E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWASHINGTON - The Obama administration has delayed a decision on TransCanada Corp's rerouted Keystone XL oil pipeline until after March, even though Nebraska's governor on Tuesday approved a plan for part of the line running through his state.
"We don't anticipate being able to conclude our own review before the end of the first quarter of this year," said Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman at the State Department, which had previously said it would make a decision by that deadline.
She said the department would take into consideration approval of the line by Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.
Interest in the fate of the $5.3 billion pipeline that would link Canada's oil sands to refineries in Texas has been heightened after President Barack Obama promised to fight climate change.
Obama said in his inaugural address on Monday the United States will respond to the threat of climate change and that failure to do so would "betray our children and future generations.
The Keystone pipeline is staunchly opposed by environmentalists, who say it will lock the United States for 50 years into dependence on fuel that has higher emissions than average crude oil refined in the United States.
They want the State Department to re-examine the climate impact of the line after it previously said the project would not result in additional emissions because the oil would find its way to market even if Keystone were not built.
It was the latest delay on the pipeline, which has been pending for more than four years.
Last year Obama threw his support behind the southern section of the line, which is now being built and would help drain a glut of crude in the nation's midsection resulting from new oil drilling in North Dakota.
The State Department will rule on a final permit for the northern section of the line because it would cross the national border.
It expects to issue a draft environmental assessment of the Keystone line in the near future and before the end of March, a second official at the department said. That report will have a public comment period before the department makes a final decision on the line.
Nebraska approves pipeline section
Nuland's comments came shortly after Nebraska's governor approved a revised route in his state for the Keystone XL pipeline.
Heineman, a Republican, sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Tuesday that said TransCanada would adhere to 57 safety conditions. Those include rigorous pipeline design, testing and the reporting of leaks. It would also avoid Nebraska's ecologically sensitive Sandhills region.
TransCanada had submitted a new route for the northern pipeline, expected to transport 830,000 barrels per day of oil, after the Obama administration had rejected an initial plan. Environmentalists had complained it would cross ecologically sensitive regions in Nebraska.
Heineman said TransCanada would provide evidence that it is carrying $200 million in third party insurances to cover any cleanup costs from leaks.
He approved the line even though his state's environmental regulator said this month it would still cross a section of the massive Ogallala aquifer, an important source of irrigation and fresh water to the Great Plains states.
Nuland said Nebraska's decision was important but gave no clues about what the State Department's review would say. "Our processes move in parallel," she told reporters. "We obviously want to take the Nebraska environmental study, we want to compare it with the work that we've done."
TransCanada confident
TransCanada's CEO Russ Girling, who attended Obama's inauguration, said he was not worried by the president's latest comments, and that the Nebraska decision was "hugely positive step forward."
Regarding the State Department's eventual decision, he added: "I'm still optimistic that this thing can be done in a relatively short period of time."
Girling said work on the southern section of the pipeline, now called the Gulf Coast project, is on schedule.
Robert Johnston, a risk management analyst at the Eurasia Group, however, has warned that the decision could be delayed until the summer as environmentalists push for public hearings and a review by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Many Republicans in Congress support the pipeline for the jobs it would bring to their states. Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota said he is making preparations to reintroduce legislation enabling Congress to approve the line if Obama does not. He could attempt to attach the measure to a must-pass bill. Similar attempts have failed in the past.
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
Hey President Obama, what is your excuse now? This country needs jobs and oil independence.
Obummer doesn't want it because it might help the American people!!
A national debt that now amounts to over $50,000 for every man, woman and child in the country is a betrayal of our children and future generations.
This pipeline barely generates any jobs and does nothing for energy independence. The oil goes straight to the gulf and then gets shipped over seas. However it does threaten the aquifer which is a large source of water in the mid-west. This should be a definite NO!
The President isn't interested in jobs. If he was, he would have spent that $3 trillion in bailout funds on infrastructure--the cost for replacing all bridges, highways, etc? $3.1 trillion. Imagine we could have had all new shiny infrastructure instead of $50 million paid CEO's, etc.
We've imported less oil under Obama than anytime in the last 20 years. Why don't you look up some facts before spouting off your own ignorant opinions as truth. What good are a bunch of temporary jobs going to do for us when in ten years this things springs a billion dollar leak we get to clean up. You do realize this oil isn't going to us right, it's being shipped to other countries. So tell me what exact benefits are there to be had from this project?
Yep and if the pipe line fails all that oil will end up in America and we will have our own Oil Sands. Who needs clean water when you can be rich with oil? I'm looking forward to paying more for my gas. I live in the Midwest where our oil comes from a cheaper source than the global price. That's not fair to these oil companies they deserve the same price as Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. Billions in profits are not enough.
55 years of oil then what?
