• 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!

Senate Narrowly Defeats Keystone XL Pipeline

Grant said:
Nearly certain? That can also mean nearly uncertain.

You seem to be unaware of the safety standards on modern pipelines and your claim of "100's of miles in all directions for decades" is hysterical hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Yes, that would be about right.
 
Kushinator said:
Even if i concede your point, so what? It still ignores the underlying premise of my reply.

Subsidies for fossil fuels (profitable) are lager than alternatives (less profitable). <--- A second point, to which you may chose to address, but do not need to because it renders your entire POV moot.
Click to expand...
If you think that we are going to abandon traditional energy any time soon, you're dreaming.
 
You underestimate Sen. Landrieu--she's already won two of these run-offs.
Cassidy is a cowardly clown who agreed to only one debate for a reason.
Listening to him is painful even for GOPs.
Let's see how well her brother Mayor Landrieu gets out the New Orleans vote.
Women will reject the all-out bullying of her by the GOP clown car .

TurtleDude said:
I think dingy thought it would pass and help her. It didn't and she is screwed blued and Landrieud
Click to expand...
 
What they won't talk about with Louisiana is that it is sinking at an alarming rate.
One football field of square area every 48 minutes.
Rising Gulf waters--Land subsidence due to drilling--canals dug out by oil companies.
Poor folks stuck between an ocean and an oil field .
EnigmaO01 said:
The real question is, is it worth the tradeoff.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
What they won't talk about with Louisiana is that it is sinking at an alarming rate.
One football field of square area every 48 minutes.
Rising Gulf waters--Land subsidence due to drilling--canals dug out by oil companies.
Poor folks stuck between an ocean and an oil field .
Click to expand...
Wait NIMBY, do I have this right that you blame the oil industry for New Orleans being devoloped on sinking land, or for people continuing to live in precarious places?
 
So the Democrats in the Senate, in a procedural vote, effectively prevent a bill that President Obama was likely going to veto anyway from reaching his desk. I'm not clear why they would take the hit instead of forcing Obama to veto something.

Regardless of the topic, I find that disgusting. In researching, I see that President Obama has vetoed only 2 bills President Veto Counts. This collusion between the Congress and the President is probably what disgusts me the most about the Federal Government.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
So the Democrats in the Senate, in a procedural vote, effectively prevent a bill that President Obama was likely going to veto anyway from reaching his desk. I'm not clear why they would take the hit instead of forcing Obama to veto something.

Regardless of the topic, I find that disgusting. In researching, I see that President Obama has vetoed only 2 bills President Veto Counts. This collusion between the Congress and the President is probably what disgusts me the most about the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know if you were ever this discouraged when this same type of "collusion" was tried with each prior President who either had a majority in Congress or his party was in the minority and a hot button issue hit the Capital floor on either side of Congress with the party leader in the White House was for or against said issue.

My point is this happens all the time. It's nothing new; it's merely a power play on the one hand and a insulation (protective) issue on the other (protecting the President from having to deal with the fallout).

Republicans may get a Keystone XL Pipeline bill passed and placed on the President's desk once they takeover the Senate in January 2015, but the President will likely veto it whether it's part of a spending bill or a tax reform bill or whatever. And after that, Congress will have to muster the 2/3 majority to override his veto. That's how I see this issue playing out, but we'll see...

Frankly, I'm not for the bill on three grounds:

1) Jobs...not enough IMO.

2) Revenue...not nearly enough goes to the U.S. Treasury.

3) Oil import...most will be exported, not imported into the U.S. either for our use or re-export.

IMHO and the environmental issues aside, I just don't see the upside to this project.
 
Objective Voice said:
I'd be interested to know if you were ever this discouraged when this same type of "collusion" was tried with each prior President who either had a majority in Congress or his party was in the minority and a hot button issue hit the Capital floor on either side of Congress with the party leader in the White House was for or against said issue.

My point is this happens all the time. It's nothing new; it's merely a power play on the one hand and a insulation (protective) issue on the other (protecting the President from having to deal with the fallout).

