Hey Jody, I respectfully disagree. A decision either way is going to make a significant number of people unhappy. I think it will be a post-November decision "to allow for sufficient study." I Think that will be the spin anyway.

The Obama administration could go either way, kinda depends on which way the political wind is blowing. You can bet that if it works to his advantage though, the EPA will drum-up some endangerd sea-monkeys on the new route.

There are no real benefits to this pipeline at all.

Well, the article states that the state of Nebrasks won't reach a decision for "6-9 months" which would put it after the election. I think Neb. is red. So I'm not sure politics is the biggest delay. If Obama tried to approve it tomorrow, I would expect Nebraska to get a TRO to stop it.

"There are no real benefits to this pipeline at all."

Interesting proclamation?

I got one for you; There are no real benefits to trucking goods back and forth across the U.S.

Makes about as much sense, don't ya think?

Makes about as much sense, don't ya think?

Except those 'goods' are going to the coasts for export.

We're making a pipeline across our country, for a Canadian oil company to easily turn more of a profit for exporting oil...why?

Yeah there was a study done on this where the numbers pretty much strike down any benefit of this pipeline. Either way the oil money is leaving the US, sure Canada would be a better alternative than the Middle East, but I'd rather not risk contaminating our drinking water/environment.

Yes there is a purely political one. We have few allies left. We need to help Canada out on this. I just think we need to lease that right of way, perhaps that is in the plan. There are other benefits but that is a good one.

"In Nebraska, Republicans had joined Democrats in objecting to an initial proposal of routing the $7 billion natural gas pipeline from Canada through the sensitive Sandhills region and over the Ogallala Aquifer."

So why is this all of a sudden Obama's fault?

Yes there is a purely political one. We have few allies left. We need to help Canada out on this. I just think we need to lease that right of way, perhaps that is in the plan. There are other benefits but that is a good one.

Touche salesman. I stand corrected.

@ Rustyboy; Shhh, we weren't supposed to notice that! Please don't upset the Obama bashers with the truth...they're here to have a good time.

Ruken,

"We're making a pipeline across our country, for a Canadian oil company to easily turn more of a profit for exporting oil...why?"

Aaahh, and you are absolutely certain off this right? We have no refineries at the end of this pipeline right? Middle Canada is booming due to oil production, whose fault is it that we don't do the same?

And you are absolutely certain we will lease the pipeline land to the Canadians for zero $'s ("no benefits") also right?

Thomas,

Agreed, but that is only because it is a "new" proposed route. Any state would, and should, spend the time neccessary studying the benefits and risks of such and endeavor. The problem is the can keeps getting kicked down the road.

We need clear, non-political, common sense decisions from the whitehouse and those who report to it. Targeting industry's we like or don't like (republicans have done this too) is just bad policy, causes economic nightmares in the form of bubbles that always burst, and opens the door for corrupting influences (lobbyists).

Private investments are willing to spend millions of dollars for something that has no real benefit? Yea, right. Only the government would do that, the private sector has to make a profit.

Put into the bill that nothing that goes through the pipeline be sold overseas period. If the United States doesn't use the oil for its own benefit then don't allow anybody, especially a corporation from another country, to track their dirty shoes of a pipeline across our yard! Plus the Oglala Sioux should be allowed representation in all the negotiation procedures. If the Oglala are not allowed then that is misrepresentation and against the United States Bill of Rights therefor the Keystone XL project is blatantly breaking the law!

Put into the bill that nothing that goes through the pipeline be sold overseas period.

Agreed. Then you'd have to be insane not to support it.

We have few allies left. We need to help Canada out on this.

Canada is not the one proposing or benefiting from this abomination, a private company is. A company who could care less about anything except money for themselves. Canadian citizens refused to allow the toxic sludge to be refined in their country because they didn't want the headaches associated with it. A few greedy politicians in Canada, along with the bought and paid for republican congress crooks, and a few democrats as well, are the ones pushing this near worthless oil.

The greed of all associated with this albatross, is what is pushing this pipeline. It has been shown that this line will increase prices in this country while shifting 100% of the environmental risk and clean up costs to the American taxpayer instead of the owner of the pipeline. Great deal if you are crooked enough to be associated with the pipeline company. Not good at all for the American public. Greed is NOT a good reason for this pipeline to be built in this country. Any other lie to the contrary is pure BS. That anyone believes the lies that this pipeline is good, shows willful ignorance or greed. There is no other valid reason.

I oppose the Keystone pipeline, because I don't want to pay MORE for my gas! (Colorado)

Gary and Ruken opine:

Put into the bill that nothing that goes through the pipeline be sold overseas period.

Agreed. Then you'd have to be insane not to support it.

Nice idea, but it wouldn't work. All an oil company would have to do is ship oil meant for domestic supply but not covered under this rule, and replace it with the pipeline stuff.

Bill is fulfilled with the restriction, but net effect is potential cost increase for handling charges during the switcheroo.

Have a good weekend

BobW-3215303

Yes there is a purely political one. We have few allies left. We need to help Canada out on this. I just thed to lease that right of way, perhaps that is in the plan. There are other benefits but that is a good one.

Bob,

If this pipeline, the oil which will flow thru it on it's way to China, is so chock full of good benefits, why wouldn't Canada route it to their west coast, which would provide needed jobs in Canada? Answer: the Indian tribes along Canada's west coast do not want it. Seems to me if your own people aren't willing to take those jobs and benefits there is something grossly wrong with the project.

The people saying this won't help us at all don't understand this.

1.) This oil will be refined in the US, on the Gulf Coast. That means money for US businesses and jobs for US workers. That also means more tax income for the US government.

2.) More oil on the world market means more supply, which means lower prices (even if only a little bit). Yes, this is for everyone, not JUST the US (remember, it's Canadian oil to begin with), but the US is part of 'everyone'. We'll see lower prices for oil per barrel on the global market, which means lower prices for gas at your gas station (maybe only 1/10th of a cent, but it's a little).

not from I've read. The Canadian oil would only be for export, and benefit whom ? The article I saw said that Canada refused to rule out selling all oil to overseas interests........think about it !

I object to this pipeline for many reasons already posted. But no one has said anything about the hazards of this pipeline going thru TORNADO ALLEY. As a resident of the tornado region, I have personally seen the devastation and no man made or natural structures can withstand a direct hit or damage from the debris in close proximity. What guarantees of safety and cleanup do they present about tornado wreckage, a pipeline above ground is highly susceptible as every state it travels thru has tornadoes.

What are you talking about with tornado's and above ground pipe lines? This pipe line and any others will be bury'edat least 5 foot deep. So my question to you is how is a tornado going to effect this pipe line.

rufnek, tree huggers don't see anything but "pipe line"!

roadhead sez:

That anyone believes the lies that this pipeline is good, shows willful ignorance or greed. There is no other valid reason.

Anyone who believes that this pipeline is bad, is bad. There is no other valid position. Great debate!

As for tornadoes, if an above-ground portion is smack dab in the way of something ominous then they just shut down the flow until it passes. Then carefully inspect afterward. That's the good thing about modern pipeline; there is much more control over it.

That anyone believes the lies that this pipeline is good, shows willful ignorance or greed.

Hey Adam, you may like this video http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc

thx kpr

The issue is that the re-route was proposed long before the first plan was killed. It was being 'studied' for longer than it needed to be, without any progress.

Oh, and since when did having two alternatives, one primary, and the other in case the primary isn't approved, count as 'not knowing where it's going'? Options =/= No Plan.

smith

the re-route was proposed long before the first plan was killed

And it took them how many months to turn that in? Yea right! Hey, I have a bridge to sell you.

You and me both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_Pipeline#Keystone_XL

That says crude.

I believe that it is crude oil from the "oil sands" and ,yes, the jobs will be temporary construction jobs only-MAYBE few to maintain it later. But they will be temp jobs. The oil is being piped to refineries in the deep south-Texas and La., I guess

jrl-281852 - I understand it to be oil from the Canadian Tar Sands which is considered "shale". Oil extracted from the sand and it is quite an energy user itself. The process of removing the oil from the sand. First it has to be removed from the earth, then transported, and lastly processed (extracting the oil from the sand, which involves even more energy and waste products. Once all that is completed, then it will be ready to be pumped into the pipeline and down to the Gulf Region of the U.S.

