Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit

Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
January 18, 2012 7:44:31 PM

Obama administration rejects Keystone pipeline permit


"This is not good for our country," Boehner said. "The president wants to put this off until it's convenient for him to make a decision. ... The president's got an opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs almost immediately. The president should say yes."

Is this even possible??? Instead of creating jobs, lets outsource the only "shovel ready jobs" there were.

How can someone favor environmentalist groups (no matter how much donations he gets from them) over well being of the country?

===============

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/industry-sou...
January 18, 2012 8:15:40 PM

He favors re-election. He needs his radical base to achieve that. That's what this is all about, not what's best for the country.
m
0
l
January 18, 2012 8:49:19 PM

Its truly a shame.
Like playing politics and being for the big guy is always on the other side, yet when this opportunity comes, and these arent temp jobs, this is nice paying, snowball effect job creation, its no to the little guy, and playing politics as well.
Whats the worst is, theres already many pipelines thruout the country, but it goes against his personal beliefs, as well as Hollywoods etc.
Who did we elect anyhow?
m
0
l
January 18, 2012 11:29:07 PM

lol @ Fox

I'll go post for the other side:


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/18/14539740...

The full and official statement from the white house found here:
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2012/01/obama-s...
Quote:
As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.


12:15 EST
Quote:
"We made clear back in December that a political effort to short-circuit that process for ideological reasons would be counterproductive because a proper review that weighed all the important issues in this case could not be achieved in 60 days," Carney said. He added, "It is a fallacy to suggest that the President should sign into law something when there isn't even an alternate route identified in Nebraska."


4:15EST
Quote:
As we had noted before, The Washington Post is reporting that the administration will ultimately allow TransCanada to resubmit a proposal that reroutes the pipeline around the Sandhills of Nebraska. The Post reports:

"The administration's decision includes language making it clear that TransCanada can reapply, stating, 'The determination does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for subsequent projects.'

In November, after President Obama announced a delay in his decision, TransCanada said it would reroute the pipeline.


So there was talk of rerouting months ago, and none of that has come to head... Interesting.

You guys keep up with the rabble-rousing, you are very entertaining!
m
0
l
January 18, 2012 11:51:57 PM

So, our president, wanting to improve our economy, making it priority one didnt see this coming?
Couldnt have moved faster?
Is government so bad it cant make these determinations?
Whose at the healm?
Does he care?
Sound like those bullies on the other side are just a badgering him somethin awful, doesnt it?
Poor fella
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 12:07:03 AM

I understand people being concerned about the environmental issues with this but as stated in an earlier post the US has pipelines all over the country. Some of those pipelines are fairly old as well. I'd be more concerned about those. If I heard right then Techint Somerville and O.J will be doing most of it and they are pretty responsible companies. I've been on a few of their sites and have been impressed at how they work. Now they might be only doing the Canadian side and American companies might do the US side, that I'm not sure of.
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 12:16:35 AM

We do oil well here heheh
I agree, if theres any of that money, the 1 trillion, lets redo some of those old lines as well.
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 12:18:10 AM

Are they as impressive as BP?

Just sayin.

Not to mention, I actually have no problem with the pipeline, but someone's gotta play the Devil's Advocate, mostly because it's, again, rabble-rousing.

Oh, and I'm asking because I don't know, how many are as long as the keystone pipeline, going through as many states as the keystone?
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 12:24:04 AM

wip99gt said:
I understand people being concerned about the environmental issues with this but as stated in an earlier post the US has pipelines all over the country. Some of those pipelines are fairly old as well. I'd be more concerned about those. If I heard right then Techint Somerville and O.J will be doing most of it and they are pretty responsible companies. I've been on a few of their sites and have been impressed at how they work. Now they might be only doing the Canadian side and American companies might do the US side, that I'm not sure of.

Its like this! The administration tried to get it extend to the time past election, so if Obama would win, it would be his second term and he would not have to care about the environmental groups and go right on with the pipe.

Conservatives can see through it and say, hey, in time of the crisis, u put politics first, ahead of the unemployed Americans!

And it clicks in exactly. It is a bad deal, when u put country second. I would not tolerate this if Busch or anybody else would do the same thing. Its so unpatriotic. Its the presidents job. He actually could do something that would be in the history books as a great thing for the country where even republicans would agree with him.

Canadians don't prefer Chinese as a business partners, but now they will have to wait and apply later, and wait for the election, while Americans are waiting jobless and ready.

