Obama: No on oil pipeline, more review needed

Why don't you tell us all about it, Dan?

On your own seed.

Solyndra didn't have the capacity of taking out 30% of the worlds grain production because because of it's potential toxic impact to a major aquifer.

Besides... Anyone that thinks that this pipeline will do anything to reduce the cost of gas at the pump doesn't understand the international oil market.

Gee, so the texas owners of Canadian Oil WON'T be able to ship that oil direct to China, while creating 5000 temp jobs and maybe one HUNDRED permanent jobs.

Instead, they'll still have to ship it to the Midwest oil refineries and gas prices in the upper midwest will still be 40 cents LOWER per gallon than they would be if the pipeline was built.

Sounds GREAT to me, anything that screws over greedy texas scum and helps MY state is ok by me.

60 day window? The pipeline proposal was submitted 3 years ago. Hilarious. He also once again stated even the republican governor of Kansas was against the pipeline... let's see what the Governor actually has to say:

Heineman tells the online Governor's Journal, "I don’t understand why [Obama] just doesn’t say yes," saying that the Nebraska segment could easily be constructed last while the state figures out an alternate route

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/on-keystone-nebraskas-heineman-is-not-a-no-111327.html

Imagine seeing a line on a satmap for would be terrorists to target,

My question is why go from north to south raping virgin land, when a refinery can easily be built near its source and create jobs while building one.

Why would the US pay for refineries in Canada agagnu?

Why not put a petroleum plant up in North Dakota and get it out of hurricane prone LA and TX. Then we’d have 1 more plant to produce gas and oil with, but then the excuse to gouge the public with prices increases after one would be gone.

Besides putting it in would make a single target for terrorist and also give a straight shot for Mexican truck drivers and illegal’s to gain access to US and Canada.

Why not put a petroleum plant up in North Dakota

Because the dems wont apporve that either that has been tried many time s before but liberals have been blocking any new refineries any chance they get

JesseAz, The Governor of Kansas has never been against the pipe line, because he is firmly in the pocket of the Koch brothers. Nebraska and Kansas is not the same state dude. And as far as I'm concerned President did the right thing in denying this very bad idea. The Koch brothers can go strait to hell.

Obama is a complete idiot. Before this, he was an incomplete idiot. Congratulations Obama on supporting Solyndra costing the American taxpayer 535 million dollars and further hampering real jobs and economic growth. Obama needs to get a new 8 ball... one not made in China.

How about we just invest in replacing oil as an energy source and stop destroying the planets ecosystems?

It is time to use our collective intellect to our benefit.

I think we should be aggressively looking at and developing alternative energy. Complacency is really going to hurt us as a country. Of course it is a big pay off for fossil fuel industries. Not so much for us. Consider the fact that Exxon has exceeded 10 billion dollars in profits for a single quarter, do you think they would do whatever is necessary to continue that trend?

Sounds GREAT to me, anything that screws over greedy texas scum and helps MY state is ok by me.

not necessarily just because the oil is refined in a state nothing stops the oil company from shipping it outside that state or even the country. also what dictates the price of oil is speculation than supply and demand.

Dennis - That argument is limited. Obama supported alternative energy in part because of Global Warming. Even Rush L. doesn't spout off anymore about Global Warming is false. China greatly supported solar panels and drove the US companies out of business. Now they make essentially all the panels for the whole world. What is each Republican candidates view on Global Warming?..it is a very weak link. It's the middle of January and many Canadian border states have not had a snowfall yet.

Damn straight Navy… water is a far more important resource and should override the pipeline. All that’s needed is a simple change of route and time for further study. It is not worth the risk. Ask the people on Cape Cod if it’s worth the risk. The government poisoned an aquifer there and they are in the midst of a 10 year fight with a poisoned plume that is still ongoing, to no avail might I add. Any leak in the pipeline will create these plumes which are all but impossible to fix or stop.

Ah, jesse azz, you would think that eventually you would post something that was factual. Lets get started; Item 1, Heineman is the Republican Governor of Nebraska, not Kansas, I know they both have "k's" and "s's" but they are not the same, but no big deal. Item 2, you only posted a very small portion of his comments. Most of his comments were against the pipeline until December, when the GOP came down on his neck, then like a good little soldier he lock stepped with the party. Hmm, perhaps he is getting a new yacht out of the deal.

Now to be fair, Heineman was only trying to get it rerouted, not stopped, but by doing so, it starts the environmental review process all over again, at least as far as the new route is concerned. As this new route was only proposed in the last few months, not three years ago, it only seems fitting that someone would actually take a look at the new route and determine it's impact on the rest of the US, not just on the oil pigs in Texas.

I think we should be aggressively looking at and developing alternative energy. Complacency is really going to hurt us as a country. Of course it is a big pay off for fossil fuel industries. Not so much for us. Consider the fact that Exxon has exceeded 10 billion dollars in profits for a single quarter, do you think they would do whatever is necessary to continue that trend?

Yeah but think of all the taxes we collect from those profits. Oh wait, that is $0. Nevermind.

Keystone XL Pipeline Jobs Claims:

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9c843621-3a05-4289-80bb-7b2ed66df598

Dan-33

Where was the "arbitrary nature" and reviews when it came to Solyndra?

Solyndra has about as much to do with the XL Pipeline as Halliburton.

Instead of carrying common crude oil, the Keystone XL pipeline would carry thick, toxic bitumen for refining in the Gulf states, effectively transporting pollution from Canada to the United States," reads the NRDC report..

Neil Cavuto tried 6 ways from hell to blame Obama....but the GOVERNOR whose STATE needs to divert the pipeline explained OVER & OVER that the FEDERAL REGULATIONS and the PEOPLE concerned about toxic bitumen polluting their waters is the ONLY reason for the delay.

"Solyndra"??....stories:

http://thinkprogress.org/?s=solyndra&x=5&y=6

The fact is that this issue could have been avoided by changing the route but I'm sure many of the project's backers bought much of that land and do not want to lose out on their investment.

One of our country's greatest assets is our massive watersheds - and the agricultural and strategic capacity it offers and that is not worth trading off for a quick buck that will be invested in China or India anyway. Far as that goes - why not put this pipeline out to Duluth or Portland? The last decade has sent some incredible storms to Texas and Louisiana and perhaps we should invest in local refining or another site altogether and do away with these outmoded refineries just awaiting the next storm surge?

Personally Being tired of buying diesel at nearly 4 dollars a gallon, knowing full well that cost is passed on.

Is more than proof positive that is the reason our economy is suffering.

Gotta love me some margins though.

Gotta keep the oil high to float them bonds.

LOL!

"The left has two primary complaints about the pipeline, neither of which stands up to scrutiny. First, they are trying to paint the project as an unprecedented danger to the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. The aquifer is not particularly vulnerable to any sort of spill, even in the most outlandish scenarios. There are already oil pipelines over the aquifer, including a fully functioning section of the existing Keystone project which delivers oil all the way to Cushing, Oklahoma. Apart from the pipelines, vast amounts of oil are being stored or transported over this sensitive aquifer while you read this article.

Trucks, rail cars, storage facilities, even the notoriously leaky buried gas tanks at convenience stores are sitting on top of the aquifer. The concern over one additional pipeline with its accompanying bonds, safety features, and political attention is meaningless beside the activities which have proceeded there up to now with only minimal celebrity outrage.

The other concern is the project's carbon impact. As an example of the hyperbole driving this debate, NASA scientist James Hansen said the pipeline would be "game over" for controlling climate change and signed a letter referred to the project as a "carbon bomb."

According to the State Department's report, the highest estimates for the carbon output from this project would be equal to the development of 2-4 more coal-fired power plants. That's it. Hansen's overblown analysis assumes that the pipeline would lead to the exploitation of every molecule of tar sands, something that we could potentially do at full production by about the year 3316."

Leave it up to liberals to lie lie lie and lie but they dont give a @!$%# about Americans only their own agenda

follow the money
"Solyndra"??....stories:

http://thinkprogress.org/?s=solyndra&x=5&y=6

Good story below from your link.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/17/405076/koch-funded-americans-for-prosperity-spends-6-million-on-another-bogus-solyndra-campaign/

rick-673281

Leave it up to liberals to lie lie lie and lie but they dont give a @!$%# about Americans only their own agenda

That's just @!$%#ing hilarious coming from someone on the 'right' while talking about an oil pipeline. Rich with irony.

The PEOPLE OF NEBRASKA have said it makes no sense to approve the project before the full DIVERTED route is known.

They also take issue with the purported benefits of the project, saying that the jobs created have been inflated and that the project would have little impact on energy independence because the oil would be exported.

You just can't snap your fingers and MOVE a pipeline because inverstors are antsy....yes, a study has to be done. Deal with it.

On December 11, 2011 a pipeline carrying petroleum from Kansas City, Mo., to Omaha Nebraska ruptured, spilling an estimated 252,000 gallons.

So cool your (R) jets...and let's do this thing safely.

@RI Mom, the December 11th accident in Nemaha, Nebraska was smaller than the initial media reports. The total fuel lost from that pipeline was estimated at 2,834 barrels or 119,028 gallons.

Here's an article about that spill: Magellan: Nemaha oil spill smaller than first thought

Pipelines are one of the safest ways to move crude oil or finished fuel products. Far less crude oil and fuel is spilled from pipelines than from ships, trains or trucks.

On December 11, 2011 a pipeline carrying petroleum from Kansas City, Mo., to Omaha Nebraska ruptured, spilling an estimated 252,000 gallons.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

The aquifer is not particularly vulnerable to any sort of spill, even in the most outlandish scenarios.

Even if that is true, the environment is still in danger if there is a disaster like the one in Battle Creek, MI which spilled 800,000 gallons of oil.

http://newscastmedia.com/michiganoilspill.htm

Newscast Media Battle Creek Mich-- The Lakehead System Oil line carrying oil Sarnia, Ontario has leaked over 800,000 gallons of oil, endangering wildlife and birds in southwestern Michigan. The pipe belongs to Calgary-based Enbridge Inc., and carries crude oil from Griffith, Ind., to Sarnia.

This is all political. Obama does not want anything to do with oil. He would rather pay oil dollars to terrorist nations then have us independent from them. Now, there are hundreds of thousands of miles via oil pipeline in this country already. You people have no idea of this otherwise it would be a no brainer. Do any of you ever see an oil fuel truck at an airport? I'm not talking the ones that fuel the planes but the ones that deliver the jet fuel. The answer is "NO" because it is piped in from miles away and that is just one example of underground pipelines in this country. This is just another example of how Obama doesn't know what "WE THE PEOPLE NEED" . He just wants to reduce this country to the level of Greece.

Phil, you realize this oil will not help the US in any way ? It will raise the cost of farming and trucking, eliminating some jobs.

We will collect no taxes on the refined product as they will take advantage of the same tax laws that allow corporations to pay no tax on money made by outsourcing.

Both of these statements come directly from the company's permit application.

Phil

Obama does not want anything to do with oil. He would rather pay oil dollars to terrorist nations then have us independent from them.

So you think the only way to achieve energy independence is to use an ever diminishing supply of oil. It's not. And as much as you disdain Obama maybe the bulk of comments here can clue you in to the fact many of us want to be independent from fossil fuels.

Phil-1006700; Post #1.29

^^^^ So far, that's the dumbest accusation I've read today.

BOO!

The green lobby is destroying this country. Global warming, now this. One of the main complaints they make (besides Nebraska), is that in Canada the production of the tar sands will add to greenhouse gases. As if this decision would have any impact on that. The production will still take place, the product will just go elsewhere. They have no grasp on logic and these are the people we have allowed to take control of our government. If gasoline hits $5 this summer, which I anticipate, Obama will get plenty, if not most, of the blame.

What Republican issue / bill / philosophy shouldn't be reviewed for a more thorough scrutiny? When did a Republican come up with anything that didn't screw the pooch for many others? When did Big Oil do anything that didn't pad their wallets while lightening all others?

Zero, don't let facts get in the way, the pipeline will actually raise prices in the US. If gas hits $5/gal it will have nothing to do with this pieline or any other Obama policy. If you are intelligent, you know this but facts get in the way of a good rant, don't they?

"The left has two primary complaints about the pipeline, neither of which stands up to scrutiny. First, they are trying to paint the project as an unprecedented danger to the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska.

Rick. I think you are supposed to block quote when you copy and past your arguments. Should we all go to our favorite sites and copy and past a rebuttal ?

Fumler - You have to say it louder - even I can't hear you....

Sounds like someone who held onto his TC stock just 1 day to long. LMAO

For those interested the Canadians are building a new refinery.

; http://www.albertacanada.com/uk/documents/CarbonCaptureRefineryNR_02-25-11.pdf

To see how most of this is structured and note they are building carbon capture for re use and pumping back into the ground.

This won't be ready until 2014. There are a couple similar projects being considered.

Reference: http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/BRIK.asp

Upgrades and such.

There is a pipeline under construction for oil from the port of Bellingham WA to another part of the Keystone system for moving Alaskan oil inland to the refineries with more capacity.

The Canadian government currently cannot construct oil shipping and transport through much of it's western coastlines because of ongoing litigation from the "First Nations" tribes who strongly oppose the BC coastline having the same problems as Valdez Alaska.

As if this decision would have any impact on that. The production will still take place, the product will just go elsewhere.

If we get serious about energy independence, the world won't need this oil. That is the ultimate goal. The logic is invest the money into the future instead of dumping it into the past.

But try telling that to an Oil man...

But try telling that to an Oil man...

We really don't have to anymore than we had to convince the horse breeders and trainers that the automobile was going to replace their businesses. They can get on board or become a relic of the past.