Republicans may get a Keystone XL Pipeline bill passed and placed on the President's desk once they takeover the Senate in January 2015, but the President will likely veto it whether it's part of a spending bill or a tax reform bill or whatever. And after that, Congress will have to muster the 2/3 majority to override his veto. That's how I see this issue playing out, but we'll see...

Frankly, I'm not for the bill on three grounds:

1) Jobs...not enough IMO.

2) Revenue...not nearly enough goes to the U.S. Treasury.

3) Oil import...most will be exported, not imported into the U.S. either for our use or re-export.

IMHO and the environmental issues aside, I just don't see the upside to this project.
Click to expand...

I'll have to do some more research into the Garfield administration since that is the last time a president had fewer vetoes. As you somewhat observe, the President will veto this anyway, so why not let him have some of the grief directly instead of the Democratic Senate taking the "political bullet" for him? It happens all the time is a poor excuse for acceptance. 2 vetoes in 6 years and 1 of them was about a system of notarization across the states.

As for your 3 issues:

1. So what, this is a private company seeking to build the pipeline, not some jobs bill. As long as they conform to regulatory requirements, then let 'em build.
2. Why should any go to the Treasury? The jobs involved will be taxed, the company getting revenue from the pipeline will pay corporate tax, and I would assume there will be plenty of other taxes and fees that the regulatory requirements will incur.
3. There is one oil market and that is the price regardless of where it is sold. The difference is the transportation costs and the refining costs. The costs of transporting oil through a pipeline are dramatically cheaper than by truck or rail.

As for any upside, upside for whom?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'll have to do some more research into the Garfield administration since that is the last time a president had fewer vetoes. As you somewhat observe, the President will veto this anyway, so why not let him have some of the grief directly instead of the Democratic Senate taking the "political bullet" for him? It happens all the time is a poor excuse for acceptance. 2 vetoes in 6 years and 1 of them was about a system of notarization across the states.
Click to expand...

Well, you could research the last couple of Congresses to know one reason why that's the case - the GOP has shattered all time records for filibusters, and so hardly anything has passed....

Furthermore, I'd think most democrats in the Senate don't see it as taking a 'political bullet' any more than a GOPer voting against gun control is a political bullet. Not voting for crap like Keystone is why they were elected.

As for your 3 issues:

1. So what, this is a private company seeking to build the pipeline, not some jobs bill. As long as they conform to regulatory requirements, then let 'em build.
Click to expand...

I might have been OK with that if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company the eminent domain powers of government to build their pipeline to export refined product to China.

2. Why should any go to the Treasury? The jobs involved will be taxed, the company getting revenue from the pipeline will pay corporate tax, and I would assume there will be plenty of other taxes and fees that the regulatory requirements will incur.
Click to expand...

Again, if the company is getting massive taxpayer subsidies, then plenty should come back to the treasury in exchange for those subsidies.

3. There is one oil market and that is the price regardless of where it is sold. The difference is the transportation costs and the refining costs. The costs of transporting oil through a pipeline are dramatically cheaper than by truck or rail.

As for any upside, upside for whom?
Click to expand...

That's partly true, but the major problems are two - one way Keystone was sold was as a way to reduce domestic prices for refined product. That's not going to be true unless that oil found no way to the market at all. Second, the vast majority of the benefits are going to flow to the Canadian oil companies shipping dirty sludge to Texas for refining, and the refineries in Texas. I just see no reason for the U.S. to subsidize that. Build a pipeline to a Canadian port and we're all happy.
 
JasperL said:
one way Keystone was sold was as a way to reduce domestic prices for refined product. That's not going to be true unless that oil found no way to the market at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in jumping into your "I hate Keystone" brouhaha, but I read this part that I've quoted...and the first thing that came to mind is a President who once said, "If you like your....etc.". Even though a majority of the people knew that was a lie, told him it was a lie and shellacked his Party when he jammed a turd down their throats anyway, why are you complaining? You should be used to this kind of stuff, eh?


btw, I'm thinking you don't understand the international oil market, how it works and what causes gas prices to rise and fall.
 
JasperL said:
Well, you could research the last couple of Congresses to know one reason why that's the case - the GOP has shattered all time records for filibusters, and so hardly anything has passed....

Furthermore, I'd think most democrats in the Senate don't see it as taking a 'political bullet' any more than a GOPer voting against gun control is a political bullet. Not voting for crap like Keystone is why they were elected.



I might have been OK with that if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company the eminent domain powers of government to build their pipeline to export refined product to China.



Again, if the company is getting massive taxpayer subsidies, then plenty should come back to the treasury in exchange for those subsidies.



That's partly true, but the major problems are two - one way Keystone was sold was as a way to reduce domestic prices for refined product. That's not going to be true unless that oil found no way to the market at all. Second, the vast majority of the benefits are going to flow to the Canadian oil companies shipping dirty sludge to Texas for refining, and the refineries in Texas. I just see no reason for the U.S. to subsidize that. Build a pipeline to a Canadian port and we're all happy.
Click to expand...

The way you phrase your argument has two much straw to contest:

"one reason why that's the case" could be applied to a snowstorm or hurricane Sandy for why Congress acts the way it has. Counting the number of bills is as useless as counting the number of executive orders. The count is irrelevant, it is the content which is key.

"if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company". Did we? I can't find anything to indicate that is the case, but perhaps I just didn't look in the right place. Companies are not given eminent domain powers and the creation and use of right-of-ways has a long history. Is it eminent domain, probably is, but it is for limited purpose and scope.

"massive taxpayer subsidies". Again, couldn't find this, could you point me to where I can find that?

"one way Keystone was sold". Again, the "one way" argument. Sold by whom and to whom? "shipping dirty sludge" sounds like propaganda to me, all oil is dirty to some degree.

As for the vast majority of benefits going to the Keystone company, well, they are putting up most of the money.

I have no stake in the Keystone argument one way or the other. If it dies, it dies. If it goes through, it isn't near me. I'm real close to the national Natural gas grid which goes along the edge of a national park. It is government land in there wasn't any debate of it going through. In fact, there are pipelines all over this country not even counting water and sewage. Somehow they manage to stay out of the news.
 
Mycroft said:
I'm not really interested in jumping into your "I hate Keystone" brouhaha, but I read this part that I've quoted...and the first thing that came to mind is a President who once said, "If you like your....etc.". Even though a majority of the people knew that was a lie, told him it was a lie and shellacked his Party when he jammed a turd down their throats anyway, why are you complaining? You should be used to this kind of stuff, eh?
Click to expand...

There are other threads on the ACA.

btw, I'm thinking you don't understand the international oil market, how it works and what causes gas prices to rise and fall.
Click to expand...

What's to understand - it's supply and demand of a commodity, and changes in either have a predictable effect on prices. If I missed something, point out what exactly. The quoted statement is simple enough - more supply will, all else equal ==> lower prices. If your point is oil and refined product is controlled to a large extent by (colluding) cartels who will limit supply to maintain prices, I understand that. It's a big reason why Canadian oil isn't likely to have an effect on domestic gasoline prices no matter how much flows through that pipeline, contrary to the claims of supporters of Keystone. In fact one big benefit of the pipeline was to drain excess supply from the midwest where prices for oil and (arguably) gasoline were persistently lower than the nationwide/worldwide average. So if anything Keystone would INcrease domestic gasoline prices in that region.
 
JasperL said:
There are other threads on the ACA.
Click to expand...

WHOOOSH!! Right over your head!

I wasn't talking about Obamacare. I was talking about accepting lies.