Natural Gas is another, different problem. "fracking is used to "loosen" rock formations in the earth and allow trapped gas to escape and brought to the surface for consumption. However, aside from it being a clean burning" fuel, it has it's major problems. It is linked to "earthquakes" in the areas of extraction, water aquifers becoming unusable and the water itself flammable. Not to mention the lack of knowing all the toxic chemicals being pumped into the ground under high pressure with water (fracking companies don't have to disclose all of their "secrets" concerning what they use in our earth/ground), and that water used in this process is unusable after as well. Both oil from shale and natural gas use huge amounts of "water" that is not reusable, and it seems we may on day have oil but no water.

Not logical, but there it is.

If you want to stop all these shale/tar sand projects, there is an easy solution. Open up lands where standard drilling is possible. Shale/tar sand oil is only profitable when oil is over $70/bbl. You can't shut it down unless oil falls below that point. That means drill, baby, drill. Ah but then you'd have to admit Palin was right and THAT is verboten.

If you want to stop all these shale/tar sand projects, there is an easy solution. Open up lands where standard drilling is possible. Shale/tar sand oil is only profitable when oil is over $70/bbl. You can't shut it down unless oil falls below that point. That means drill, baby, drill. Ah but then you'd have to admit Palin was right and THAT is verboten.

Wrong. Oil prices are set on a global market. The USA doesn't have enough to impact the global price of oil.

Susan

Don't you realize that ALL construction jobs are short-lived? Even the Millions of Shovel Ready jobs in the Stimulus Package were short-lived. By the way there weren't millions and they weren't shovel ready. I assume that you know that there are thousands of miles of oil piple lines in the Ogallala Aquifer right now.

We really do need an ally that is NOT Communist, Hispanic, or Muslim. We do share a continent with them.

Susan, do you realize that the oil will be refined on the Gulf Coast? Those jobs won't be temporary. Nor will the shipping jobs, or the export value, or... well, just think about it for a second.

BobW -

Go @!$%# yourself.

Sincerely,

Europe

Did you know our largest supplier of oil IS Canada.

Did you know our largest supplier of oil IS Canada.

He is correct (at least up to Sept '11).

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

However, it doesn't change the fact that oil is set at a global price. This pipeline will not lower gas prices in this country.

Actually it will because we can bid less and truck it than say China that has to bid, then ship it throught the Panama Canal, then truck it.

If it goes to China, they refine it and truck it, vs the US having to ship it, go through the canal, then truck it.

The oil is already destined for China.

Occam, we import the most oil from Mexico. Canada and Saudi Arabia are neck and neck for second.

With or without all the times somebody has shot the pipeline?

well if you'd like to see the Alaskan pipeline's safety record...that's fine. I would like to see two or three refinery's along the route. BEFORE all the oil makes it to the coast, and is shipped over to Europe. If it goes though the better part of the US....then we should get first dibs on some of that oil. Otherwise, I'll just feel like a prostitute. If you think about it....commercial planes fly though US airspace, and they use US airports.

this is not crude oil, this is tar sands oil, which is diluted with toxic chemicals to make it fluid enough to flow thru the pipelines. do some research on this, more specifically the Enbridge pipeline which burst summer 2010 and spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan - this was transporting the diluted bituminum (dil-bit). this spill has cost well over $700 million so far, and the river is still unsafe to touch. difficulty in cleaning up this oil, is that it sinks - does not float like oil you're used to seeing.

the chemicals used to dilute the tar sands oil are toxic, and not regulated by any agency, and also speed erosion of the pipelines. add to the problem, the pipes proposed for the Keystone pipeline are made in India, and not from USA steel. do your own research on this and see for yourself.

this is NOT just another cude oil pipeline - please check for yourself.

thanks

do some research on this, more specifically the Enbridge pipeline which burst summer 2010 and spilled into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan

You mean that 40+ year old pipe that was buried in swamp land in 1969?

- this was transporting the diluted bituminum (dil-bit).

Which, unlike modern pipe, was not designed to carry heavy crude.

this spill has cost well over $700 million so far, and the river is still unsafe to touch.

Not sure about your cleanup figure but the entire spill was less than one day of BP's Gulf rupture and the river in question is not "still unsafe to touch" (an absurd claim). Would it have been better to not have the spill in the first place? Of course! Modern pipeline like the KeystoneXL will help prevent more such accidents in the future... unless the environmental Luddites succeed in preventing the installation of modern pipeline, then we'll just have more of these ruptures in the old pipelines.

difficulty in cleaning up this oil, is that it sinks - does not float like oil you're used to seeing.

Thicker crude is easier to contain (and clean up) in water spills than lighter crude.

Absolutely not gonna follow your 'advice'. I'm a happy member of Obama's practical base and will cheerfully vote for him again.

You can't do much legislating when the other party says No F'in Way, and the Pres isn't a legislator anyway.

Have a good, if somewhat misguided, weekend

Because it will cross international borders. Thus the State Dept. has the final say.

Ruken - I agree but let the State Dept base their approval or rejection on what Nebraska says.

Ruken - I agree but let the State Dept base their approval or rejection on what Nebraska says.

*shrug*

Nebraska was the one raising a stink last time iirc.

You don't know much about Oklahoma politics, do you? He'll be lucky to ten percent of their vote.

I know the people of Oklahoma are not a bunch of hayseed cowboys, so 10% would not surprise me. By the way, I was saying Obama is pulling carrot & pony trick-not the citizens of Oklahoma.

All pipelines leak sometimes. Usually a pipe breaks at a weld or some other connection and by the time anyone finds the leak and stops the flow of oil, a few thousand barrels have leaked. A barrel, by the way holds 42 gallons, so that's maybe a few hundred thousand gallons of oil on the ground, in rivers, ruining the area for many years. If the spill gets a lot of press coverage, it MAY be cleaned up, otherwise, it isn't worth it to the company to clean it up. They just leave it there. This tar sands crude is some of the dirtiest, most abrasive oil anywhere, in time it will wear holes in the pipes, which are single-walled and to be built of steel inferior to the steel used in the Alaska pipeline.

By the way, the method of acquiring the right-of-way is interesting,too. In this case we will have a private, foreign company using the power of imminent domain to force private landowners to sell the land they need for what the company calls a "fair price." Even though the right-of-way may split a farm in two or cut a farmer and his family off from access to the nearest town the land owner will be at the mercy of the oil company.

Oh, I almost forgot, they aren't burying this pipe 200 feet deep, most of it will be right on the surface, where anybody with a rifle can shoot holes in it for fun.

roos

So what is the fuss about this pipeline being on top of an aquifer? Gas and oil is located IN the pipeline.

WOW YOU SMART. NOT! Do a little research on the storage tanks at your gas stations. Why do you think they have been required to replace everyone in the country? Hint, they leak. Even if they are on the surface, the oil or gas will seep into the ground. Just search "oil pipeline leaks" and see why people are concerned about the aquifer. Maybe even you could learn something.

Have you? Or are you just going off what others have said as well? I wouldn't object to living next to it. I realize that you think that the corporations of the world are out to get you, but if you use common sense, it doesn't make financial or ethical sense to build something that is going to pollute and/or kill the people and wildlife around the area that you are trying to make money from. From what I have read, when it comes to safety they are really quite safe. If they do occur, pipeline leaks are small; most pipeline leaks involve less than three barrels, 80% of spills involve less than 50 barrels, and less than 0.5 percent of spills total more than 10,000 barrels. Trans-Canada monitors it's pipelines 24/7. I don't know about other companies, but I was curious and looked for the info on the Internet. As far as confiscating others property goes, I can't offer any opinion on that. I know there have been forms of skulduggery ever since eminent domain was invented, but have never personally been subjected to it. Trans-Canada does have an Emergency Response Plan and they follow it to the tee.

@ janis:

Would you please state what experiance you have in the oil field let a lone oil spill's. And i take it your up on pipe line safety. And yes i live around pipe lines all so work around and have help build them so there you go i have posted that i live and work around them so now it's your turn to prove there bad. So put up or shut up. P.S I live in wyoming where we have pipe lines that carry gas,diesel, grude oil and sulfur look none of them have blowen up.

runek

i live around pipe lines all so work around and have help build them

Just run a search for oil pipeline leaks, or oil pipeline burst. You will find page after page of stories. Now tell us how safe they are and how you have never seen or heard of a problem before. Oh yea, point out which one of those pipelines you find in those searches that you worked on.

i live around pipe lines all so work around and have help build them so there you go i have posted that i live and work around them so now it's your turn to prove there bad.