What we need to do is show the average person that these alternatives work for them. To do this we need to get these technologies installed in every community in the country and have people passing on the results by word of mouth. A halving of your energy consumption and selling excess generation back to the grid will do more to make the oil man obsolete than anything else we can do.

Tim @ #1.43

Very well said and true. You're on a roll lately dude. Keep it up!

What we need to do is show the average person that these alternatives work for them.

Unfortunately, you, along with everyone else, are completely overlooking the thousands of petroleum based products besides fuel.

A 42 gallon barrel of oil produces 19.4 gallons of gas. Any idea what the other 22.8 gallons are used for?

Unfortunately, you, along with everyone else, are completely overlooking the thousands of petroleum based products besides fuel.

I am not overlooking this fact in the least. And 42 gallons of crude results in 44 gallons of products after distillation and cracking. As a chemist, I am well aware of the myriad of uses for petroleum. That is actually a major part of my opposition to using it as a fuel. It is a limited resource and we should not be sending it up in smoke. For others, here is a breakdown on a barrel of oil from r3sciences.

The largest share of the 42 gallons of crude oil ends up as a finished motor gasoline. Motor gasoline accounts for 19.65 gallons (~ 47%) of the finished products produced from a barrel of crude oil. Next is distillate fuel or diesel at 10.03 gallons (~ 24%) . A distant third is jet fuel at only 4.07 gallons per barrel (~ 10%) of crude. Residual oil is typically around 1.72 gallons per barrel (~ 4%).

Other petroleum products that are created from a barrel of oil during the refining process include: still gas, petroleum coke, liquified refinery gas, asphalt and various oils for lubricants, kerosene, waxes and other miscellaneous products. These "other" hydrocarbon products account for the final 15% of the barrel or around 6.53 gallons of the 42 gallon barrel.

Notice that over 85% is burned as one form of fuel or another. I would much rather see that more than 85% we currently burn used as a starting point for other chemicals. This would mean that we could reduce daily production by more than 85%, if we used alternative energy sources. With that reduction, why would we need sand or shale oil or oil from the middle east?

Dan-33.....how many products are made with fresh water? Can man survive without water? It is the aquifer that is being put to risk.

Weren't we promised that the Alaska Pipeline was going to cure our Energy Security ills when it was be schuckstered(sic) to all of us suckers? And then the oil was shipped to Asia until the word got out, we got mad, and the laws xhanged in order to stop that?

And NOW the Alaska Pipeline is running at less than 3/4 capacity?!?!?!

The @!$%# will never end until it is entirely too late for Mankind, if that tipping point has not already come and gone...

I'm guessing it has, unfortunately.

Yes, the Alaska Pipeline was to be the "cure all' to our energy problems just as this pipeline will be. Truth be told, the Alaska Pipeline never put a dent in the price of gas in the U.S. They even put a second pipeline in Alaska but still no help on the price of gas. How many times do we have to be seen as a fool before we admit that we are indeed a fool.

On the whole, we are getting more and more gullible as a race, I believe. Certainly in the United States I can see this in full blown glory.

"See my 7th new iPhone in 5 years!?!?! I can't wait to take my Bic Lighter app and use at the Lady Gaga Show!!!!"

Real f'ing advancements vital to our current and future existence and prosperity...

JayMack -

Take a LONG, hard look at the map posted in #6.17 by CommonCents.

You want to cry about "oh, the aquifer"...how many THOUSANDS of miles of pipeline currently run across the USA right now?

This has @!$%# to do with the aquifer and everything to do with POLITICS.

This is good news. I know an other administration would let it be built.

I think I tend to agree with ZeroX up in the comments -

They have no grasp on logic and these are the people we have allowed to take control of our government. If gasoline hits $5 this summer, which I anticipate, Obama will get plenty, if not most, of the blame.

The bottom line is - if the US doesn't want it, Canada can send it elsewhere, such as China. USA is still among the largest consumers of gas - are we prepared to start walking instead?

It already is going elsewhere, no matter who builds the pipeline. According to owner's own website, this oil is "not for domestic markets", it is to be shipped abroad. The building of the pipeline will in fact raise the cost of fuel in the Midwest. This is a given and has been documented. Quit listening to the idiots and do your own research. You will soon see that this pipeline is for the edification and profit of the shareholders only, the largest one being the Koch brothers.

Very good.

Best thing I've heard all year !!

Yeah, to hell with all the jobs it would have created.

First Obama tell us there are plenty of shovel ready jobs, but now we know that was a lie. Now there is one and he passes it up.

Well done sir.

What jobs. You mean the up to 5000 temporary jibs or the 100 or so permanent jobs? How about the tens of thousands of permanent jobs this investment would create in made in renewable energy? I prefer the latter, especially when these industries actually pay taxes.

Yeah, to hell with all the jobs it would have created.

Love the rhetoric! We'll all live in a thick soup of pollution - but hey! we'll have jobs! Now add exorbitant healthcare AND zero compensation/assistance for long-term health issues and we've got ourselves a Republican Mecca!

No thanks.

Iceman25-835270

Yeah, to hell with all the jobs it would have created.

^^^ It wouldn't have created many jobs, so hell yes, reject that crap!!!! :)

These worthless repugs want this pipeline and say it brings jobs?! Sure, it brings digging jobs, but that's it. Not everybody's a pipeliner. And if anybody knows anything about an industrial job, you'd all know the only people that would get this job is anyone with field experience, and the Rwing claims that this is a solution.

One word to that: bullsh!t. :)

Hey repugs, how about giving EVERYBODY work, then let the people think about allowing the pipeline to happen. >:(

Iceman25-835270

First I suspect the jobs estimates are way overblown but basically that's not what's important to me. What price jobs? If the price is trashing the future because we're addicted to oil the price is too high!

Putting this money into distributed solar and wind energy installation would create more, longer lasting jobs, reduce our air and water pollution, and increase our independence from oil producing countries and an energy oligarchy. $7 billion could make 175,000 homes energy independent.

Please refer to 1.4. The Governor is not a No. Or read his own words:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/on-keystone-nebraskas-heineman-is-not-a-no-111327.html

Does the pipeline run through the Governors back yard???? He is back peddling....

It's all he's got, Wizeguy...over and over and over again.

Do you understand how commodities work? Commodities = price of commodity plus transportation/storage costs. It would be cheaper for the US in costs to send the oil through the pipeline to our very own refineries than to import refined oil.

The evidence is exactly that the whole purpose of the pipeline was to ship direct to China.

What the greedy pigs in the oil industry AREN'T saying is that much of that oil ALREADY goes to refineries innth eupper Midwest thru EXISTING pipelines, and that keeps gas prices a good 40 cents per gallon LOWER than they would other wise be in this part of the country.

Jess, the oil from Canada ALREADY goes to US REFINERIES, as any intelligent midwesterner could tell you.

