Posted by Tina
After seven years of negotiations to reroute the pipeline and countless EPA investigations this administration has rejected Keystone siting three reasons: 1. The project would not, “…make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,” or create permanent jobs, 2. It wouldn’t lower gas prices, and 3. It wouldn’t increase national security. (Notice the environmental issue was downplayed.)
Question:
Should we also reject “roads and bridges” projects for the same reasons?
This decision was ostensibly made by Kerry’s State Department’s determinations:
State Department reviews concluded that construction of the pipeline would have little impact on whether that type of oil was burned, because it was already being extracted and moving to market via rail and existing pipelines. …
…review also found that demand for the oil sands fuel would drop if oil prices fell below $65 a barrel, since moving oil by rail is more expensive than using a pipeline.
The price of oil has dropped significantly this year. The current price is around $45 a barrel. If prices go back up, and they will, the pipeline would provide an environmentally safer and less expensive means of transporting the oil. The determination made by State is weak at best. In a better economy, under conservative leadership, demand for oil will increase dramatically and within a few months the lack of supply would begin to bring prices back up, making the pipeline viable. The Keystone Pipeline was proposed to transport oil to American refineries in Texas for markets in Europe and Asia. If Canada pipes the oil to it’s western shores instead the oil meant for Europe will be shipped in tankers over many more miles of ocean creating greater risk of oil spills.
What we’re seeing is a decision made because of pressure from powerful, rich special interest groups and based on an extremist view of the dangers posed by an imagined crisis built on deceit and lies. See here, here, here, and here.
The radical left works to control oil with the goal of completely ending the use of oil. Do they realize that if they win the world will be shoved back to an age when killing whales was a viable means of obtaining oil?
Predictable pandering to the specious eco-thug lobby.
Barack Obama in announcing Friday that he is rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, saying the project “would not serve the interests of the United States.”
Obama touched on concerns about the impact on the environment and danced over his political climate that ignored the pipeline’s benefit.
Lets ask why wouldn’t more jobs, more profit from refining the product, and from the hiring of stevedores to load tankers, even better environmental control of the refining of the product, yep none of that is in the interest of the ” Obama-nation” debt ridden country Obama has systematically been reducing America too .
Hiding in the wings was Obamas cheerleader Warren Buffet, who is the one profiting from the rail transportation of tar sand oil by his tanker railroad interests, but I doubt if Buffet had any influence on Big Zeros decision, nor the fact that it would benefit the Koch Brothers Pipeline, oh wait a minute hmmmmmmmmmmm
Harold I should have know that Koch Industries was involved in the pipeline but I didn’t. Thanks for bringing that up. Now this makes perfect sense. The desire to deny the Koch’s has to be on of the positives for this gang of America strangling control freaks. The Koch’s will be fine. America is the loser.
I did know about Buffet’s holdings in the railroad system that transports the Canadian oil to the Gulf. He’s been doing it for years without any blow back from environmentalists even though there have been major train wrecks.
So nothing will change in terms of the environment, the oil will get to the refineries over more dangerous rail transport, but the green lobby gets to live with the illusion that they’ve “made a difference” in the climate change battle. You have to wonder if people on the left have the capacity for left brain thought.
Off Topic — Tonight’s film
“Across The Pacific”
1942. Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, and Sydney Greenstreet. Directed by John Huston and then by Vincent Sherman after Huston joined the United States Army Signal Corps.
Off Topic — The Politico lies about Dr. Ben Carson
Look it up for yourself, do your own homework, the Politico’s yellow journalism is on display and their “wrongmeter” is pegged on themselves. A paradigm of the left. I wonder if “PolitiFact” will consider it for the lie of the year.
I had this story ready to post this morning and something came up before I got it finished. Sorry it’s such a late posting. Enjoy our movie.
This may explain the Politico, Dewey, Chris, Hillary’s campaign and supporters, and Benie Sanders’ popularity —
“One in four new cases of psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia could be the direct result of smoking extra-strong varieties of cannabis, a major new study concludes.
“The finding suggests that about 60,000 people in Britain are currently living with conditions involving hallucinations and paranoid episodes brought on by abuse of high-potency cannabis, known as skunk, and more than 300,000 people who have smoked skunk will experience such problems in their lifetime. ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11414605/Super-strong-cannabis-responsible-for-quarter-of-new-psychosis-cases.html
And it just isn’t “skunk.”
“Legalizing pot isn’t about medicine, it’s about getting high.” From non other than the left-wing weed huffers at … TA DAH! … CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/health/weed-potency-levels/
Not to take this thread off course, but here’s a response I left a FB friend today.
“I’ll probably catch some flak for this, but I’m a little annoyed with the term “climate denier.” Calling people who ask for more evidence “climate deniers” isn’t going to solve the problems that the earth may or may not be faced with. There’s a lot of mixed science and opinions out there, but for some reason the only solutions proposed always seem to hit the middle class in their pocket book. Jerry Brown is a huge proponent of global warming policy but now he just got caught using state employees to look for oil on his private property. Makes one wonder if the whole point of the climate change movement is really about personal gain and not about saving the earth.”
Right now in America more than half the people are living on incomes of under $30K per year. THAT is Obama’s America. Every time liberals do something they call positive for the environment, life gets harder on those of us who work for a living. The Keystone pipeline would put Americans to work and help lower the cost of oil, with very questionable, if any, environmental impacts.
We need a new president that believes our country is worth creating jobs for.
Very little crude oil moves by railroad, it’s just too expensive.
