• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected

Peter Grimm said:
That's called a good ole fashioned run-around by this administration. Delay tactics. Evasion. Avoidance.

Nobody is buying it.



In 2008 the State Dept agreed that there would be an environmental study done, and they outsourced that study to a company that TransCanada got to pick.

Then they come back this year and say, "hey wait a minute, that's a conflict of interests..." and so now the study needs to be done all over again.

You want to talk about "dumbasses," take a look at the State Department. THAT's why the timetable was so screwed up.

Either that or the impact statement was fine, and in that case it also suggests Obama's avoidance tactics for not accepting it.

I think it's pretty clear that these are delay tactics, and that Obama never had any intention of making a decision before election day.

What I'm saying is that the American people are not that stupid.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the main objections came from the states through which the pipeline was to pass -- not the feds. Are you advocating that Big Brother should have trampled the states' rights? Why? So the Canadians wouldn't be pissed off? WTF is it about oil that makes conservatives chuck all their so-called principles and bend over for the drillers?
 
ludahai said:
Canada seeks alternative route for Keystone XL pipeline



Yeah, this is so much a more preferable scenario...
Click to expand...

Well it will be interesting to see if the Canadians are so cavalier about environmental concerns when it's their own land they're talking about. :lol:

Canadian environmentalists are voicing similar concerns about the alternative route. The Toronto Star reports that the western route faces fierce opposition from environmentalists in Canada who say that pipeline leaks or a tanker spill would endanger some of the world's most pristine forests and coastal areas and that the proposal "has already galvanized unprecedented concern in the green movement."
Click to expand...
 
Eighty Deuce said:
LOL ... sorry, but 20,000 gallons the Exxon Valdez is hardly an ink dot. They clean it up and life goes on quite well.

As for "oil for export" ....... balance it out anyway you want. We currently "import" 40% of our oil, do we not ? If and when the governments get their heads out of their asses ............ I hope this is not rocket science for a few of you.
Click to expand...

There, fixed it for you. :mrgreen:
 
jamesrage said:
They threatened to use eminent domain to acquire 20% property of one guys property.So I imagine they probably want close to that with other properties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/u...-fight-over-pipeline.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Randy Thompson, a cattle buyer in Nebraska, was informed that if he did not grant pipeline access to 80 of the 400 acres left to him by his mother along the Platte River, “Keystone will use eminent domain to acquire the easement.”
Click to expand...

According to your link, after the pipeline is complete, the owner retains full rights to grow crops or whatever other use he wishes to do on the permanent easement. The land used for a temporary easement is just that, temporary.

Sounds like a win-win for the landowner to me.
 
AdamT said:
My understanding is that the main objections came from the states through which the pipeline was to pass -- not the feds. Are you advocating that Big Brother should have trampled the states' rights? Why? So the Canadians wouldn't be pissed off? WTF is it about oil that makes conservatives chuck all their so-called principles and bend over for the drillers?
Click to expand...

The main objection was from the state of Nebraska who didn't want the pipeline built over their aquifer or through the Black Hills. The governor negotiated with TransCanada and got the route changed, so this is a non issue now.
 
danarhea said:
There, fixed it for you. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Are you actually comparing 20,000 gallons to the Exxon Valdez ???? I hope you know how absurd that is. The Exxon Valdez spilled between 10.5 million gallons and 31 million gallons.

You fixed nothing, except in your own mind.
 
Gill said:
The main objection was from the state of Nebraska who didn't want the pipeline built over their aquifer or through the Black Hills. The governor negotiated with TransCanada and got the route changed, so this is a non issue now.
Click to expand...

Precisely, the route was changed and time for a study of th enew route was required, the House refused to give that time and so Transcanada has to reapply. End of Story.
 
iguanaman said:
Precisely, the route was changed and time for a study of th enew route was required, the House refused to give that time and so Transcanada has to reapply. End of Story.
Click to expand...

It was changed 2 months ago. Why did it take so long for them to say they wanted another study???

Answer: the only purpose is to delay the project so Obama doesn't have to deal with it.
 
Gill said:
It was changed 2 months ago. Why did it take so long for them to say they wanted another study???

Answer: the only purpose is to delay the project so Obama doesn't have to deal with it.
Click to expand...
ok, show us any factual information which would allow us to find your conclusion credible
 
I'm sure this pipeline will eventually be built, whether it be through Canada to its western coast, or through the US to the gulf.

What's one more.
pipelines_map_legent.jpg

north_america_pipelines_map.jpg
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
I'm sure this pipeline will eventually be built, whether it be through Canada to its western coast, or through the US to the gulf.

What's one more.
pipelines_map_legent.jpg

north_america_pipelines_map.jpg
Click to expand...

Your map can't possibly be right. Adam says Canada can't build a pipeline across the Rockies to a Pacific port.
 
I can't for the life of me, figure out why it is that in an election year, that a project that is a no brainer as far as jobs, oil supply from a friendly ally, and union support of the project is anything but a win, win, win for this administration. It doesn't make sense that this is rejected.

j-mac
 
The way I see it is that the unions were for it, the environmentalists are against it. If he approves it he loses the enviro’s. The unions will be mad but not mad enough to not vote for him or more importantly against him. If he rejects it the enviro’s are happy, unions mad but again not enough to vote against him. Pretty sound calculation.
 