No the intention of the oil companies was to ship it down to LA and TX to the tax free zone so they can refine it into diesel fuel then ship the refined oil to South America and to China. Anotherreason they wanted to ship it down there was British Columbia told these oil companies to take a hike, because they didn't want to have to clean up the oil companies mess.

@Ed-2022915, there are at least two falsehoods in your post.

First, Canada is in NAFTA, so there is no import duty on Canadian oil. The oil companies can refine and export this from any refinery and not pay import taxes on the oil.

The truth is that this oil would also not be subject to import duties if it is refined in those Texas "Free trade zones" and then shipped into the United States. The reason they are shipping it to those refineries is because this is low grade, oil sands oil and not every refinery can handle low quality oil like this. The refineries in Texas are equipped to process this stuff.

As far as British Columbia is concerned, the Canadians are already exploring a pipeline westward to deliver this oil which we just turned down to ports on the Pacific coast of Canada for export. If TransCanada wants to spend the money to develop a route and plans, they aren't as likely to go through the United States now that they've been rejected once.

The Canadians will develop their resources and export their oil. The question is, do Americans want the jobs and the lower market prices for Gasoline from this, or do we want to compete with China and other developing countries for this.

The President just said thousands of construction jobs, thousands more support jobs (manufacturing the pipe and materials for the pipelines) as well as hundreds or thousands of operations jobs for the pipeline and the work refining that oil into finished products are "not in the national interest."

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

Common, you are confused. NAFDA has nothing to do with this. It is the stated goal of the backers of this pipeline to have the oil refined into diesel and shipped to Europe, south America, and china. It will actually make prices for our farmers increase because they will be reducing the oversupply of heavy crude to the Midwest refineries. These are all facts presented in the original application for the pipeline build.

Hundreds of thousands of operations jobs, are you smoking crack? If that pipeline needed that kind of oversight and maintenance we are far better off without it.

hundreds or thousands of operations jobs

I heard it was a billion jobs. lol

I guess, when you lie, go big or stay home, eh?

No matter how many physical Facts we submit, the Pipeline Shills will deny all reason, concern or foresight due to the very limited nature of a Shill to give a damned about Facts, our Environment, the Future, or anything but arguing.

Sorry to not add more to all of the examples already given above, but there is no use in repeating it to those unwilling to check out the Big Picture.

My thanks to all that do so.

Peace

@photoguy69, first, you completely misquote me, then, based on your misquote, you say I'm smoking crack? Really?

Hundreds of thousands of operations jobs, are you smoking crack?

Where did I say it would be hundreds of thousands of operations jobs? You made that up!

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

No, I misread "of" rather than "or" . I accept my mistake. Even so, they won't require thousands of operational people. How do we know the steel will be made in the US?Or any of the other materials used in the construction? I do not doubt there will be short term jobs created but this isn't really a long term job creator.

How many jobs will be lost because of the higher diesel prices if this pipeline is built? You are focused on one side of the equation.

Common Cents

The question is, do Americans want the jobs and the lower market prices for Gasoline from this, or do we want to compete with China and other developing countries for this.

False dilemma. There are other ways to create jobs and energy.

@mf-3735877, I'm fine with developing other ways to create energy and jobs. I'm an "All of the Above" kind of guy. Let the marketplace decide, with all players on an even field.

So, tell me, why shouldn't we have these thousands of jobs (no matter which estimate you believe) funded entirely by private investment?

@photoguy69 wrote:

How many jobs will be lost because of the higher diesel prices if this pipeline is built? You are focused on one side of the equation.

Last time I checked, the law of supply and demand says if you increase supply, the price goes down, not up. Where are you getting your information?

This pipeline will add 700,000 barrels a month of crude supplies from Canada, plus another 100,000 to 200,000 barrels of US oil from eastern Montana and western North Dakota. More supply will reduce prices.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

@common.Cents

please research the term "crack margin" in relationship to refinery output and oil prices.

Then come back and see why the statement that supply and demand drives a commodity traded by speculation has no impact. If the margin lowers the refineries just shift to a product that pays better and lower supplies until demand raises the speculation valuation enough to rekindle the margin. Oil supply isn't a direct correlative anymore. Not for the last 4 years has the market seen supply gluts and non price drops. The markets are driven by traders without any direct contact with the distribution or manufacturing or consumption of fuels.

common.cents...lol,you wish. Obviously you are also willing to risk a water source for 8 states,people drinking it,animals drinking it,crops using it???

Manmade anything is not 100% fail-proof.

Now,when the pipeline bursts and big oil denies blah,blah,blah happened because of them and they call in the government to clean up the mess which they created,then what?

Will you be the first to complain that bread is $10/loaf because the grain is gone? $10/gallon of gas because the corn is gone and ethanol isn't as available as it was?

Just because it doesn't affect you directly NOW,doesn't mean the entire nation is immune from this disaster-in-motion.

Please,at least have some consideration and respect for other people who are greatly affected by this decision not if,but when something goes wrong. THAT is why people hate derrr gop. That is living Christianity,not just saying the words as derrr gop does.

And don't give me any crap about POTENTIAL disaster(s). dublyah cut back taxes because of PROJECTED surplus and now everyone's F**KED. Same scenario,different factors. If you truly can put a dollar amount on people,animals,nature,and livelihoods,then May God Have Mercy On You.

Common Cents

why shouldn't we have these thousands of jobs (no matter which estimate you believe) funded entirely by private investment

Because jobs that unnecessarily perpetuate our addiction to fossil fuels and environmental destruction aren't worth it no matter who funds them.

I appreciate the fact that Obama wants to do his due diligence on behalf of those states that will be impacted by this pipeline. There are no do overs one this is in place.

@TPisFORtheBATHROOM101, you do realize that we already have about 170,000 miles of pipelines in this country carrying liquid petroleum products, right?

We already have pipelines close to water resources. They operate without poisoning everyone in the country today. One more pipeline which adds less than 1% to the total pipeline mileage in this country isn't going to destroy "a water source for 8 states,people drinking it,animals drinking it,crops using it???"

Check this map of existing pipelines: Crude oil and refined product pipeline map (PDF).

I notice that even Nebraska has pipelines crossing their state right now. Some of those are in the area of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

Pipelines are actually one of the safest methods of transporting both crude oil and refined petroleum products.

@mf-3735877 wrote:

Because jobs that unnecessarily perpetuate our addiction to fossil fuels and environmental destruction aren't worth it no matter who funds them.

How are you doing with that addiction to fossil fuels? Did you give up your car for a bicycle yet? Have you disconnected your home from those evil power plants? (especially the coal fired ones) How is it that you're posting on the Internet without using any fossil fuels? Just wondering?

Also, the rest of the world isn't so excited about giving up fossil fuels. Canada will develop this oil, and it will be sold, and it will be used for energy somewhere. Stopping this pipeline doesn't stop the development of those energy resources. We just make energy more expensive here in the USA while the rest of the world gets those resources.