Living around and building UG systems, you should know that there is no such thing as an unbreakable pipe, not one that is economically feasible anyway. I also did UG piping for the past 35 years and regardless what you want to make people believe, ALL pipe will break under the right/wrong circumstances. It is not a question of if, it is a question of when and where.

I have witnessed newly installed 16" ductile iron water main, with walls almost an inch thick and less than a week old, burst at 90 PSI when it was being pumped up to pressure test. DI pipe is stronger than the cast iron and steel pipe used in a lot of oil/gas systems. Concrete and HDPE (plastic pipe) are also more prone to failures than the DI pipe. The valves and gaskets are also areas that can cause leaks.

As stated previously, there is NO break proof pipe that is economically feasible. With the track record of the UG pipe crews associated with this pipeline, it is not only a matter of when and where the breaks and damage to the environment will occur, it is also a matter of how many breaks and how often. There is a long history of shoddy work and multiple breaks associated with this company that can not be ignored by those who WILL be affected by the breaks and disasters of this pipeline.

There is zero benefit to the country with this pipeline. The connected politicians and companies yes, the American taxpayer who gets nothing but the bill for cleaning up the environmental damage, NO. This pipeline is nothing but a bad environmental disaster just around the corner. Stop the pipeline and put the screws to the greed of the corrupt congress crooks who demand it be pushed through, at any cost to the taxpayer and the country.

If that's your opinion you'd better reconsider your position on the pipeline because the purpose of it is to refine and ship the product overseas.

@ Iowa - Guy: right now, we just get to say yes to the route and then hire a few hundred people to build it for a couple of years. After that....Jack is right, it'll head overseas once it makes it to the coast. But you're idea could be expanded....lets say that two or four smaller refineries were built in a couple of middle US states. So that 10 or 25% of the oil pumped was guaranteed to be used in the US interior?

If that's your opinion you'd better reconsider your position on the pipeline because the purpose of it is to refine and ship the product overseas.

So you would rather have it go over the pristine Canadian Rockies where if something serious does go wrong (and many here assure us that it will go wrong), there will be 10 times the environmental sensitivity, 10 times the hardship in identifying and stopping any ruptures, and 10 times the cost and hardship of cleaning up? So long as it's NIMBY?

That is totally untrue. It is in need of more refining than most but it will be just fine for fuel. It is in fact the reason why Canada has managed to turn its economy around even while keeping its socialist agenda intact. Just a few years ago the Canada dollar was worth 70 cents against the US dollar (or $1.49 US to $1 Canadian). At this very moment it is 99.50 cents US for $1 Canadian. Obama could have his socialist agenda and still have our economy flourish if he would just unshackle himself from the Green Corporations and Environmental lobby - as Canada has proven. He is too weak or stupid to do so.

A refinery costs well over a billion dollars. Would you invest that kind of money when the president has bragged about his desire to shut you down?

Who is paying for the 7 billon dollar pipe line? The president will not be around for ever but the consumers will.

If Obama allows it, the gas will be sold here. Why would any company ship to China if it can get the same price here?

Why would we pay as much for it as China does? We are exporting surplus US produced oil now. Big Oil does this because the international price is higher than we care to pay for it. No, every drop of this oil will flow from Texas refineries onto tankers and thence to Asia and Europe where $10 a gallon gas is already a fact.

For those worried about the oil going straight to China, you should be FOR the Keystone which will channel the crude down through the central U.S. for distribution out of Texas or LA., neither of which is exactly conducive for export to China which is on the Pacific side of the continent. However, if Canada is forced to pipe the crude over the Canadian Rockies to British Columbia ports, then China would be the logical destination for most of it.

This is not about partisanship. We can walk and chew gum. We can move towards alternative fuels in a responsible way while developing the fossil fuels in the meantime. We don't have to waste billions throwing them at companies that have no clue and watch them go bankrupt while closing down drilling and coal fired electric plants. Obama is crushing the poor as his actions double the cost of gasoline and heating fuels. He is kowtowing to his Environmental lobby worse than Bush ever did to his oil corporations! At least Bush kept the prices down for the poor - $1.89 a gallon when Obama took over in January 2009!