Zannie, before you post, make sure you know what you are talking about. The US does not export oil. Several years ago, many Gulf Coast refineries were upgraded for processing the Canadian oil. This oil is needed by those refineries.
Obama is stonewalling the approval. Thousands of miles of pipelines are already passing over aquifers with no issues. This pipeline will present no environmental issues.
Harry
I beg to differ with your post.
The U.S. is on track to become the second largest oil exporter very soon. If we are not already #2. We have been exporting our own oil for many years. One story had our north slope oil going to Venezuela . Then being mixed with their oil. Brought back here and sold as foreign oil to us. The lengths big oil will go to screw us and make huge profits for themselves is mind boggling.
And this project provides neither jobs nor oil.
@gizmowis. So then you must be outraged that the GOP shot down the American Jobs Act, that would have created millions of job, and given us shiney new infrastructure, but the GOP said no because they thought the lack of job creation would defeat the president.
You must also be very furious at Bush, since he was the one that started the stimulus.
And are you even aware where we would be today had Obama and Bush not approved that stimulus? Of course not, your uneducated small mind can't grasp that concept I bet, but let me give you a hint. Google Greece.
You do know that currently Canada sells the vast majority of its oil to the US, mainly because we are the easiest country to sell it to? The main purpose of the Keystone Pipeline is to get the oil to ports so it can be loaded on tankers and sold to China or India or whoever will pay the highest price.
If they don't get approval for this oil line, then Heineman can't cash the check from the oil company!
Bob 1/28,
What book of fiction are you reading from? Site your source. I don't think you will be able to come up with one. The examples you sited are nothing but hearsay. That's why you liberals have the beliefs you have. Liberals understand hearsay. They don't understand facts. We are exporting gasoline, not oil. I have worked in the refineries on the Gulf Coast that have been retrofitted for the Canadian oil. They were not retrofitted for exporting oil.
Well, you know Obama: He'll stop the pipeline so that we can jobs, economic prosperity and energy independence. Oh, and it's for the children!
You people who are against the pipeline are morons!
"Last year Obama threw his support behind the southern section of the line, which is now being built and would help drain a glut of crude in the nation's midsection resulting from new oil drilling in North Dakota." Can't argue with that superior intelligence. Building the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas will definitely help drain the glut of crude from North Dakota.
HARRY
Who is KIDDING WHO HERE ??????
There have been numerous news stories about this going on since the North Slope started pumping oil. I believe 60 minutes ran one and other news media also ran them. Willing to say , you are a corporate shill or paid for by the oil companies. Or you own a ton of stock in them.
bob
Harry
Let me guess . You are most likely against our shipping our natural gas overseas onto the world market . There is a project that will create jobs here at home for us and bring foreign money back here to us. What jobs ??? Building, operating, and maintaining the LNG plants along with the shipping ports that will ship the gas out. Those are good and very well paying jobs.
bob
So funny listening to the right wingers here stand behind a pipeline and the volume of lies it spews through it.
Jobs! Oil Independence! It's Obama's Fault!
Seriously?? You republicans would sell your own mother down the river if it would make Obama look bad. We have you (the Karl Rove Klan) to thank for the divisive, partisan political landscape we now enjoy today. You just couldn't play fair and accept defeat, so you had to go and game the system. Pathetic. Maybe if you spent time enriching the majority instead of all you crony friends, you would actually have a larger base who would otherwise vote for you. Laughing AT you idiots! All day - every day!
*laughs* So exactly what ISN'T going to affect future generations?
FYI... The BS comes from not just one party but two unless you live in a plastic bubble.
If TransCanada is in charge, there must be independent ongoing inspection, during and after construction. Their track record for leaks is horrible. Left to themselves, they will do absolute minimum maintainence, only really paying attention after a leak has occurred. Sometimes many hours after.
@Confussed: 55 years of oil then what?
It was "35 years of oil then what?"... in 1980. Technology always gives us the answer.
@Dan-J: We've imported less oil under Obama than anytime in the last 20 years. Why don't you look up some facts before spouting off your own ignorant opinions as truth. What good are a bunch of temporary jobs going to do for us when in ten years this things springs a billion dollar leak we get to clean up. You do realize this oil isn't going to us right, it's being shipped to other countries. So tell me what exact benefits are there to be had from this project?
Yes, due to the largest economic contraction in 20 years. At $50 a tank, I don't drive as much as I used to, and I certainly don't have as much extra money in my pocket.
Cleaning up a leak is also a source of jobs.
Construction jobs in the short-term, refinery & shipping jobs in the long-term. Don't forget that we also get a percentage per refined gallon, too!
Dumbama is using this project as a political pawn when he has to negotiate with Congress about his fu_ked up money situation he got us into. This jerk has absolutely no intention to create jobs and take care of America!
Natural resources are finite. Nothing is as irreplaceable as fresh water.
If this pipeline is allowed to even remotely threaten any fresh water supply in this country, it should not be allowed to happen.
We have cities and states, even Mexico and the US, fighting over fresh water supply and who should get what percentage of what is available. Corporate farms are fighting with home owners, businesses are fighting with farms.
Canada has shut down its own environmental protection studies all along its coast and environmental groups are fighting to be heard all within the interior where a lack of control have threatened and harmed the land and the wildlife.
And some of you want to take a chance on a "maybe" that there "might not" be a spill, that our own corrupt government will "oversee" proper controls? What part of "we have the best government corporate and outside highest bidders can buy" are you not willing to understand?
screminmimi, I have read somewhere, sorry no link, that this pipeline is guaranteed to contaminate the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the biggest fresh water aquifers in the world. Millions of people depend upon that aquifer for their daily water and to even consider endangering that for Canadian profits borders on criminal in and of itself. The people who for the foolish thought that this will somehow enrich them are, sorry, delusional! We are a gold mine here for Canada gets the gold and we get the shaft. How many times do the American people have to be blatantly lied to before they finally come out of their stupor and say NO MORE!!
Why should the US place at risk one of the world's most productive agricultural regions home to tens of millions of Americans in order to provide a Canadian oil company with a cheap way to move its product to overseas markets?? They point out that they have $200 million in insurace against a spill. The BP spill cost $40 Billion!!! This is a bad deal for the US. The temporary construction jobs the pipeline would offer could all be replaced by construction of roads and bridges, which would benefit the US instead of making Canadian billionaires richer. Besides, we should be moving away from dirty fuels such as Canadian tar sands oil to cleaner fuel such as natural gas produced in the USA along with renewables. Obama should have stopped this dead 4 years ago.
Hi, FIN... and joe mota..
I'm so afraid that people just don't want to face the reality that we are living in the time of fresh water shortage and even the threat of contamination to any supply of that water is terrifying.
It doesn't matter how many millions, or even billions, of dollars worth of insurance they are willing to put up in case of a spill. Once it happens, nothing can clean that water up fit for drinking... and we are already fighting among ourselves for water rights.
As someone who actually lives and works in Fort McMurray I need to say a few things. 1. the oil is coming out of here at a rate of 1.7 million barrels per day, and it's not gonna slow down. They want to increase that to 2.5 million BPD in the next 10 years. To put that in perspective, our city of 100,000 people produces almost as much as the entire state of Texas (1.9 million BPD). All that oil has to go somewhere. This pipeline would carry aprox half of our production to refineries. Without that pipeline there are about 2600 extra tanker trucks on the highways, making traffic more congested and more dangerous, spewing diesel exhaust into the atmosphere. By volume, pipeline is the safest way to transport oil.
2. If you own a buisness, how would you feel if you were required to sell your product for less than fair market value? Because right now the majority of Canadian oil (from all sources) is sold to the USA at a discount, due to international trade agreements and such. One way or another this oil will get to the open market and allow us to get a fair price for it.
3. On the enviromental aspect, while the oilsands are a large contributor of CO2 emissions, so are all of the coal mies in the USA, China and elsewhere. The reason I compare it to Coal is that a lot of people don't know how oilsands crude is made. It is not pumped out of the ground like traditional oil. It is mined in the form of clumpy bitumen using shovels and dump trucks. Then they add some chemicals and send it through a cyclotron where G force can separate the oil from the sand. So in terms of mining opperations, it's cleaner and less CO2 intensive than coal mining, so to call it an environmental disaster is being hypocritical. Conversely, there was a MAJOR forrest fire here in the summer of 2011 that destoyed 600,000 hectares of woodland. That alone is more than the entire 50 year history of oilsands production. Some of the plants farther north had be be evacuated. So for any environmentalists that would want to see it all shut down comepletely, I hope you would also not mind putting 100,000 people out of a job.
Rory,
You're not addressing the fundamental issue here which is "why should US endanger the hearland of their agriculture and the most vital acquifer in North America in order to reduce the market price of dirty Canadian oil going to the export market?". Canadian oil companies need that pipeline, not citizens of the USA who will bear the brunt of a leak.
Regarding CO2, the CO2 released by the fire will be re-absorbed by forest growing on the same piece of land, so the release is temporary and the net change is zero. All the CO2 from oil consumption is added to what's already in the atmosphere.
Also, that spinning thing is a centrifuge, not a cyclotron (the Cyclotron was an early "atom smasher")
@Joe Mota:The Alaskan Pipeline has leaked five times in 40 years, including once when it was shot at. In all that time, the biggest leak was 16,000 barrels and the biggest area requiring cleaning (a different incident) was 2 acres.
...and it's in a far less forgiving environment.
I'm hard pressed to see how a pipeline would "endanger the heartland of American agriculture".
Rory B Bellows
I'm not even talking about problems that will affect the atmosphere. I'm talking about leaks that will foul the aquifer that pipeline crosses, polluting fresh water supply.
Can you not comprehend that? Can you not wrap your mind around the fact that that we have STATES fighting over the water that is available? That the storms and flooding have contaminated available water supplies to the point that cities that are surrounded by water are having to truck in drinkable water and are boiling water for washing clothes?
Mark, please check the news for reports on the Kalamzoo River oil spill. You'll find that the thick Canadian tar sands oil is much more difficult to clean up than lighter oils. The spill happened at the same time as the BP spill in the gulf, so not much attention was paid outside affected areas. A 40 acre swath on the bottom of the river was polluted by a million gallons this gooey oil. The river still shows the sheen. You pretend to know something about pipelines, yet you didn't know about this major spill.
One thing I need to keep saying (cause people don't seem to get it) is that it's not going to Texas just for export, it's going there to be refined. The thing to keep in mind is that we don't get to make the desicion. I'd rather not have it go all the way to Texas, but that's where the refineries are. And of the two biggest opperators in the oil sands, one is controlled by Exxon Mobil. Being as it's cheaper to build the pipeline than to build new refineries here, they will go with what's best for their bottom line. It's all about the $$$$ Since political pressure has been applied, there have been other options put on the table.
Another thing i must point out is that the picture above is misleading, out of the whole line built, about a third of it will be in Canada. It's actually much farther from Fort Mcmurray to the US border. So while there is concern about a spill in the US, there's just as much chance for a spill up here.
I think the best thing for Canada would be to build a line to the west coast, and have a refinery there, and then ship finished product to China. then build a line east to Ontario and have a refinery there, so we can ship finished product to Europe. I really think that there are better options, but I don't get to make that call.
And for full disclosure, I don't work in the oil sands, I work at a car dealer in town.
Right, the oil goes to Texas to be refined, and then it gets exported to whomever is paying the highest price. One thing for sure, the oil doesn't belong to Americans nor to Canadians. The oil belongs to the oil companies, controlled by the executives, and they sell it whereever they get the best price, and they process it wherever it's cheapest. They give not a rat's ass about America or Americans nor Canada or Canadians. It's only about the money. This is not about "us" producing "our" oil. That's nonsense. It's about how much risk are we willing to accept to help oil companies market their product.
@Joe Mota: The oil belongs to the oil companies, controlled by the executives, and they sell it whereever they get the best price
Which drives down the overall price. A lot of the Alaskan crude gets sold to Japan. And the US does get tax money out of it.
It's only about the money. This is not about "us" producing "our" oil. That's nonsense. It's about how much risk are we willing to accept to help oil companies market their product
Of course it's only about the money. There is no such a thing as a business that's *not* in it for the money. And since you use oil, you have an interest in it too.
@Joe Mota: Mark, please check the news for reports on the Kalamzoo River oil spill. You'll find that the thick Canadian tar sands oil is much more difficult to clean up than lighter oils. The spill happened at the same time as the BP spill in the gulf, so not much attention was paid outside affected areas. A 40 acre swath on the bottom of the river was polluted by a million gallons this gooey oil. The river still shows the sheen. You pretend to know something about pipelines, yet you didn't know about this major spill.
One accident after 60+ years on a 3100 mile pipeline that delivers 1.4 million barrels per day? Sorry, but the good to me far outweighs that one accident (as bad as it is).
we cant become energy self-sufficient, otherwise our military foreign interventions go begging- HA!p>
I don't know, I got a bad feelin about this, exon, and bp have left a bad taste in my mouth.Ya think 200 mil would clean up the kind of mess these guys can make? Ogallala aquifer has been the life blood of the heartland forever.Prince William sound is still full of crude, and the gulf coast is fugged for the next ten thousand years.
200 million won't clean squat. We will have our own oil sands and the oil companies are going to tell us there isn't enough to worry about, let Mother Nature clean it up as it has in the Gulf and Alaska. It's insane that anyone should think this is a good idea. I would like to see us using water to power our cars in 15 years and that will make this oil obsolete. Besides the estimates are there is only enough to last for 55 years. What happens after that? It's time we get away from oil and switch to renewable energy or better yet Zero Point Energy.
What benefit is there to the states in between. I'm from Kansas. This pipeline shoots through the state. The oil it carries can be shipped overseas TAX FREE. Nobody living next to this pipeline will see any benefits such as cheaper fuel. Profits seem to go to those owning the oil with all the chances of pollution being taken by the states. Our Governors are selling the states down the river.
The only jobs created will be temporary for the building of the pipeline.I don't think it's worth the risk in case of a leak due to the closeness of this aquifer.The amount of insurance that this company says it will provide in case of a leak is a drop in the bucket if farmland is made useless for decades afterwards.
News flash...ALL JOBS ARE TEMPORARY.