For the record, I have a vehicle that gets about 50 mpg, and I've been driving that vehicle since the late 1980's. Last year, I invested in a solar powered charger for the golf cart that I use around the neighborhood. I'm also putting in some passive solar heating/cooling features on my home this year. I probablly use less fossil fuels than most people on here.

Still, I do recognize that we'll need fossil fuels for another few decades at a minimum.

@GA Girl-718836 wrote:

I appreciate the fact that Obama wants to do his due diligence on behalf of those states that will be impacted by this pipeline. There are no do overs one this is in place.

The due diligence has already been done. The Obama administration studied this thing for over 3 years. Actually, the studies began in the George W. Bush adminsitration.

Nebraska wants to reroute a very small part of this overall system, and the state has put up funds for an environmental study of the revised route. That can proceed. The original route had an acceptable environmental impact study. But Nebraska wants an even "safer" route. More power to them.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

Nebraska wants to reroute a very small part of this overall system, and the state has put up funds for an environmental study of the revised route. That can proceed. The original route had an acceptable environmental impact study. But Nebraska wants an even "safer" route. More power to them.

And that is the point of Obama's decision. It is not a ruling on the pipeline. It is a ruling on the arbitrary deadline set by Congress as part of a budget related bill. When the states that are impacted have completed their studies and all the alternatives are known, is the time to make the decision. Not when a date is set for political reasons.

CommonCents: We already have pipelines close to water resources

So why add insult to injury or push our luck? We can not do much about what is there but can with what might come

I do recognize that we'll need fossil fuels for another few decades at a minimum.

Of course but this fuel is not destined for the US on the refiners at the Gulf Coast, then off to China.

Of course but this fuel is not destined for the US on the refiners at the Gulf Coast, then off to China.

Yes, and one of the reasons Canada wants to build the pipeline in the US is that Canadians don't want a pipeline in their country either.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Northern+Gateway+pipeline+decision+will+delayed+until+late+2013+panel/5820686/story.html

Oliver stressed that a diversification of Canada’s markets to Asia, in the wake of TransCanada Corp.’s failure to get quick U.S. approval for the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast, is “fundamental” to Canada’s national interest.

“We believe that we have to have access to Asian markets for our energy products, for our oil and gas,” he said. “That is clearly in our national interest. We’ll survive without it, but not nearly in the same way

Canadians don't want a pipeline in their country either.

Funny...they already HAVE pipelines in their country - look at the link in CommonCents post (#6.17).

Care to rephrase that, Carol?

Care to rephrase that, Carol?

Sure. Canadians don't want the Northern Gateway pipeline to the B.C. coast to be built. Is

that better, Dan?

CALGARY — The joint review panel hearing submissions on the controversial Northern Gateway oil pipeline to the B.C. coast will take a year longer than expected to deliver its final report.

In a projected schedule released late Tuesday, the three-member panel said it “would anticipate releasing the environmental assessment report in the fall of 2013 and its final decision on the project around the end of 2013.”

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Northern+Gateway+pipeline+decision+will+delayed+until+late+2013+panel/5820686/story.html#ixzz1k1hlZ0wd

So a THREE member panel speaks for "All Canadians"??

Wow.

In other words they do not want to go through the Canadian Rockies to the west coast of Canada. I can see the possible headaches there. Then I am sure that many Canadians do not want tar-sands oil spilling all over their beautiful mountains and coastline.

@Tim S.-560036, have you read the actual bill that the President signed back in December. Your claim makes no sense at all when you read the actual law.

And that is the point of Obama's decision. It is not a ruling on the pipeline. It is a ruling on the arbitrary deadline set by Congress as part of a budget related bill. When the states that are impacted have completed their studies and all the alternatives are known, is the time to make the decision. Not when a date is set for political reasons.

There was no deadline on the Nebraska revisions. Claiming to the contrary is dishonest. If the only issue was the routing through Nebraska, the President could have approved the project overall, and there were provisions that would have allowed a review period (no deadline specified) for the Nebraska routing.

Here's the full text of the law that the President signed back in December. This is the entire section related to Keystone XL pipeline. I haven't left anything out.

SEC. 501. Permit for Keystone XL pipeline.

(a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (b), not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall grant a permit under Executive Order No. 13337 (3 U.S.C. 301 note; relating to issuance of permits with respect to certain energy-related facilities and land transportation crossings on the international boundaries of the United States) for the Keystone XL pipeline project application filed on September 19, 2008 (including amendments).

(b) Exception.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall not be required to grant the permit under subsection (a) if the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest.

(2) REPORT.—If the President determines that the Keystone XL pipeline is not in the national interest under paragraph (1), the President shall, not later than 15 days after the date of the determination, submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of Representatives a report that provides a justification for determination, including consideration of economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, and environmental factors.

(3) EFFECT OF NO FINDING OR ACTION.—If a determination is not made under paragraph (1) and no action is taken by the President under subsection (a) not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline described in subsection (a) that meets the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) shall be in effect by operation of law.

(c) Requirements.—The permit granted under subsection (a) shall require the following:

(1) The permittee shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws (including regulations) and all applicable industrial codes regarding the construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.

(2) The permittee shall obtain all requisite permits from Canadian authorities and relevant Federal, State, and local governmental agencies.

(3) The permittee shall take all appropriate measures to prevent or mitigate any adverse environmental impact or disruption of historic properties in connection with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the United States facilities.

(4) For the purpose of the permit issued under subsection (a) (regardless of any modifications under subsection (d))—

(A) the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, satisfies all requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f);

(B) any modification required by the Secretary of State to the Plan described in paragraph (5)(A) shall not require supplementation of the final environmental impact statement described in that paragraph; and

(C) no further Federal environmental review shall be required.

(5) The construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities shall be in all material respects similar to that described in the application described in subsection (a) and in accordance with—

(A) the construction, mitigation, and reclamation measures agreed to by the permittee in the Construction Mitigation and Reclamation Plan found in appendix B of the final environmental impact statement issued by the Secretary of State on August 26, 2011, subject to the modification described in subsection (d);

(B) the special conditions agreed to between the permittee and the Administrator of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the Department of Transportation found in appendix U of the final environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A);

(C) if the modified route submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) crosses the Sand Hills region, the measures agreed to by the permittee for the Sand Hills region found in appendix H of the final environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A); and

(D) the stipulations identified in appendix S of the final environmental impact statement described in subparagraph (A).

(6) Other requirements that are standard industry practice or commonly included in Federal permits that are similar to a permit issued under subsection (a).

(d) Modification.—The permit issued under subsection (a) shall require—

(1) the reconsideration of routing of the Keystone XL pipeline within the State of Nebraska;

(2) a review period during which routing within the State of Nebraska may be reconsidered and the route of the Keystone XL pipeline through the State altered with any accompanying modification to the Plan described in subsection (c)(5)(A); and

(3) the President—

(A) to coordinate review with the State of Nebraska and provide any necessary data and reasonable technical assistance material to the review process required under this subsection; and

(B) to approve the route within the State of Nebraska that has been submitted to the Secretary of State by the Governor of Nebraska.

