]

I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.

Supply and demand?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.

The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.

TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.

The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.

Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.

The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.

TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.

The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.

Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?

I think you are missing the point.

The Nebraska state legislature has no input on federal projects.

TransCanada is spending their own money, not taxpayers, they shouldn't have to resubmit a route when the old one met all applicable environmental concerns.

Obama is President of the United States of America. He likes to compare himself to Truman, he should remember this part of the job.

There was a proposal, Obama shelved it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.

The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.

TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.

The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.

Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?

I think you are missing the point.

The Nebraska state legislature has no input on federal projects.

TransCanada is spending their own money, not taxpayers, they shouldn't have to resubmit a route when the old one met all applicable environmental concerns.

Obama is President of the United States of America. He likes to compare himself to Truman, he should remember this part of the job.

There was a proposal, Obama shelved it.

So the State of Nebraska shouldn't have any input about construction projects going on in it?

What happened to "state's rights"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.

The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.

TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.

The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.

Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?

I think you are missing the point.

The Nebraska state legislature has no input on federal projects.

TransCanada is spending their own money, not taxpayers, they shouldn't have to resubmit a route when the old one met all applicable environmental concerns.

Obama is President of the United States of America. He likes to compare himself to Truman, he should remember this part of the job.

There was a proposal, Obama shelved it.

So the State of Nebraska shouldn't have any input about construction projects going on in it?

What happened to "state's rights"?

That depends, do you think the constitution applies or not? Since this is an interstate, and even international, pipeline, it is decided on a federal level. Do you think states whould have the power to reject federal construction projects that benefit other states and the general welfare?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you are missing the point.

The Nebraska state legislature has no input on federal projects.

TransCanada is spending their own money, not taxpayers, they shouldn't have to resubmit a route when the old one met all applicable environmental concerns.

Obama is President of the United States of America. He likes to compare himself to Truman, he should remember this part of the job.

There was a proposal, Obama shelved it.

So the State of Nebraska shouldn't have any input about construction projects going on in it?

What happened to "state's rights"?

That depends, do you think the constitution applies or not? Since this is an interstate, and even international, pipeline, it is decided on a federal level. Do you think states whould have the power to reject federal construction projects that benefit other states and the general welfare?

Would it be "Constitutional" for Congress to pass a law that said that all sewer waste from NY State should be simply dumped by pipeline into the streets of Newark, NJ?

Or do you think that NJ should have some say in it too?


It doesn't matter, though - this is past, not future. TransCanada already agreed to find a new route, based on complaints of Nebraska.

Since that new route hasn't been suggested yet, what exactly could Obama have approved? A blank piece of paper?

Should we just "trust" them, and approve before they've even suggested a route?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the State of Nebraska shouldn't have any input about construction projects going on in it?

What happened to "state's rights"?

That depends, do you think the constitution applies or not? Since this is an interstate, and even international, pipeline, it is decided on a federal level. Do you think states whould have the power to reject federal construction projects that benefit other states and the general welfare?

Would it be "Constitutional" for Congress to pass a law that said that all sewer waste from NY State should be simply dumped by pipeline into the streets of Newark, NJ?

Or do you think that NJ should have some say in it too?


It doesn't matter, though - this is past, not future. TransCanada already agreed to find a new route, based on complaints of Nebraska.

Since that new route hasn't been suggested yet, what exactly could Obama have approved? A blank piece of paper?

Should we just "trust" them, and approve before they've even suggested a route?

Thanks for lowering the bar on intelligence to the rdean level. If you actually have something intelligent to say let me know.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That depends, do you think the constitution applies or not? Since this is an interstate, and even international, pipeline, it is decided on a federal level. Do you think states whould have the power to reject federal construction projects that benefit other states and the general welfare?

Would it be "Constitutional" for Congress to pass a law that said that all sewer waste from NY State should be simply dumped by pipeline into the streets of Newark, NJ?

Or do you think that NJ should have some say in it too?


It doesn't matter, though - this is past, not future. TransCanada already agreed to find a new route, based on complaints of Nebraska.

Since that new route hasn't been suggested yet, what exactly could Obama have approved? A blank piece of paper?

Should we just "trust" them, and approve before they've even suggested a route?

Thanks for lowering the bar on intelligence to the rdean level. If you actually have something intelligent to say let me know.

Seriously? You're just going to go for the personal attack, and ignore what I said?

I expected better from you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think you are missing the point.

The Nebraska state legislature has no input on federal projects.

TransCanada is spending their own money, not taxpayers, they shouldn't have to resubmit a route when the old one met all applicable environmental concerns.

Obama is President of the United States of America. He likes to compare himself to Truman, he should remember this part of the job.

There was a proposal, Obama shelved it.

So the State of Nebraska shouldn't have any input about construction projects going on in it?

What happened to "state's rights"?

That depends, do you think the constitution applies or not? Since this is an interstate, and even international, pipeline, it is decided on a federal level. Do you think states whould have the power to reject federal construction projects that benefit other states and the general welfare?

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce - but it doesn't remove any of the state's right to regulate commerce within the state. Since the pipeline runs through Nebraska (doubtless at least partly through state-owned land), the state has the power to "regulate" at least that part of the pipeline.

 

[Care4all]

I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.

Supply and demand?

Can you show me any example where more supply has been found, where it actually affected the price of oil in a downward motion?

Honestly, I have not found one.

there have been HUGE MEGA FINDS of oil over the past decade and not a one, NOT ONE increase in supply from these finds has lowered the price of oil/gasoline.

It should work the way you propose....it should lower the price if more supply is found, BUT IT HAS NOT.

Now the only legitimate reason I can think, of why it has not, could be that no matter what they find, it can't keep up with the rising demand?

Under President Obama, we in the USA have increased our supply greatly...yet, no decrease in prices....instead oil and gas companies are exporting the excess oil and gasoline?

Are you aware of this? What do you think is going on here Quantum?

 

[Intense]

You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.

The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.

TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.

The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.

Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?

Silly, huh, like supporting Health Care Legislation without even knowing what's in it. I feel your pain.

 

[Trajan]

You guys seem to be missing a good part of the point here.

The pipeline, as proposed, has been rejected by the Nebraska State Legislature, and the Republican Governor.

TransCanada has said they're open to creating a new plan - which will take months, if not years, before they're ready to propose it.

The Republicans in Congress forced Obama's hand, giving him a deadline to approve or deny the permit - a timeframe that doesn't allow for TransCanada to re-submit their proposal.

Do you guys really think it's a good idea for Obama to approve the pipeline without an actual proposal of where it'll go?

asked ans answered. in 3 threads etc etc ....*sigh*

 

[BlindBoo]

So ONE Governor convinced Obama to veto it???? I doubt it! I think you just can't admit that Obama screwed up AGAIN!

The governor of the state of Nebraska asked Obama to stop the pipeline because it ran directly over the water supply for a good portion of the state.

Since when should corporate interests trump the inhabitants of the region, or the rights of the state?

Of course the White House listened. That's their JOB.

It should also be the job of the representatives from Nebraska in congress. Where the **** were they in all this?

Obviously not representing their constituents.

I know that....the Keystone people were actively looking for an alternate route around Nebraska...Obama jumped the gun and didn't even wait for them to find one! He vetoed it before they could find or offer an alternate route...so in other word...Obama didn't want it and didn't even give them a chance! He screwed at least 20,000 people out of a job ... Aren't you proud?

Congressional Deadline

"Obama acted before a Feb. 21 deadline Congress set after he postponed a decision to allow for a review of of a revised route through Nebraska. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673- kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, crossing six states and creating an estimated 20,000 jobs."
Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route - The Washington Post

Nope. TransCanada proposed a new route. The Administrtion said it needed time to consider the impact of the new route. Republicans tied the passing of the Payroll tax Reduction(extention) to forcing the President to make a decision in 60 days. Since the Administration already said it wouldn't be able to complete the new study until early 2013 it's not suprising they denied the permit.

http://www.chron.com/business/article/Study-of-new-routes-delays-pipeline-decision-2263281.php

However I don't think that would stop them from extending the Cushing Ok. terminal down to the Texas refineries.

Furthermore, I think it's likely they will approve the pipeline next year.

 

[Care4all]

are the republicans in office supporting this pipeline because KOCH BROTHERS are the beneficiary to the pipeline?

A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.
A Koch Industries operation in Calgary, Alberta, called Flint Hills Resources Canada LP, supplies about 250,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day to a heavy oil refinery in Minnesota, also owned by the Koch brothers.


and







Waging War on Obama
The Koch brothers are not run-of-the-mill political opponents. An investigative report last year by the New Yorker magazine on the secretive and deep-pocketed pair have shown them to be "waging a war against Obama." They have bankrolled the Tea Party movement, climate change skepticism and right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis.Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved | Reuters

fuel is suppose to rise by 20 cents a gallon in the midwest if these pipelines are approved....or 3 bucks a barrel

Although the pipeline, if approved, would increase the supply of oil reaching the U.S., a 2009 market analysis conducted by TransCanada, builder of the pipeline, forecast higher prices. The analysis, which TransCanada conducted as part of its Canadian permit application, projected that prices would increase about $3 per barrel as a result of the pipeline. Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved | Reuters

IT WILL NOT REDUCE the price of oil, it will increase the price of oil/gasoline....

 

[BlindBoo]

I can't figure out why Republicans think if more oil were found here the price would go down. They can't possibly be that stupid.

Supply and demand?

Can you show me any example where more supply has been found, where it actually affected the price of oil in a downward motion?

Honestly, I have not found one.

there have been HUGE MEGA FINDS of oil over the past decade and not a one, NOT ONE increase in supply from these finds has lowered the price of oil/gasoline.

It should work the way you propose....it should lower the price if more supply is found, BUT IT HAS NOT.

Now the only legitimate reason I can think, of why it has not, could be that no matter what they find, it can't keep up with the rising demand?

Under President Obama, we in the USA have increased our supply greatly...yet, no decrease in prices....instead oil and gas companies are exporting the excess oil and gasoline?

Are you aware of this? What do you think is going on here Quantum?

Um, we've increase our output/production slightly. We are no where near our peak in 1970.

U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)