What a shame.

Do not accuse me of being racist!
m
0
l

Best solution

January 19, 2012 12:27:34 AM

No
If someone says, we need to strengthen our infrastructure, then what exacly is that?
If its wind, solar etc etc, no problem then?
No gas, who cares about bridges?
Whos going to be responsible for 5$ a gallon gas this summer? You think people wont remember this?
BP, and what happened there wont happen on land for one, its alot easier, its just the distance, also, any overseer can actually see whats going on, as they dont actually do much diving, do they?
For some reason, its still a race to the bottom here, not sure why, but lifting the economy doesnt seem to be priority one here, and giving monies to the likes of Solyndra, which was predicted to fail within a few weeks of its actual failing, several years prior, he spent that money, made that quick decision, yet only to obviously fail, but it made the fat cats in Hollywood "feel better", and raised the "consciousness" of such things.
Now, when we have it laid in our laps, we have to drap our feet, when its truly needed, a great move, buying oil from our best ally/neighbor and friend, instead of allowing some of those billions slip into who knows what/whos pockets?
Share
January 19, 2012 12:38:46 AM

You mean putting country first like allowing unlimited amounts of money to be spent on elections? Ya know, had that not been spearheaded by John Roberts, bribed by the largest energy traders in the country (Koch Ind.) in the country along with Clarence Thomas, wouldn't this not even be an issue?

Interesting the way it works.

it's amazing the picking and choosing. Both sides play politics and yet sometimes it's ok, when it's your side.

Amazing judgement being done by ideologists and pundits. Rail away.

:) 
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 12:49:15 AM

Amazing Obama has double everyone elses money, isnt it?
No wonder the countries broke, all those little people giving their all

If youre saying theyre all corrupt, most likely so, but one drives us into a ditch, claiming the others would do it first.
We know what we have with him, time to find a better driver

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-push...

So, the guy in Okie land is poor?
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:08:45 AM

you really think it takes 100,000 people to man a pipe?

How many months to build? Then how many people to maintain?

Hundreds if not less.
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:14:31 AM

Yea, it wont carry anything in those pipes either, maybe we shouldnt do it, since pipe just blows right where we want it, and grows in the ground anyways, and we dont even need to bury it, so no new machines either.
Yep, a pure loss
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:18:31 AM

Or, are you saying we already have the pipe made?
Or, the machines ready, nothing new?
Or, the gas being made wont change a thing?
And shipping all that pipe wont require any new jobs?
And all the local towns wont somewhat permanently benefit from the pipeline, and boom during?
It wont lesson the stress of non found, unreplaceable, no way to keep up fossil fuels on this country?
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:22:22 AM

How many tons of steel alone?
Cmon man
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:58:18 AM

Yeah youre right the lobbyists did say it would create tons of new jobs (Anywhere from 20,000 to 200,000) except

Cornell University

But them book learners dont know nothin!

How many tons of steel you say? Oh you must mean the Russian steel being shipped in

From the link above:

Quote:
Girling said Friday that the 13,000 figure was “one person, one year,” meaning that if the construction jobs lasted two years, the number of people employed in each of the two years would be 6,500. That brings the company’s number closer to the State Department’s; State says the project would create 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs, a figure that was calculated by its contractor Cardno Entrix.

As for the 7,000 indirect supply chain jobs, the $1.9 billion already spent by TransCanada would reduce the number of jobs that would be created in the future. The Brixton Group, a firm working with opponents of the project, has argued that many of the indirect supply jobs would be outside the United States because about $1.7 billion worth of steel will be purchased from a Russian-owned mill in Canada.


Another well done rebuttal

Or how about teh 10,000 people who personally went to the whitehouse protesting the pipeline?

How would a town boom with a pipeline running through it, property prices would drop and these things have sprung leaks before..... I guess someone would have to plug it and clean the oil so......yay a few new jobs!
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 2:35:38 AM

You guys are getting it all wrong. Obama will approve the permit, just not this year. :) 
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 6:04:20 AM

From wikipedia (emphasis mine):
Quote:

Keystone PipelineTransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005. In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating that 'the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector'.[2] However, the National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[3] On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[4]


http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/18/14539740...

The full and official statement from the white house found here:
http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2012/01/obama-s...
Quote:
As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, ...

:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 7:58:06 AM

When it comes to not spending our money, it takes forever, and feels rushed, yet spending our money, no problem, we can do it no problen.
No ones addressed the oil itself, which is pretty amazing, thats the crux, isnt it?
Russia wont be making the trucks, the machines, the oil, all the people making them, using the oil, sure, if one wants to think it wont help, nothing anyone can do for them.
This reminds me of those folks who wont go to a doctor for treatment, because of their faith.
Im not trying to offend here, and respect all ideas and faiths, but not mentioning oil and its benefits, while only going on about what may happen, and painting everything in a worse case scenaeio surely shows the current admins incompetemcy, or the lack of faith of it therein.
Its take a half a decade to decide, then it cant be safe, good show
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 11:11:21 AM

well whats the estimated haul from the oil sands?

How much will this impact oil prices.

m
0
l
January 19, 2012 12:19:42 PM

There is approximately 600,000 miles of pipeline criscrossing the United States. To say another 1,700 miles is going to somehow adversely affect the environment is rubbish.

Obama is trying to please his voter base, plain and simple. He is not interested in energy, jobs, or anything of the sort. Remember, he is trying to 'fundamentally transform' America. And he is succeeding.
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:21:46 PM

Doesnt it worry you though that the jobs projection is based on 1 year jobs?

Isnt that a bit deceitful?
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 1:55:11 PM

Not at all. Ask a person not working at all if they would like a job for the next year. You won't be able to hire them fast enough.

It's not just the pipeline as jaydee said. There will be spin-offs. Refinery jobs, over the road truckers, dump truck operators, the workers have to eat, sleep somewhere while building it. The steel needed for the pipeline, the company that makes the speecial tools needed to build it, the excavation company needed to grade and level the land, welders, engineers, construction foreman, etc. All the way down to the company I work for that treats the water used by the steel mill supplying the building materials.

It is indeed "trickle down".
m
0
l
January 19, 2012 2:26:06 PM

Pipelines aren't as safe as the Lobbyists claim.

I highly recommend browsing through the above link. In 2010 pipeline spills and explosions killed 22 people and caused over 1 billion in property damage, and over 170,000 barrels spilled. In the first year of Phase 1 and 2 of the keystone pipeline there have been over 30 spills.

You also have to remember that not even half of those prospected jobs are going to be in the USA. Most will be in Canada (Eh?)

Ive heard estimates that it will take 2-4 barrels of fresh drinking water to make 1 barrel of tar sands. You may have heard about droughts in East Africa recently..... No to mention strip mining large areas of forest to get at the tar sands.


Some of you must be old enough to remember the rhetoric about the Trans Alaska pipeline making us energy independent and creating 20,000 jobs. Too bad prices continued to go up.....

Trans Canada is a Canadienne company anywho.
m
0
l
January 20, 2012 12:28:16 AM

Wanamingo the thing with the jobs right now is that the oil has to be refined to a certain extent to make through the pipelines that are already in place. With the new pipeline that refining process would be entirely done in the states. That would produce lots of jobs but not the amount that they say. Also with the oilsands yes it is an ugly process. The water and power usage is huge but there has been a lot of research and new technology is vastly improving it. They've started to be able to reuse some of the waste water and there is some new experimental equipment that is supposed to be used to speed up cleaning the tailings ponds, more like lakes but they call them ponds. I work up there regularly and have seen first hand a lot of this. I'm not saying anything about it being a beautiful place in any which way I just feel that the media, as usual, blows it up more that it is. The regulations up there are almost frustating at times. If I spill any oil, coolant, diesel, etc while working on an engine we have to dig the dirt around around it and write a report. I've spent the last decade working with logging companies, coal mines, and oilfield companies and I have to say the coal mines are the worst. Look at Black Thunder Mine in the Wyoming and the amount of land they've destroyed. Grand Cache coal here in Alberta has dug down half a mountain.
Most people up here could really care less about the keystone pipeline because on one hand we will lose some jobs but on the other hand the oil and gas industry up here is looking at nearly a 100,000, across western canada, person labor shortage. It's gotten to the point where there are companies that just work in bringing in immigrants from other countries just to fill the void. It's to the point where I've given up even finding another apprentice after looking for 3 months and that's offering $25 an hour for a first year and $40 for a journeyman. The last one I got, who has been great, we paid for his 3000km move and helped him find a place. I got off topic here but if any of you need a job move up here, it's cold but you'll never be stressed about finding a job. Also Trans Canada is a canadian company but they contract most of the work out anyways so I'm guessing they'd use american pipeline companies to do most of the american side.
m
0
l
January 20, 2012 1:09:09 AM