(e) Effect of no approval.—If the President does not approve the route within the State of Nebraska submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) not later than 10 days after the date of submission, the route submitted by the Governor of Nebraska under subsection (d)(3)(B) shall be considered approved, pursuant to the terms of the permit described in subsection (a) that meets the requirements of subsection (c) and this subsection, by operation of law.

(f) Private property savings clause.—Nothing in this section alters the Federal, State, or local processes or conditions in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that are necessary to secure access from private property owners to construct the Keystone XL pipeline.

I added the emphasis for section 501(d).

The 60 day deadline was to approve the project. There was already a federally approved route through Nebraska. The state of Nebraska wanted to do their own environmental studies on an alternate route. The President could have approved the permit subject to modification when Nebraska had a new route with the appropriate environmental impact done. There was no deadline for that environmental impact study in the law.

The President rejected the entire application for the pipeline. We don't yet know why that is. The law also requires the President to make a Report to the Congress (which will most likely be made public) explaining why he rejected the entire project. That report will provide a justification for his determination, including consideration of economic, employment, energy security, foreign policy, trade, and environmental factors.

This project could have been approved, the southern (undisputed) portions of the pipeline could start construction immediately, and the route through Nebraska could be determined, studied and approved at a later time. If the only issue was the route through Nebraska, that's the way it should have been handled.

Obama rejected the entire project, instead. It seems obvious that there were issues other than the Nebraska route that lead to the overall rejection.

We'll see what that report says.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

So a THREE member panel speaks for "All Canadians"??

Wow.

Well, if you'd just click on the link, then you would see that there are more than three people in Canada who don't want another pipeline. I'm sure that you already knew that just as well as you know that there are more than three people in American who don't want the Keystone XL pipeline. I guess that to avoid confusion, I should have say that many Canadians don't want another pipeline. Any more questions?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Northern+Gateway+pipeline+decision+will+delayed+until+late+2013+panel/5820686/story.html#ixzz1k1hlZ0wd

The panel is to begin community hearings in Kitimat, B.C., on Jan. 10, listening to all oral evidence from registered interveners first, followed by oral statements from registered participants.

There are 4,300 interveners, Roy said.

“The panel wants to hear from everyone,” she said.

Common Cents @ #6.17

How are you doing with that addiction to fossil fuels? Did you give up your car for a bicycle yet? Have you disconnected your home from those evil power plants? (especially the coal fired ones) How is it that you're posting on the Internet without using any fossil fuels? Just wondering?

Dude, cool it. I didn't say we can quit fossil fuels cold-turkey. I know Canada will develop this oil but we don't have to be enablers. And yes I have currently have a large carbon footprint like most Americans. My points are that oil is a dwindling resource and that its extraction and use are environmentally damaging. It's long past time to move to renewables. And if jobs are the issue my guess is that per dollar invested renewables produce more jobs that building and maintaining pipelines.

To your point on the cost of gas I think it's about time we start paying the real cost. If you cut out the subsidies and take away oil companies' externalization of costs we'd already be past $5/gallon. And if that's not enough to get you fired up I also think there should be a carbon tax.

Good for you too about driving a car that gets 50 mpg (Prius or 60's Beetle?) and all. I drive a Prius, have cut back on miles driven, walk where I can (I can't ride a bike because of a chronic medical issue), grow some of my own food, turn down the thermostat, changed the light bulbs, and chose a 100% renewable electricity provider even though it costs me more. I'm going to install solar panels in the near future. I don't feel all that bad about using a computer and the internet to badger you.

Canada's going to export the oil to Asia.

Once again, Americans make total asses of themselves in the global marketplace.

Obama rejected the entire project, instead. It seems obvious that there were issues other than the Nebraska route that lead to the overall rejection.

Yes he did and did it for the reason of an arbitrarily imposed deadline of 60 days. Whether the Nebraska review is part of that or just an example of how much further study this project still requires is nit picking. There are numerous issues and the circumstances in Nebraska just illuminate that fact. They in no way represent the entirety of the situation.

The 60 day deadline for approval was a purely political maneuver and should be shoved up the ass of Congress and twisted. There are numerous bills before them to stimulate job growth that they delay and ignore and block and then they come up with this politically loaded deadline?. @!$%# them. @!$%# Congress. It is time to send all these pieces of @!$%# home permanently. Preferably, on a rail.

@photoguy69, I finally did some more research, and you've been spreading misinformation here.

@photoguy69 wrote:

It will actually make prices for our farmers increase because they will be reducing the oversupply of heavy crude to the Midwest refineries. These are all facts presented in the original application for the pipeline build.

OK, it had been a while since I read any of the filings from TransCanada. I let these statements you were making slide for a bit. But today, I took some time and downloaded many of the documents and search for some of the information you claim is in the application.

Of course, I haven't found the information you are claiming is in there. I suspect that's because TransCanada hasn't put most of the information you claim comes from TransCanada into their application.

It's really interesting, because there's a lot of statements like what you are saying that were made by opponents of the pipeline during public meetings and through public comments (web and written comments). Some of those opponents claimed to be directly quoting TransCanada's application for the permit. However, the text they were claiming to be quoting did not appear in the actual application from TransCanada. In other words, these people making the public comments were either mistaken or dishonest. Now you are repeating their allegations and attributing that information to TransCanada.

You also presented this untrue statement to others on this discussion. For example:

@photoguy69 wrote:

Phil, you realize this oil will not help the US in any way ? It will raise the cost of farming and trucking, eliminating some jobs.

We will collect no taxes on the refined product as they will take advantage of the same tax laws that allow corporations to pay no tax on money made by outsourcing.

Both of these statements come directly from the company's permit application.

Here's a challenge for you, @photoguy69. Find anyplace in the permit application prepared by TransCanada which contains any information you are claiming "comes directly from the company's permit application."

Just so you understand my point, statements made by third parties at public meetings do not "come directly from the company's permit application." Only information in the actual application prepared and submitted by TransCanada is information that "comes directly from the company's permit application." Unless you can find those statements in the actual permit application or associated documents prepared and submitted by TransCanada, you are being dishonest, or you have been misinformed.

Please, show me where this information is.

Here's a link to the state department site with all the documents about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

U.S. Department of State, Project Documents for the Keystone XL Pipeline application.

Good luck finding that information in documents prepared and submitted by TransCanada.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

Yep just like liberals try and put their no brainer brain fault on to some one else I bet when liberals are constipated they blame that on some one else also.

At least try to make sense when you say something stupid.

Thanks in advance!

Bluekilgoretrout (Kurt Vonnegut reference ??)

At least try to make sense when you say something stupid.

Damn you for beating me to that:-)

And I definitely hope the gloves are off. Enough right-wing lunacy already!