"Watermoon"

In July 2008, during the Bush administration, the price of unleaded gasoline at the pump, reached an all time nationwide-average high of $4.12 per gallon. That is $4.36 cents in 2012 dollars. So far, that July 2008 nationwide average price is still the recordprice at the pump.

Watermoon, You are correct when you say the price of gas was $1.89 per gallon when President Obama took office but there was a good reason. It was the crash of the economy and the beginning of the recession that drove it down rahter than anything positive that came from "W"

wrong. do your homework.

Sorry - but this is fact that all economist say is true. Quit parroting liberal talking points and check it out. It is just common sense as well as fact!

Add that this reliance on drilling is in fact the reason why Canada has managed to turn its economy around even while keeping its socialist agenda intact. Just a few years ago the Canada dollar was worth 70 cents against the US dollar (or $1.49 US to $1 Canadian). At this very moment it is 99.50 cents US for $1 Canadian. Obama could have his socialist agenda and still have our economy flourish if he would just unshackle himself from the Green Corporations and Environmental lobby - as Canada has proven. He is too weak or stupid to do so.

"wrong. do your homework" is parroting how?

your figures are wrong and you typing them in and "saying all economists say is true" doesn't make them any more correct.

are you a troll?

Instead of calling me names, prove me wrong. Do you really believe that the pipeline can be built without hiring anyone or feeding them or clothing them or housing them and their families? Look to North Dakota which now has the lowest unemployment in the country outside the Washington beltway - and it is funneling millions into the state treasury at the same time!

Sorry, REAL facts and figures are readily available. I'm not here to spoon feed someone who already has their partisan mind made up regardless of what is provided.

In other words, you can't find anything but a lot of liberal hysteria pretending to be facts. Of course we can build a 10,000 mile pipeline without adding a job! Please all idiot lemmings who are walking off the cliff behind Obama - just believe such rubbish when we print it! Of course it will raise the price of gas here if we have much more being refined in our country. Just makes no sense but believe it because I print it! And after all I must be right because "I have ties to business."

"Watermoon"

President Obama did not kill the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline route needed to be revised because of it's threat to water aquifers, that had already been decided by the people of Nebraska and the State of Nebraska and Pres. Obama. Instead of allowing the the pipeline company to map a new route with proper review, the Congressional Republicans attached a measure to a tax cut bill to force Obama to approve the pipeline by a February deadline without time for the review process.

It would be irresponsible to approve a newly rerouted pipeline without the review process, which, by-the-way, is required by law. TransCanada Corp. has now reapply with the new route. The State of Nebraska, the federal government and the U. S. State Department will have the time to review the new route. The process will take place with the new prudent route and the proper review, the process should be completed by early next year.

This pipeline will not change the price we pay for oil here in the U.S. because those prices are determined on the world market. The oil companies want this pipeline because it will link the Alberta Oil Sands with the Gulf Coast refineries and Gulf seaports from which oil and refinery products can be shipped/exported worldwide. These same refineries are already producing and exporting 400,000 barrels of refined fuels per day to various countries around the world. SEARCH: "U.S. Exports Refined Fuels."

The Keystone XL project will create up to 5000 temporary pipeline jobs for about two years during the construction of the pipeline, according to data from TransCanada, the pipeline company. The claim which is being asserted about the pipeline creating 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs is unsubstantiated. For the report by Cornell University SEARCH: "Pipe dreams? Jobs Gained, Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL."

I also have ties to business. Just yesterday I bought a pizza. Guess that makes me expert as well. LOL

yup, troll. That's what I thought.

and we have health care. Not perfect but hey, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

Their health care is way better then ours!!

So you would prefer a path to the Pacific over the pristine Canadian Rockies?

It seems to work in Canadian autos just fine. Of course it will be used for fuel. Now let's see how many cars run with solar panels on the roof. So far, the one company that Obama gave 300 million of tax-payer dollars to build the battery to run the cars went belly=up taking our money with it!

That comes with the risk any new developments have to take..Even if it worked out you would have something negative to say about it..Damned if we do ,damned if we don't.