Ive had some experience in the oil production trades, it pays well

I think people need to quit reading, or start reading someone like Maek Twain, or someone similar, whos actually gone out there and done it, and not for gain later, but experiencing life.
All this dirty neer do well stuff just lessons my faith in the news media
m
0
l
January 20, 2012 1:31:27 AM

Don't forget about James Cameron badmouthing the oilsands but using a private jet to fly there. And you can't leave out all the hypocrites who buy hybrids because they're " good for the environment" when the production of those batteries create huge amounts of pollution.
m
0
l
January 20, 2012 5:15:34 PM

However you want to cut it. The denial of the permit is a net loss for the US and Canada.
m
0
l
January 20, 2012 10:57:14 PM

I agree oldman. The older I get the more I hate politicians. They seem to screw everything up.
m
0
l
January 25, 2012 8:10:38 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
You guys are getting it all wrong. Obama will approve the permit, just not this year. :) 


DING! This is the truth of the matter, regardless of how you dice it up; oil money, lubing up congress, will get it's way.

JAYDEEJOHN said:

I think people need to quit reading

:lol: 

I'm not sure what you meant by this but it's hard to look at it with any seriousness.

Wip99gt, don't bring hybrids into this, it's a total straw man and have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Any person who has a clue about the tech knows that the battery production is just as, if not more, toxic than petroleum driven vehicles.

However I totally agree with your last statement and have to share this:


OMG, that is entirely debatable considering that Canada is already selling their oil to China, with no stipulations on the trade. I found this out from a friend of mine up in BC and had no idea on the quantities being shipped over, so really, Trans Canada just stands to make more money plain and simple.

Now to take the benefit of the doubt, let's say that this pipeline actually does create more jobs but we'll stay on the conservative end and say 10,000, which is still heavily inflated. That means it would only actually effect unemployment number by less than 1%. I know every little bit helps, and I'll concede that, but it just stands to make the rich richer, nothing new, nothing truly gained.

Ars talks about the fact that nothing is going to change any time soon (in prices), regardless of what discoveries are made, because "peak oil" has already happened, it comes more down to what reserves are economically viable:
Quote:
"We are not running out of oil," the authors argue, "but we are running out of oil that can be produced easily and cheaply." This creates significant delays before any of the new reserves can be tapped, and it limits the amount of oil that can be economically extracted from them.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/weve-hit-pe...

I also dug up a couple cartoons that caught my eye as of late, this one from politico:



This one from NPR, although originally on politico:


They speak for themselves. :) 

Oh, and this is directly from the Washington Post link that Wanamingo posted:
Quote:
A TransCanada statement Sept. 30 said the project would be “stimulating over 14,400 person years of employment” in Oklahoma alone. It cited a study by Ray Perryman, a Texas-based consultant to TransCanada, saying the pipeline would create “250,000 permanent jobs for U.S. workers.”

But Perryman was including a vast number of jobs far removed from the industry. Using that technique in a report on the impact of wind farms, Perryman counted jobs for dancers, choreographers and speech therapists.


Garbage in, garbage out.



PS
Wanamingo that Cornell University link actually takes us to Urban Outfitters, can you correct that as I'd like to read it. Thanks man!
m
0
l
January 26, 2012 12:22:00 AM

Yeah I did get a little out of topic with the hybrid car thing. My neighbors always brag about theirs so it's always in the back of my mind.
How the hell to they get 250,000 jobs out of a pipeline and a couple of refineries? I don't understand how someone could even say that with a straight face. I do see a realistic 10 to 15k jobs out of it. I don't think that many would be permanent though.
It's disgusting to see the actual profits of the oil companies and also the amount the oil sands projects are subsidized by the feds. I like the first comic because it's been in the news up here about members of parliament pensions. The country puts in about $23 per every one the politician puts in. I wish I got even a 1/4 of that for mine.
m
0
l
January 26, 2012 12:28:30 AM

My comment was aimed at what people consider decent infos
Read Asimovs foundation trilogy, youll see where Im going with this
m
0
l
June 24, 2012 10:25:37 AM

Best answer selected by Nikorr.
m
0
l
!