Yes on the Vonnegut, and sorry to beat you to it but some things have to get said.

Or he is just using this as an opportunity to blame the Republicans as obstructionists.

Actually no he isn't. The time constraint was placed by Republicans in congress in order to force him to say no just in time for the elections.

What the Obama administration was waiting for was studies and surveys that would allow the pipeline to be built on different routes without negatively impacting the environment. He was looking for a compromise that the left and the right could agree on. But Republicans forced his hand and instead chose to turn this into an election issue.

Pass a jobs bill?

They can't even propose one.

The idiot dem sin Washington wont allow us to build ref in the north they have been blocking that for years that is the reason for the pipeline but what the hell why not just blame someone else for Obamas own stupidity hes been doing it for 3 years now.

no Louisiana has some so does Alaska its just that Texas has the most

California has refinerys also......LA is the worlds largest urban oil field.....the city was built by oil money......3000 wells in the county.......all the left coast environmentalist do not have a problem with all those pipelines........

It would take 15+ years to get a refinery approved(EPA) and built....easier nto expand/improve current locations.

They already have 11 in Alberta, this is about screwing the American people. They have a refinery that specialize in oil sand also.

Chicagoland also has refineries.

California refines 2 million barrels a day.......Texas 5.5.......Louisiana.....3.5......Alaska 0.5....most are near a port.

This oil would make our market more stable, create jobs, lower fuel cost, lower food cost, and even may allow us to export refined products.......

Rick - Under Obama, the United States produces more oil and natural gas than it did prior. Additionally, the U.S. imports less foreign oil under Obama than we did prior.

You can whine and point fingers at "liberals" all you want, but the facts actually prove that you don't know what you're talking about.

Lame ass excuse not to expand and reduce the imports from OPEC even more. If the industry has expanded with Obama against them .....think what we could do with their backing. Funniest thing is that all these jobs and increased oil flow will not cost the US taxpayers one penny!!! And will bring Billion to the states and also our Government. This may also allow us to produce a surplus supply of gas and diesel for EXPORT......even more revenues coming in!!! All the states involved want this to proceed............Thanks Obama

And will bring Billion to the states and also our Government.

How when these multi-billion dollar a quarter companies don't pay taxes on their profits?

Not true........GE does not pay taxes, though.....Obama's own pet Corporation. States will get renenues from oil flow.......so will federal government.......Fed wil get even more if surpluse oil products are exported

Not true...

Really? How much did Exxon pay in income taxes in 2010?

World wide $78 Billion....Exxon is our largest corporate taxpayer.........for every gallon Exxon sold states made an average of $0.48 a gallon.......not sure about the Federal rate for each gallon......but there is one. Exxon make about 2 cents on a gallon of gas.

World wide $78 Billion..

No how much did they pay in US taxes. And the sales and gas taxes at the pump are not on their income anymore than sales taxes on a refrigerator effect Kenmore's earnings. Those are direct taxes on the consumer collected by the retailer and not the producer. Exxon does not pay any of those taxes.

But go right ahead and defend corporate welfare.

Fed get $0.18 a gallon sold.

Not from the oil company. They get it from the retailer.

Not from the oil company. They get it from the retailer.

. . . and they get it from the consumers.

Fed get $0.18 a gallon sold.

Not on crude, sorry you are mistaken. All the federal government, and by default, US citizens will get is income tax on the money charged to transport. As none of this oil is slated to be consumed in the US, the $0.18 in fuel tax does not apply to bulk oil, only to gasoline and Diesel fuels sold to the public. If the oil were mined here, the US would get up to $6 per 55 gallon barrel, or about 8-10 cents per gallon, but it is not mined here so they get nothing, just corporate income tax, which is also nothing after subsidies and tax loopholes.

This endeavor has no benefit to US citizens other than a few temp jobs. Not even enough jobs to effect the unemployment rate in any one of the cities it passes by. It does not secure our energy future, as it is not ours to begin with and will not be for our consumption in the end. If anything, it will increase the cost of fuel in the Midwest, not reduce it anywhere else. Your GOP talking points are a lot of BS and anyone that does their own research knows that.

But if you don't sell out completely to the Chinese and corporate interests You cant' be a true conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!

never said crude......excise tax on gas..........also... Government gets revenues from domestica oil/energy.

...,....I am all for them paying more.......one way to do that is let them drill and pay the revenues/royalties to our country instead of paying triple to an unfriendly country for thr right to drill to within their borders. Our energy put put is increasing even with the Federal Government trying to control output........an old line.....but let us drill, refine, consume, and export all types......win/win for all.

Ron......where did you hear none of the oil would be consumed here???? Hope when you realize that the refined oil products will be consumed in the US......and may allow for some refined products to be exported ........which means More revenues to the government.......and increased GNP...........another win/win for all.

You are saying the same thing I am, as none of the oil shipped vie this pipeline is going to the domestic market, there will be no excise tax, and as it was not mined in the US, there will not be any revenue generated there. So, as I said before, the only benefit to the US tax base will be for profits earned on it's transport and as we all know, Oil Companies pay little or no tax on profits once you factor in the corporate welfare they get.

As per TransCanada's own admission, this oil is to be exported, as is 80% of all oil sent to this Texas facility. In reality, the US consumer will be the big loser in this as the current storage facility for tar sands is in Cushing Oklahoma, which produces a glut in the mid west, once this glut is reduced by pumping it straight to the refineries in Texas, then on to world markets, the cost for diesel fuel in the midwest is expected to jump by as much a $0.50 per gallon.

Make no mistake, this is not about domestic oil production, oil independence or anything else the right is pushing, it is about the Koch Brothers making more money. See below;

Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved

What's been left out of the ferocious debate over the pipeline, however, is the prospect that if president Obama allows a permit for the Keystone XL to be granted, he would be handing a big victory and great financial opportunity to Charles and David Koch, his bitterest political enemies and among the most powerful opponents of his clean economy agenda.

The two brothers together own virtually all of Koch Industries Inc. — a giant oil conglomerate headquartered in Wichita, Kan., with annual revenues estimated to be $100 billion.

A SolveClimate News analysis, based on publicly available records, shows that Koch Industries is already responsible for close to 25 percent of the oil sands crude that is imported into the United States, and is well-positioned to benefit from increasing Canadian oil imports.

Ya THINK!!!!!!!!

exactly right, that is why there is record snow in parts of Alaska

Also why I say that free abortions for everyone who can't afford to have a child, is under the age of 25, is a felon, non high school graduates (GED is okay) should be the law. Birth control for everyone who would like it, including free condoms in high school would be a plus. Lets fight global warming at the source.

@Phil-540207, you do realize that the Canadians will be developing their oil resources.

The Alberta oil sands oil will be developed, refined and used for energy production. Unless we invade Canada, we can't stop that.

The question is, will Americans have the jobs building the pipeline for that oil? or will Canadians build another pipeline to their own west coast ports. Will Americans have the jobs at the refineries that process this oil? Or will the oil be exported to other countries to be refined?