What's to understand - it's supply and demand of a commodity, and changes in either have a predictable effect on prices. If I missed something, point out what exactly. The quoted statement is simple enough - more supply will, all else equal ==> lower prices. If your point is oil and refined product is controlled to a large extent by (colluding) cartels who will limit supply to maintain prices, I understand that. It's a big reason why Canadian oil isn't likely to have an effect on domestic gasoline prices no matter how much flows through that pipeline, contrary to the claims of supporters of Keystone. In fact one big benefit of the pipeline was to drain excess supply from the midwest where prices for oil and (arguably) gasoline were persistently lower than the nationwide/worldwide average. So if anything Keystone would INcrease domestic gasoline prices in that region.
Click to expand...

Gas prices are affected by the world supply of oil. Do you think that Canadian oil is NOT part of the world supply of oil?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
The way you phrase your argument has two much straw to contest:

"one reason why that's the case" could be applied to a snowstorm or hurricane Sandy for why Congress acts the way it has. Counting the number of bills is as useless as counting the number of executive orders. The count is irrelevant, it is the content which is key.
Click to expand...

Funny, you say the count is irrelevant following a post where the only point you have about Obama's number of vetoes is the low count.... If it's the content, what bills should he have vetoed that he didn't?

"if we didn't give a private, for profit, foreign company". Did we? I can't find anything to indicate that is the case, but perhaps I just didn't look in the right place. Companies are not given eminent domain powers and the creation and use of right-of-ways has a long history. Is it eminent domain, probably is, but it is for limited purpose and scope.
Click to expand...

Yes, property (easements) was seized all along the route via eminent domain. There is no question the company DID seize land that way - the only question is whether the "public benefit" of a pipeline from Canada to Texas to benefit a few for profit companies justified giving the company that incredibly valuable power over landowners along the route. It's aligned some principles libertarians with environmentalists against Keystone. Follow this link for examples:

Let me google that for you

"massive taxpayer subsidies". Again, couldn't find this, could you point me to where I can find that?
Click to expand...

The subsidy is the power of eminent domain - see above.

"one way Keystone was sold". Again, the "one way" argument. Sold by whom and to whom? "shipping dirty sludge" sounds like propaganda to me, all oil is dirty to some degree.
Click to expand...

Not propaganda - the tar sands "oil" running through Keystone will be far more corrosive and dirty than typical oil. It's more costly to clean up, etc. And the process of extracting it produces massive amounts of toxic waste, dirty enough to kill waterfowl that simply land in the lakes made of polluted water used in the process.

As for the vast majority of benefits going to the Keystone company, well, they are putting up most of the money.
Click to expand...

As I said, if they want to run a for profit business without getting the powers of Big Government Force to make it more profitable, that's fine with me. Some landowners along the route don't really want a pipeline carrying toxic oil sludge running across their property. I wouldn't either. They don't get a choice in the matter. If they refuse, they're taken to court and they lose. It's kind of interesting that the free market promoters and haters of Big Government are cheering, demanding, that we approve this project that distorts any notion of a "free market" and hands the power of big government to seize private property to a supposedly 'free market' foreign company.

I have no stake in the Keystone argument one way or the other. If it dies, it dies. If it goes through, it isn't near me. I'm real close to the national Natural gas grid which goes along the edge of a national park. It is government land in there wasn't any debate of it going through. In fact, there are pipelines all over this country not even counting water and sewage. Somehow they manage to stay out of the news.
Click to expand...

The question is whether this pipeline serves the public interest or the interests of Keystone and the developers of the tar sands pits in CANADA, and a few refiners in Texas. If anyone wants to argue the PUBLIC benefit of this, have at it. I've not seen that argument made.
 
Mycroft said:
I was talking about accepting lies.
Click to expand...

You're a conservative - you accept lies every day. Let's keep the discussion on the pipeline.

Gas prices are affected by the world supply of oil. Do you think that Canadian oil is NOT part of the world supply of oil?
Click to expand...

Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't believe the pipeline will have an effect on global prices. And the reasons are 1) the oil companies are extracting the tar sands oil right now, and there is no Keystone, but it's getting to market. 2) If Keystone isn't approved, other routes to market WILL be found for that sludge, and 3) even if Keystone allows profitable production to ramp up in Canadian tar sands, the colluding global oil producers and refiners limit supply of product to keep prices within their desired range.