There were also disputes over the route through Nebraska. Landowners had a law suit pending over the legality of eminent domain notices. This would have delayed the pipeline for years anyway.
How would you like it if the government took your land?
Nasdaq.com:
That article posted November 3, 2013, three days ago. Did anyone hear the administration mention this in the big announcement that the President would not sign the legislation?
Jim it sounds to me like the amount of crude flowing from Canada and transported to the gulf has been growing. If the amount of crude has gone up generally I assume its gone up by rail to some degree. Where did you get your information?
Does it occur to anyone else that our President continues to support people of other nations in getting work while denying Americans the same. Could be his opinion that America has been “privileged” is running his decisions. If so, all I can say is the man is a foreigner (In mindset if not in reality) with zero understanding or appreciation for America, American values, and the contributions this freedom loving nation has made to the world.
It’s my understanding that TransCanada was paying for permission to cross the land.
Eminent domain filings happened when a few holdouts refused to allow the pipeline to cross their land. There are many landowners across America that have power lines, phone lies, pipelines, and other things crossing or existing on a portion of their land. Landowners allow that right here in Chico. A number of Nebraskans were holdouts. I think they’ve bought the propaganda about dangers to the environment which have been overblown and distorted shamelessly by radical greens.
I wouldn’t like it if the government “took” my land. I do have a lot of sympathy for those who have owned land for decades, especially if their kids want to work the land. However, if the offer to purchase were reasonable or sweet I would certainly consider the benefits to society. If I agreed, I’d take the money and look for another piece of land, take it as an opportunity to downsize with a nice little nest egg, or do something else.
Semi-related side note:
Buffet, one of those billionaires who will get richer no matter how the economy is doing. His own little bubble reality suggest to him that the economy is “going strong” on goods and services.
Tell that to the folks in Madison Wisconsin, home of the Oscar Meyer hot dog:
Oh well at least John Kerry’s job, and wealth, are secure. But Madison will experience first hand what “trickle up poverty” feels like:
We do not have a strong economy. We have a sluggish, middle class, small business killing economy. The Keystone wouldn’t make a significant difference to the economy but not building certainly does for the people who might have had the jobs.
Someone has Blueberry “PIE” all over their face. Geez all hate no substance Pie? Reminds me of Germany in WW2.
On Keystone explain to me how allowing the Koch’s t at least double their wealth transporting low grade tar sands over America’s main Aquifers to Houston only to export to China benefits the Taxpayers.
Explain to me the loophole in some of these contracts landowners were presented that claimed the landowner could be accused of causing a leak and be responsible for all cleanup to which no one even has a method benefits Taxpayers.
I could go on but exactly why is keystone so important to conservatives when there is no permanent jobs or benefit to Americans and we put precious water, huge aquifers at risk at our own expense? Canada voted against the pipeline BC 1st. Now We are suppose to be pansies for the few?
Keystone is not in our best interest. Canadians do not want one and neither do we!
And yes it is like sandpaper running through a pipeline and when there is a spill they use Koch paper towels to clean it up. Nice! Protect our water it is more valuable to our National Security than providing low grade oil to China our enemy that clothes you.
Dewey speak for your self! Not everyone agree and they cite good reasons.
The unions don’t agree with you about the jobs Keystone would have provided. What the public doesn’t know is that many union welders, for instance, live like gypsies moving from project to project. So when they say the jobs wouldn’t be permanent it’s only partly true. A strong economy would make Keystone less important. Unfortunately we don’t have that either.
The hub bub over Keystone is political. Pipelines for oil and gas criss-cross across America already…see maps here.
Pipelines are safe and efforts to make them safer are ongoing. See here.
The first American “market” for Canadian crude is the refineries in Texas. Refiners would rather process Canadian crude than crude from Venezuela, Mexico or Saudi Arabia. “It’s generally cheaper (and safer) to transport oil by pipeline than by ship. The benefit to the US is a step toward greater energy independence. Some could be sold in America at any time but other markets include Europe and Latin America.
The Kochs, like any other big business are in business to make money. Why shouldn’t they make money when they also invest a lot of money to bring products to market and create thousands of jobs?
The Koch’s also give very generously to hospitals and charities. In 2009 they gave $25 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery. The Koch’s gave $15 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital and donated $125 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for cancer research.
Have you done as much, Dewey?
“Explain to me the loophole in some of these contracts landowners were presented that claimed the landowner could be accused of causing a leak and be responsible for all cleanup…”
How about you provide evidence that this clause in a document isn’t reasonable. A landowner who agrees to let the pipeline cross his land has to be held accountable in case he goes nuts and decides to plant a bomb just as the company is held accountable for a spill that occurs on someone’s land. Accountability works both ways. This is standard in any contract.
If we had a more accountable media and justice system, and if our population actually had morals, this entire subject wouldn’t be such a big concern. Unfortunately we don’t and it is.
Corrupt people exist in government, private sector business, and the population, (not to mention terrorists). Frivolous greedy Lawsuits are filed every year and it’s costing us all, big time:
In my experience some of the many of the most egregious lawsuits of this type are filed by activists and agitators…they are political.
A bigger danger to the land owner is probably the EPA. Government has the heaviest hand, particularly under radical progressives.
Life is a risky business. The point is to minimize risk and maximize benefit. We in America have done that very well and we should be proud of our overall record. We hear about the big sensational events that happen and gasp but we don’t give a second thought to the minute by minute operations of electric and phone lines, oil pipelines, ships crossing the oceans, trucking and water management, etc. that happen every day without incident.