Obama has decided that our it's in our national interest to continue importing oil from Venezuela and the middle east, rather than to import oil from Canada.

Obama has decided that it's in our best interest for the Chinese and the Indians and the Japanese and Australians to refine this oil, rather having Americans refining this oil in Texas.

This is yet another reason that Obama will be a one term president.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

Common cents, you are so full of it this oil is not for the USA it is to be refined here and then shipped out from TXand LA no matter what kinds of crap you are smoking this is the fact. The reason for this is this is where the tankers are off loaded of oil from the middle east and the tankers are empty to go back. they want to save themselves money by filling up these tankers, and making even more profit off the oil that are not going to let stay here or get taxed here, they need to either refine it up in Canada then ship it down to the US or find a route to one of its ports so they can keep there pollutants to themselves.

Common cents: You maybe right that Canada may refine their oil and cause the Global Warming or Heating anyway. Note the Canadian's are somewhat more pollution conscious that the US. Canada ships their toxic waste from Toronto to US landfills. Yes some US jobs will not happen if the pipeline is not built, but when are the Republican's going to admit the most drastic weather changes around the world are happening right NOW (faster than the dire predictive models). Pollution effects of global heating due to overpopulation/civilization effects are going to have increasingly severe impacts/costs every year.

@Ed-2022915, you do realize that crude carriers (crude tankers) aren't equipped to carry refined products, and that product tankers aren't equipped to carry crude. Different cargo goes by different ships. Therefore your statement makes no sense at all.

The reason for this is this is where the tankers are off loaded of oil from the middle east and the tankers are empty to go back.

As for taxation and other realities. It's far more likely that Canadian oil will be refined for domestic markets within the United States, due to the fact that Canadian oil is duty free under NAFTA.

It's also likely that those ports and refineries will continue to employ American refineries (with American workers) to refine products for resale on international markets. That's what the "free trade zones" in the areas where some (not all) of the refineries in that part of Texas are about. Any oil that is imported from Venezuela and the Middle East to those refineries, refined, and then re-exported is not subjected to United States Import Taxes. However, oil from the middle East and from Venezuela that is refined for use in the United States is taxed when it enters the United States from those "Free trade zone" refineries.

Because of that, finished products from Canadian oil stocks will have a price advantage when sold in the United States.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

The question is, will Americans have the jobs building the pipeline for that oil? or will Canadians build another pipeline to their own west coast ports. Will Americans have the jobs at the refineries that process this oil? Or will the oil be exported to other countries to be refined?

They better hug the boarder because going through or over the Canadian Rockies won't be fun. If this were a logical way to go, why was that not their first choice? Why cut through the US?

Common, have you even studied what the company has put out as the reasons to build the pipeline? One of the goals they stated is to refine diesel for Europe, South America, and China. So the refined product will have no practical effect on US gas prices.

Another way for the plutocrats to ship out more resources and wealth to their masters overseas.

@photoguy69, yes, I've read some of the filings from TransCanada about this project. Have you? Or have you been reading fabricated "quotes" and "interpretations" from websites and "news" organizations" who oppose the pipeline?

Common, have you even studied what the company has put out as the reasons to build the pipeline? One of the goals they stated is to refine diesel for Europe, South America, and China.

Let me explain something that will make it clear why your statement makes no sense. The Canadians want to sell their oil sands "crude oil" (actually bitumen, but we'll just stick with "crude oi" for simplicity) to American refineries in Texas. Canada wants to trade their "crude oil" for our dollars. That's the end of the transaction chain for the Canadians.

After they sell this oil, they have no control over what happens. The refiners buy it and take ownership. The Canadians won't put conditions on the sale. They want money for their oil. Once that happens, they don't care what happens to it.

The Canadians don't own those refineries, they won't have any ownership interest in the finished, refined products once the refining processes are done, and the Canadians won't be able to direct the flow of the finished products.

Nobody knows what will actually happen with the finished products. It's more likely that those products will be sold in the United States because that raw material from Canada isn't subjected to import duties and taxes (thanks to NAFTA). That will price gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from Canadian source stocks below the price of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel from middle Eastern or Venezuelan sources (which are subject to import duties).

As a side note, those refineries that are in "free trade zones" will be able to process more middle Eastern and Venezuelan crude into refined products for export at a lower, more competitive price. This additional Canadian oil going to U.S. markets will allow oil from other sources to be processed for duty free export in the "free trade zones," employing Americans to refine and process foreign crude oil into fuels for export.

--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA

because you dumnb a$$ they changed the route.

This oil isn't going to our country, it's simply being refined here and then will be shipped out for Big Oil profits once the temporary construction jobs have dried up (along with crops being grown in this country from the environmental fallout).

Solyndra was part of a program to invest in alternative energy that would actually be used to power this country (unlike this oil). Not all investments pan out - this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone over the age of 17.

Or doing things to help his union buddies.

Like what? Unions are American workers by the way, not just Obama's special buddies. Anyways - ready to get your mind blown? This pipeline was going to built by Union members which is why many Unions were in support of it. And strangely Obama still opposed it.

Can you quit it with the vacuous uninformed talking points now?

21.1 - Um, what does that even mean? Can you please provide a cogent explanation?

BLD, the Keystone XL pipeline route has been changed at the request of the Govoner and Senator of Nebraska. The delay is in the new enviromental studies that have to be done. The GOP is trying to force this through without following the proper proceedures. Many in the Obama administration are in favor of the pipeline but they want the studies and public hearings done. If you lived in the path or near the path of the pipeline, you would certainly want your voice heard.

21.4 - Why do they need more studies because they changed the route? They have already done enough studies that I am sure they know whether the new route is OK. That is why it was changed to the route it was changed to. I assume if the Governor is OK with the new route, then isn't that an indication that things are OK? Sorry, but Obama doesn't give a damn about energy independence unless it is wind and solar, which are not reliable and not going to work in certain parts of the country. The Admin says it's in favor but their actions say otherwise. It's like when he said he wouldn't outlaw coal-fired plants but then told another group he would make it so expensive they would go out of business on their own. It's like telling a 2-year-old he can have all the cookies he wants if he reaches them from where he stands, then putting them in a cabinet 7 feet off the ground. You can say one thing but engage in activity and behavior that ensures what you say never comes true.

What about the blight that turbines cause on the environmental landscape and the birds it kills? Why do you think the rich off Martha's Vineyard fight or fought to keep the windmills away from their shores? It's always do as I say, not as I do.

It's like when he said he wouldn't outlaw coal-fired plants but then told another group he would make it so expensive they would go out of business on their own.

Please show a link, as I would have to see/hear President Obama say that to believe it. Though if you can't find one either (I tried to), I would like to know that as well.

Thanks

BLD, really? They would do enviromental and other studies on a route that wasn't even proposed when the project started? How foolish do you think we are? That is just absurd and one of the dumbest comments I have read.