OK, Teo, how about short term. A few weeks and then they move on to the next state.
TransCanada says in their website that they want to build "Keystone XL, the 1897-km (1179-mile) pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Cushing, OK."
Now, here's something to think about: Why don't they run the pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Vancouver, British Columbia, a distance of about 600 miles, as the crow flies?
Oh, Canadian Rockies in the way? Then divert to Calgary and take a lower route west. Or go east to Hudson Bay and then tanker it out, a distance of about 800 miles.
Canada could keep "all those wonderful jobs" to itself and have its own pipeline in its own country.
We finish our own pipeline for our own less-polluting, light sweet crude oil being developed by conventional drilling in the Dakotas, and use it at home, while the higher-pollutant Canadian oil sands crude goes elsewhere to foul the local environment there.
Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell is up with this whole Keystone XL boondoggle and why TransCanada and the Republican party are so eager to foist their pipeline off on us, doesn't it?
A route has already been proposed. Why is yours different? The oil is the main concern. The route it takes is irrelevant.
kkwilson
"A route has already been proposed. Why is yours different?"
Did you even bother to read my post? Moreover, did you notice the "picture" about midway through the article? You know, the one with the pipeline route and the outline of parts of the U.S. and Canada?
It's called a "map."
Look at it again, carefully, then get back to us with your question if that doesn't explain the difference.
As to "The oil is the main concern. The route it takes is irrelevant," consider the environmental concerns of a pipeline being run through a sensitive area overlying a crucial aquifer in the U.S. by a foreign entity, versus one that is entirely on American soil. carrying American crude, and much more subject to American operating and environmental standards.
Makes it a wee bit more relevant, in my opinion.
kkwilson, if the route is irrelevant why not just dump in the Missouri River and let it flow down to New Orleans. That way we don't need a pipeline at all. Environmental damage? Who cares?
When the pipeline was held up, TransCanada went immediately to the Chinese to get them to help build a pipeline and terminal to Vancouver. Deal was that China would get the oil.
The easy answer is that it's cheaper to build the pipeline than it would be to build new refineries. Aprox $2-3 billion to build the pipeline to texas where the refineries already have the capacity to refine heavy crude. Vs about 5-7 billion to build and run a new refinery here in Canada. And no, they didn't immediatly run to China to build a pipeline to Vancouver. When the Keystone line was put on hold, a different company, Enbridge, proposed a different line from Fort McMurray to Kitimat BC near the west coast. I think they should take it right to Prince Rupert which is on the coast, but I digress. When environmentalists got that put on hold, they started talking about sending it east to either Ontario, where it can ship out of Hudsons Bay, or right to the east coast. "Deal was that China would get the oil." If you weren't an idiot you'd see that China already wants the oil, but we want to be able to sell it to them for a fair price, not the way we sell it to America at a discount. Simply put, production is not slowing down and the oil has to go somehere. And by the way, the jobs wouldn't only be from building the pipeline, you would also have a lot of new refinery jobs needed to process an extra 870,000 barrels of oil per day. While I am personally in favor of keeping as much of the jobs and the profit here in Canada, I am not the one who makes the decision.
Now, aren't you Obama supporters glad you voted for this worthless and ineffective leader that is determined to cause hardship and misery on America for the next four years?
Obama never makes the right decisions. He is too emotional to do the right Economic thing.
This pipeline is a horriable idea. We don't even get the oil it will be shipped overseas. Anything for profit
The Horrifying Effects of a Canadian Tar Sands Oil Spill
excerpts:
The reason TransCanada wants to use the US route is because Canada's environmental laws will not allow it to be routed through Canada
You anti-pipeline people haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. You are making up excuses as to why the pipeline should not be built, none of which are true. You are nothing but a bunch of environmentalist a-holes!
Please point out what is not true...instead of just calling people names.
Harry-Get back on the short bus and go back to school! Apparently you didn't learn anything in school, as your ignorant comments confirm. Either that or your Alzheimers is coming back?
And somewhere near Harry's hometown, another billygoat safely reaches the opposite side of a bridge.
In 2011 exxon mobile spilled 1000 BARRELS into the Yellowstone river in a pipeline OOPS moment.You think when oil companies trash an entire ecosystem or watershed a handful of greenbacks makes it all better? If we could buy a new effing planet that would be fine,but we can't.
WOW!!! Mr. Obama and his administration of misfits is more worried about things that don't really matter than helping our country, our economy, our jobs, and our debt. Oh well, four more years.
What is he worried about that doesn't matter?
And where was your critizism when Obama introduced the jobs act for infrastructure? That would have created millions of jobs, adding billions of dollars in taxes to bring down the debt but guess what the GOP shot it down becuase they wanted him to lose the election. That doesn't bother you at all, or is it only the things the black guy does that bothers you?
Truth- Please explain how the oil pipeline "helps our country, jobs and debt".
Let's see, when the pipeline leaks, that will definitely help our jobs situation, as thousands of clean-up workers will be needed for several years! That takes care of helping our jobs, so let's look at debt. Oh, wait a minute, the costs of the clean up will be 100 times more expensive than any $$ we would get. (by the way, why would the US get any money for Canadian oil, exported to China, other than a very small amount for allowing it to leak on US land?). Using your logic (or lack thereof) these 2 previous items would absolutely help our country! What a genius, watch DumbFux news much?
TruthComesHere,
What a joke you are. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the a**. You don't even realize that the REPUBLICAN governor of Nebraska asked that the pipeline be delayed until a new route around a very sensitive aquifer was designed.
"You're entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
See this is my biggest issue with people spouting off their partisan crap. People want to blame Obama for killing it and not allowing the jobs that come with it. In reality, he was deferring to the state's rights of Nebraska who said they wanted a different route. So then you have Republican lawmakers were trying to force Obama's hand and render a decision without the new study being done. If it had gone through, they would be bitching that Obama doesn't listen to the people. Instead they're bitching that he has killed jobs. So now the Republican govenor of Nebraska says that the new, revised pipeline route is OK. So now if it does go through , Obama is either following the will of the people, or he's ignoring the far left eco-nuts, either way some people will find any reason to tear this guy down for doing the job he was elected to do.
I hope Ombma approves the construction. We need to heal our economy. He has got to get beyond the anti business policies of his last administration.
Do you stream Fox BS directly into your head?
Yea it's only 40000 good jobs and Osama has other priorities.
It's ok, we have other customers and will simply re route the pipe towards China via British Columbia(in progress).
Canada is all set to become one of the riches nations on this planet while Osama's US continues to spiral downward in political cement.
In the end it's much better for the US to support those peace loving middle eastern countries than those crazy ultra terrorist Canadians!
So you're in favor of federally recognized gay marriage and universal healthcare?
It's only a few hundred jobs when it's done. Not 40,000.
Anybody who opposes this pipeline is an idiot. We are dependednt on oil. Do we want to be dependent on friendly Canada, or continue to be dependent on the unfriendly middle east?
So you don't know how to read a map, it seems. The oil goes to a port in Texas FOR EXPORT!
And you did know, that one of the largest EXPORTS of the US is OIL, didn't you?
Actually it goes to Texas to be REFINED and then exported, so there will be lots of jobs at refineries to accomadate an extra 870,000 barrels per day coming down the pipe.
There is a "buraeucratic" reason and I wish Reuters and NBC had done their homework to cite it. The Department of State needs to complete its environmental review before it can make a decision. The Draft supplemental Environmental Impact statement hasn't yet been issued and then a final EIS has to be circulated before a decision can be legally made. What some people are complaining about is that Obama is not being tyrannical. I suspect it's the same people who call him a tyrant on every other issue.
Look at the map people. This pipeline goes to a port in Texas. SO THE OIL CAN BE EXPORTED! It will do zip for the US!
$200 Million inn insurance is not nearly enough for a pipeline proposing to have 2 leaks per year. Don't forget the Enbridge tarsands pipeline spill in 2010 - leaked into the Kalamazoo river. originally thought to cost $5 million to clean up - now over 800 million spent and still not clean enough to swim in.
remember, this tar sands oil sinks, and does not float - quite a problem over the Ogallah aquifier where the water table is only 50' below surface. the chemicals used to dilute the tar sands oil are not required to to be listed. these chemicals are toxic, not only to the environment, but corrosive to the pipe itself. search for your self about diluted bituminum - "dilbit" is the industry phrase.
let them pipe it across Canada to the pacific - this oil is not meant for USA consumption anyhow - it's all be sent overseas.
Actually that was the first plan, but British Columbia blocked the plan, as they didn't think it was safe!
Actually Keystone was the first plan, because that's where the refineries are, and when that got blocked, a different company proposed another line to the west coast. That was blocked by environmentalists and Native bands. Since then they have proposed other lines to the east coast and to Ontario. The oil has to go somewhere and wherever it goes, jobs will follow.
This oil will be used. Simple as that.
It can either be used by us or it will be shipped from Canada to China.
Less pollution created pumping it through a pipeline than shipping it across the ocean on oil tankers.
The pipeline goes to Texas FOR EXPORT.
They tried to build this pipeline in Canada, but British Columbia BLOCKED IT!
"Obama said in his inaugural address on Monday the United States will respond to the threat of climate change..."
Now this stupid SOB thinks he and other politicians can control the weather?!!! What this will eventually mean for the United States is we will spend, spend and spend some more! When the hell will we learn to put a stop to stupidity and arrogance like this?
You need to understand the difference between "climate" and "weather". Might I suggest reading a book?
You need to understand the difference between "climate" and "weather". Might I suggest reading a book?
Then read up on the difference between rain & water!!!
ho-lee. So you can't read a whole book. Got it! Fox Noise will tell you EVERY lie you need!
I did read the whole book.. Go learn how the earth works...
This means jobs!!!! But Ojobkiller can't have that on his hands, people working, paying their own way in life, no need for the government hand outs!!!
The dumborats & Obummer hate it when people get jobs!!!!
Only a few hunrded jobs. The claim of 50-100k was a COMPLETE lie, brought to you by the oil companies!
Never was a claim of 50-100k.... More like 2500 jobs.
You like to read, go read what it takes to construct a pipeline that long. Then the amount of people it takes to operate the thing!!
The Obama administration erred from the beginning with the tar sands project. For climate change reasons the president should have rejected the Canadian project entirely. This is the dirtiest oil on the planet and the habitat destruction taking place in those oil fields is of enormous scale.
Obama speaks of getting serious about atmospheric carbon dumping and this is one thing he can influence without going to the completely useless Congress. Oh, I know. The Canadians might just build their own pipeline west to the pacific. But perhaps not. We can make a difference and it is time to take a stand.
Have you noticed, the world runs on oil......
So how many windmills you have in your back yard?
I would suggest people read the report TransCanada put out about this pipeline. Then ask yourself just how much money and who is going to be making that money, from having this pipe line in the US.
Then ask yourself why Canada doesn't build the pipeline in Canada, thus creating all of those so called jobs there, plus building or remodeling their refineries to handle the dirtiest oil there is?
Then come back and blame Obama for everything. If Obama walked on water, some of you would bitch he couldn't swim.
Then go look in the mirror and blame that person you see for Obama's mistakes. Yes YOU, the GOP, promised us that Obama would be a one term President. LIAR LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE. You FAILED on that project, and you tried to RUIN our country making that happen. Talk about a bunch of LOSERS, well not much more need to be said.
The Keystone more than likely will not happen as planned. And it is not the environmentalist, that is just cover for what is really go on, which is crony capitalism. Trust me, this has nothing to do with with anything other than cold hard cash, crony capitalism and in my personal opinion, a windfall personal profit ($$$$$) for Obama.
Warren Buffet, a crony capitalist with assistance from Obama, has a lock on all rail transportation up here in Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana. BNSF Rail, owned by Warren, has hundreds of millions, if not a billion dollars invested in rail, locomotives, sand, natural gas and crude oil rail cars, along with infrastructure up here in the Bakken.
I know this, as I am in one of the many rail transfer stations in Western North Dakota on a daily basis. I have been in the transportation industry for well over 20 years, and I have never seen so many, thousands upon thousands, of new rail cars in my life.
Warren has a lock on rail up here, and with only a couple of smaller pipelines available, Warren Buffet is cleaning up in North Dakota, which is second to only Texas in oil production. That is allot of money going into Warren's coffers, and God only knows how much of that money is being kicked back to Obama and the rest of the enablers in Washington DC.
If you don't know, North Dakota had planned to send a million barrels of oil via the Keystone in its first year of operation, that is allot of rail cars... Also, Warren Buffet's BNSF Rail is a privately held company, not much reporting needs to go on in regards to political "contributions", and I highly doubt there will be any IRS audits in that regard seeing as Warren is a "friend" of Obama. Follow the money on this one folks, if you are able.
WOW!!!
MW33, finally someone else knows what is going on. The average poster here has not read the Trans-Canada report, and probably couldn't understand it if they did read it. Yes, it's about money, and smoke and mirrors. It wouldn't have mattered who the President was, Buffet's people would have been greasing their wheels also.
All politicians are crooked, and all are on the take, one way or another. Also a lot of people don't realize how big the Bakken oil field really is. If/when it becomes fully developed, ND may beat out TX as the #1 state in oil production.
So why doesn't Canada build that pipeline in Canada and keep all those jobs (that the low informed idiots) claim there will be? Plus save money by refining and shipping from their ports? Or are they scared of the damage, and law suits, when the spill happens in Canada. Why shouldn't they pollute the USA? Again, it's about money. They Trans-Canada, will not be charged as much in the states for pollution as they would in Canada. Think $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and you will realize what is going on.
But the low informed base of the GOP just want to put the blame on Obama, even if it's raining outside in a drought area. They would say it didn't start raining fast enough. Some people's kids. Yeesh
The issue with Canada not running the pipeline to their west coast is that little thing known as the Canadian Rockies, not pollution. Now, to note, since the "issues" with the Keystone, the Chinese have been making a footprint in the Canadian oil industry, gobbling up oil service and smaller companies that they feel would be needed if the Keystone pipeline would head West, which they are betting on. The Chinese are already spending tens of millions, if not more, on that possibility. If the Keystone goes west, it will benefit the Chinese, as that oil will naturally head to Asia. It is not cost effective to keep the oil in North America at that point, as we no longer have the refineries on the west coast for this oil, and transportation costs are prohibitive to send to our Gulf or East coasts.
As far as another administration putting the brakes on the Keystone, Bush was ready to do the deal, as was Romney. I think that if this was a repub administration the press would be all over this like flies on stink, as there is an incredible amount of "shady" activity here, and it is just sitting right out in the open.
MW333, you are right about Buffet. But I think Obama does this for two reasons. The biggest reason is the money that Buffet and companies connected to Buffet will donate to him is huge. The other reason is because he seems to want to keep this country down to promote the "government will protect us" mentality that plays well with liberals. He is the antithesis of Reagan. He has a vision of what he wants this country to be, and will do anything to achieve it. A very dangerous person.
Oh, in regards to why the Canadian's don't want the pipeline to head West... The Tar Sand oil is only profitable if oil prices stay up. If for some reason the price of oil crashes, it will not be profitable to continue tar sand oil production. That is where the Keystone comes in, every barrel of oil that rolls through that pipeline is charged a few cents per barrel or gallon, I'm not privy to that info, but there will be a charge of some sorts. All the way to Houston, there will be access points for oil to be injected into the line, cutting transportation costs by quite a bit.
This is a win win for all parties involved. It keeps the tar sands production rolling, and shaves anywhere from $1.50 to $3.00 off of the price of a barrel of oil, along with employing countless Canadians and Americans. The oil still needs to be brought to the pipeline via rail, truck or smaller pipelines that will connect into the Keystone. There will be 24/7 activity on this line for years to come, and many long term employment opportunities for both countries... And let's not forget the tax revenue for all states and countries involved.
In regards to pollution, with our technology, and regulations, pollution is really not a valid concern to me personally, just my opinion. Our history with pipelines is one of the best in the world. Yes, there have been incidents, but they are not on purpose and are normally fixed in short order with little damage done. Environmentally, I would feel more secure having this oil piped in a controlled environment like the Keystone, than I would with it traveling via rail or truck where all bets are off, as these two environments have few controls, and are incredibly high for accidents and mishaps. We have rails cars falling off of tracks on a regular basis up here, along with many vehicular accidents. Much safer sending all of this oil to Houston via the Keystone then traveling through our towns and over our roadways. Again, just my personal opinion.
To get an idea of where i am coming from look at this map...
If the above link does not publish, just Google "pipeline map US", as it is a real eyeopener.
Don't be a victim, I agree. Obama did say he would "transform America". I believe he and his fellow travelers are hell bent on destruction, both economically and culturally. Being nearly a half century old myself, I honestly have trouble recognizing my country. I honestly don't know how much longer we have, following the markets daily along with being in the industry I am in...
I believe we will be around when this house of cards finally collapses, taking most all of us down with it. Not the day I am looking forward to, but taking steps to minimize my own personal/families outcome.
May you live in interesting times... ;)
MW33, you think that $40 billion in damage due to an oil spill is nothing to worry about?
The keystone pipeline only benefits the Canadian oil companies who would see their costs to market decrease and the business that support the pipeline. The taxes collected by the states won't pay for a fraction of the environmental and other damage that the pipeline will cause. It is the oil industry that is hell bent on destruction. Look at Fort McMurray on Google Earth. It's a disaster. The damage caused by a spill into the Oglala acquifer would be horrific and would cost many billions of dollars to clean up, much of it paid for by US taxpayers. Only to benefit a few Canadian billionaires and those on their payroll.
Sorry Charlie.
Excuse ME? Have you been to Fort Mcmurray? Cause I live here and it'e pretty far from a disaster. Hurricane Sandy, the Japanese Tsunami, those were "disasters". Fort Mcmurray is a nice enough place, and guess what, the unemployment rate is about 1.5%. As per recent estamates there are over 100,000 people and the average wage is $50-60,000 per year. As I stated elsewhere, any critisism of Fort Mcmurray can be applied just as much to coal mines, how many of those are there in the US? Do you consider Wyoming or Virginia to be a disaster?
Rory, the tar sands operations near Fort Mcmurray viewed from Google Earth to indeed resemble strip mines. Actually they are strip mines. I did not mean to insult the city itself, as I've never been there. I apologize to you and all your friends in Fort McMurray. But please let's face facts: strip mining pretty much destroys the landscape on which it is practiced, whether it's for coal or tar sands or iron ore or gold or rare earths to make batteries for electric cars. I think that the oil business will continue rolling for several more years, and that your jobs will not be threatened in the next decade or so. But I also think that fossil fuels as a proportion of our total energy consumption will and in fact must decline.
The pipeline should be built as any oil the country through the oil companies get to sell is good for the country.
Obie Hussein sure doesn't want that pipeline, does he.