Gill said:
Your map can't possibly be right. Adam says Canada can't build a pipeline across the Rockies to a Pacific port.
Click to expand...

ok, i missed it
please identify the place of origin and point of terminus for an existing line across the rockies
 
Dickieboy said:
The way I see it is that the unions were for it, the environmentalists are against it. If he approves it he loses the enviro’s. The unions will be mad but not mad enough to not vote for him or more importantly against him. If he rejects it the enviro’s are happy, unions mad but again not enough to vote against him. Pretty sound calculation.
Click to expand...

Probably true, but then how is he going to battle the huge election gift he just gave republicans by turning this down?

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Probably true, but then how is he going to battle the huge election gift he just gave republicans by turning this down?

j-mac
Click to expand...

I have held the contention for over a year that this election will be a referendum on BHO’s success with the economy irrespective of who the GOP nominates. While the Keystone XL is the current ‘talking point’ by November it will have been long forgotten. Ultimately, I feel that if the economy is ‘better’, literally or figuratively, he will be impossible to beat… and the converse is also believed...even if Ron Paul is the candidate.
 
Dickieboy said:
I have held the contention for over a year that this election will be a referendum on BHO’s success with the economy irrespective of who the GOP nominates. While the Keystone XL is the current ‘talking point’ by November it will have been long forgotten. Ultimately, I feel that if the economy is ‘better’, literally or figuratively, he will be impossible to beat… and the converse is also believed...even if Ron Paul is the candidate.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Keystone and the economy are intertwined. We will see a lot of commercials on this subject between now and November.
 
j-mac said:
I can't for the life of me, figure out why it is that in an election year, that a project that is a no brainer as far as jobs, oil supply from a friendly ally, and union support of the project is anything but a win, win, win for this administration. It doesn't make sense that this is rejected.

j-mac
Click to expand...
here's why

jobs. 20,000 man years of employment. assuming that each job is valued at $50,000, the total payroll is $1 billion
desirable but not all that significant, actually
then divide that by the years to build it and the annual result will be found
even less significant

oil supply. the oil will become part of the world's oil supply. it will cost whatever the going rate for oil costs. it is estimated that this additional supply will potentially reduce the price of a barrel of oil by $1 ... about 1% of the present $100 per barrel price. we will be bidding for that oil just like china and every other oil importing nation. nothing confers a preference to the USA for that oil

union support. 20,000 man years of employment and nothing will compel all employees to be unionized. really think the union is going to support romney or santorum or gingrich instead of Obama. me either

on the other hand there are issues of environmental impact. hence the need to follow the rules and not short cut to yes. this administration has not ruled out the possibility of approval of the project. it just refused to agree to a republican desired shortcut of the process

the emissions from the processing of canadian tar sands in the USA will substantially elevate environmentally damaging emissions from their present levels. what is the cost to the USA of dealing with that, forever ... well at least the 300-500 years that these tar sands will be available

the pipeline will at times be above aquifers. what is clean water worth to our kids

animal habitats may be adversely impacted
they are a natural resource and we owe it to the next generations to be good stewards of those resources today

lots of good reasons not to go to a quick yes. but tell us what your aptly described 'no brainer' answer would be

i hope all of the folks who want this to proceed immediately will give me an easement across their real property sufficient to allow a 48 inch pipeline to be placed across it in perpetuity, which easement will prevent the owners' ability to ever situate any form of improvement on such property by them or their assigns. it's only fair. that is what you are willing to subject other Americans to accept
 
Gill said:
If you can't read a map, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

i once owned/operated a (surveying and drafting) business which included among its offerings the drawing of maps
but i cannot find on this map where the pipeline you insist exists is actually located
that causes me to think that you are the one who is misinformed
but prove me wrong and identify the point of origin and the point of terminus of the present pipeline across the canadian rockies
 
justabubba said:
i once owned/operated a (surveying and drafting) business which included among its offerings the drawing of maps
but i cannot find on this map where the pipeline you insist exists is actually located
that causes me to think that you are the one who is misinformed
but prove me wrong and identify the point of origin and the point of terminus of the present pipeline across the canadian rockies
Click to expand...

Remind me never to buy a map from you.

map.jpg

The oil pipeline was built across the Rockies to Vancouver.
 
justabubba said:
i once owned/operated a (surveying and drafting) business which included among its offerings the drawing of maps
but i cannot find on this map where the pipeline you insist exists is actually located
that causes me to think that you are the one who is misinformed
but prove me wrong and identify the point of origin and the point of terminus of the present pipeline across the canadian rockies
Click to expand...

Edmonton to Vancouver, pipeline C5, transmits oil. Pipeline C4 also crosses the Rockies, but is for gas.
 
Interesting that the final eis has been done and is available for reading. Some may want to read to understand the possible impacts of the pipleline.

DOS issued a draft EIS for public review on April 16, 2010 and a supplemental draft EIS on April 15, 2011. The final EIS was prepared and circulated consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality and DOS regulations for implementing NEPA. The final EIS includes responses to substantive comments
on the draft EIS and supplemental draft EIS and revisions to the EIS based on comments and additional information received.

U.S. Department of State
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom