So what's the deal with the Keystone XL pipeline project?

I've been doing some research on this since it has been mentioned so frequently in the Republican debates.

So why does BO refuse to take action until after the next election? 1000's of jobs & cheaper gas prices for everyone seems like a no-brainer to me. Is he really that controlled by the far left?

 

You have seen just what he has "accomplished". Which part do you think came from anywhere but?

 

The for delaying the pipeline is by the environmentalists and Obama is catering to them until after the election. The senate republicans made that part of the extension of the payroll tax cut extension, but made the extension for two months and said Obama had to decide by then. The house republicans want the tax cut extended for a year and the pipeline decision now. Or at least that is what they were saying yesterday of the political shows. If Obama can cater to the envronmentalists, which are a big part of his base, until after he wins the election, which he may or may not win, he can get them on his side. If he approves the pipeline now, he may lose that base, which he doesn't want to do. That is the way I understand it. I think he wants to approve it, but he has upset the environmentalists with some of his past decisions and really is doing it for politicals reasons and not to help out union workers.

 

So, in essence, BO is delaying something that is good for the entire country just to increase his chances of winninh another term?

Wonder what the BO supporters here think about that?

 

Well it is the truth, from the way I have been reading it. Now don't get me wrong, I actually support Obama, but this is one area that I disagree. I think we should be drilling more and building this pipeline, while we invest in more renewable energy options, like wind, solar and nuclear, but I may be in the minority. I surely don't see the republicans giving money back to the rich as a way to get us out of trouble.

 

How can you support a president who puts his re-election efforts ahead of the country? These aren't small stakes we are playing for either....drastically lower fuel costs? Thousands of immediate jobs? Untold thousands of residual jobs resulting from the project?
And BO's willing to p*ss it all away in the hope it will get him re-elected? What happens if Canada doesn't want to wait & pursues another partner?

 

Now here we go. Yes I can support him and not agree with him. You don't think the republicans are not putting their personal agendas ahead of the country when they keep preventing compromises to occur. Give me a break here? The ones that have hurt the country more is the republicans doing nothing to help the country and blocking everything that has tried to be done to help the country. Look at the facts.

Lastly, I do not agree with Obama on this decision, if you would have read my post, but can I support him, I can over any of the republican candidates I see.

 

Before you fall victim to the left's propaganda regarding Repubs "blocking", keep in mind the left controlled the entire Congress during Bush's last 2 years and they had total control of Congress up until recently. Even now the left controls the WH & the Senate and, as moen has pointed out, BO still has Executive Order to fall back on. So, you see, the left's argument that Repubs have the real power to block anything is disengenious at best & really just an outright lie (but it apparently resonates with some).
One just needs to harken back to the Obamacare debates...if Repubs really had the power to block, they would have used it then.

 

What happens if Canada persues another partner? And who would that be?

 

Well, in the case of the pipeline, the other "partner" would be China. Sure, re-election is so much more important than hundreds of jobs and $15/barrel oil . . .

 

I have heard China & India both mentioned. They would be willing to foot the bill to have the pipeline run East-West across Canada as well build at least one new refinery.

 

As I understand it the new pipeline (there is another already built) will provide jobs during it's construction and maintenance, as well as a few at the refineries... at the very least keep them at work. I've also heard the processed oil isn't for the U.S. markets, but very few people have said this so I'm uncertain about it. I'm also under the belief that the government will be paying the bill to build the new line, again... I'm uncertain of the accuracy of this info at this time. If all the above is true, my question is: Why doesn't the oil companies build the pipe-line themselves? All they need is eminent domain persmission from the government. I imagine the permits would be pricy too, and that money is owed to the government.

BTW, their are routes that go through B.C. in the West of Canada... but an oil spill there is highly likely to occur.

 

The oil that comes out of your car after 3,000 miles is 10 times cleaner than this stuff...

At each step of the process, turning Tar Sands into oil for US fuel undermines the local and global environment. First, the Boreal Forest's rich ecosystem must be ripped open to expose Tar Sands sludge. Then otherworldly trucks as tall as apartment buildings dig up four tons of earth for every one barrel of Tar Sands sludge they extract. Next comes the resource-intensive process of separating the sludge from the sand, and then ‘cleansing’ the sludge of unwanted toxics, requiring huge amounts of water and energy, and producing vast quantities of global warming pollution. For surrounding communities, the process also produces toxic waste: 11 million litres (3 million gallons) a day escape into the surrounding environment.

 

Key Facts on Keystone XL


Energy Security: Tar Sand will not Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil
Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.

• Keystone XL is an export pipeline. According to presentations to investors, Gulf Coast refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe and Latin America. Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free. Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.
• Reducing demand for oil is the best way to improve our energy security. U.S. demand for oil has been declining since 2007. New fuel-efficiency standards mean that this trend will continue once the economy gets back on track. In fact, the Energy Deptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline.

Gas prices: Keystone XL will increase gas prices for Americans—Especially Farmers

• By draining Midwestern refineries of cheap Canadian crude into export-oriented refineries in the Gulf Coast, Keystone XL will increase the cost of gas for Americans.
• TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”
• Independent analysisof these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.
• According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.

Jobs: TransCanada’s jobs projections are vastly inflated.

• In 2008, TransCanada’s Presidential Permit application for Keystone XL to the State Department indicated “a peak workforce of approximately 3,500 to 4,200 construction personnel” to build the pipeline.
• Jobs estimates above those listed in its application draw from a 2011 report commissioned by TransCanadathat estimates 20,000 “person-years” of employment based on a non-public forecast model using undisclosed inputs provided by TransCanada.
• According to TransCanada’s own data, just 11% of the construction jobs on the Keystone I pipeline in South Dakota were filled by South Dakotans–most of them for temporary, low-paying manual labor.
• Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) and the Transport Workers Union (TWU) both oppose the pipeline. Their August 2011 statement: “We need jobs, but not ones based on increasing our reliance on Tar Sands oil. There is no shortage of water and sewage pipelines that need to be fixed or replaced, bridges and tunnels that are in need of emergency repair, transportation infrastructure that needs to be renewed and developed. Many jobs could also be created in energy conservation, upgrading the grid, maintaining and expanding public transportation—jobs that can help us reduce air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy efficiency.”

Safety: A rupture in the Keystone XL pipeline could cause a BP style oil spill in America’s heartland, over the source of fresh drinking water for 2 million people. NASA’s top climate scientist says that fully developing the tar sands in Canada would mean “essentially game over” for the climate.

• The U.S. Pipeline Safety Administration has not yet conducted an in depth analysis of the safety of diluted bitumen (raw tar sands) pipeline, despite unique safety concerns posed by its more corrosive properties.
• TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. The company was ordered to dig up 10 sections of pipeafter government-ordered tests indicated that defective steel may have been used. KeystoneXL will use steel from the same Indian manufacturer.
• Keystone XL will cross through America’s agricultural heartland, the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers, the Ogallala aquifer, sage grouse habitat, walleye fisheries and more.
• The agency was not adequately accounting for threats to wildlife, increased pollution in distressed communities where the crude may be refined, or increases in carbon emissions that would exacerbate climate change, and a variety of other issues.

Climate Change: Keystone XL is the fuse to North America’s biggest carbon bomb.

• In a studyfunded by the Rockefeller Foundation, a group of retired four-star generals and admirals concluded that climate change, if not addressed, will be the greatest threat to national security.
• The State Department Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by the pipeline. Extraction and refinement of oil sands are more GHG-intensive compared to conventional oil. The EIS estimates that the additional annual GHG emissions from the proposed pipeline could range from an additional “12-23 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent… (roughly the equivalent of annual emissions from 2 to 4 coal-fired power plants)” over conventional crude oil from the Middle East. The EPA believes that the methodology used by the State Department is inaccurate and could underestimate GHG emissions by as much as 20 percent. Given that the expected lifetime of the Keystone XL pipeline is fifty years, the EPA notes that the project could yield an extra 1.15 billion tons of GHGs using the quantitative estimates in the EIS.

 

Are you sure this is scientific research? Sounds more like some overly dramatic story telling to me.

 

I wonder if he ever bothered to look up the manufacturing process (raw material to product) for the batteries these "green" cars use. FWIW, the Prias produces more pollution than a Hummer.

 

Do you disagree that most of the fuel produced will go to Europe and Latin America though, and not here?

 

What the hell difference does it make where the fuel goes? It makes USA jobs and USA exports (even assuming you are correct). The alternative produces Chinese jobs and Chinese exports. Now, just which alternative are you recommending?

 

It makes a difference since it's being touted as a solution to our fuel needs, that it will make fuel cheaper, and that it will provide thousands of jobs. From what I understand, the fuel isn't meant for our markets, it will increase the cost of fuel here, and the jobs it creates are exaggerated... sometimes greatly exaggerated. It's important to know the truth instead of the lies.

I for one, want to know the truth. I want to know what the potential benefits are and what the potential consequences might be, whether the pipeline is or isn't built. I want an understanding of the issues. I'm not saying I'm for or against it. It would be easier to understand if people would stop spreading lies about it all the time. It makes it difficult to find accurate information.

 

You want the truth? BO is putting of the pipeline project until after the next election so that he doesn't lose the green vote. My prediction is this: If BO is able to hold off the Canadians until 2013 (and he wins the election) his first order of business will be to hurry the project along because he knows this country needs it.