So the primary effect is to lower cost of shipping tar sands sludge to Texas and other refiners. The big beneficiaries of that - really the only big winners - are the officers and shareholders of those companies who will make more profits from lower cost production. Little to none of those benefits will flow to individual consumers in the U.S.
 
JasperL said:
You're a conservative - you accept lies every day. Let's keep the discussion on the pipeline.
Click to expand...

Well, you were the one who brought up lies. Perhaps you should keep your own discussion on the pipeline, eh? :lamo

Of course. Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't believe the pipeline will have an effect on global prices. And the reasons are 1) the oil companies are extracting the tar sands oil right now, and there is no Keystone, but it's getting to market. 2) If Keystone isn't approved, other routes to market WILL be found for that sludge, and 3) even if Keystone allows profitable production to ramp up in Canadian tar sands, the colluding global oil producers and refiners limit supply of product to keep prices within their desired range.

So the primary effect is to lower cost of shipping tar sands sludge to Texas and other refiners. The big beneficiaries of that - really the only big winners - are the officers and shareholders of those companies who will make more profits from lower cost production. Little to none of those benefits will flow to individual consumers in the U.S.
Click to expand...
 
If it is to stay within energy, I would rather the money should go towards nuclear development than wind/solar etc.

Helix said:
We already subsidize the oil industry. My point was that it was dumb to nix the pipeline, as it could be used as a bargaining chip. Do you need for me to clarify further?
Click to expand...

Maybe the issue is too important to be considered a bargaining chip or political tool.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
If it is to stay within energy, I would rather the money should go towards nuclear development than wind/solar etc.



Maybe the issue is too important to be considered a bargaining chip or political tool.
Click to expand...

no, it isn't. the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline. what we could do, though is to trade it for renewable / nuclear funding.

we won't, though. the country is so polarized that the two sides won't work together on anything.
 
Helix said:
no, it isn't. the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline. what we could do, though is to trade it for renewable / nuclear funding.

we won't, though. the country is so polarized that the two sides won't work together on anything.
Click to expand...

So if the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline, splashing $7b on it hardly seems the most prudent idea. I agree that political polarization is particularly crippling on progress in energy. Probably because it straddles the economy and the environment so much.
 
Nilly said:
So if the oil is going to get pumped and refined whether or not we build the pipeline, splashing $7b on it hardly seems the most prudent idea. I agree that political polarization is particularly crippling on progress in energy. Probably because it straddles the economy and the environment so much.
Click to expand...

you have to pick your battles, and this one is a stupid hill to die on. politics is give and take. give them their useless pipeline and fifty jobs or whatever, and let's build more wind farms and nuclear power plants in exchange. seems like a good trade.
 
Nilly said:
If it is to stay within energy, I would rather the money should go towards nuclear development than wind/solar etc.
Click to expand...

Why nuclear? It's massively subsidized and has incredible risks, see, Fukushima. I live very near a nuclear plant and don't actually have a problem with it - I'd trade more nuclear plants for coal, or fracking in my back yard, but I'd rather we spend subsidies on less dangerous forms of renewable energy. I certainly see no reason to PREFER nuclear over the others.

If the nearby plant is hit by a domestic or foreign terrorist, I'm in big trouble, and the area just a few miles from me will be wasteland for a generation or two, and who knows how far the river it sits on will take the nuclear fallout or what the long term effects will be for many miles downstream. Etc.
 
Helix said:
you have to pick your battles, and this one is a stupid hill to die on. politics is give and take. give them their useless pipeline and fifty jobs or whatever, and let's build more wind farms and nuclear power plants in exchange. seems like a good trade.
Click to expand...

If that trade was on the table, I'd probably support it. I'd prefer they "give them" the pipeline and strip the foreign, for profit company of the eminent domain powers to build it, but that's not likely. The GOP House already passed a bill stripping eminent domain powers from some for profit companies, with a big exception written into it for Keystone.
 
It shows how far we've fallen as a country when "creating jobs" depends on whether or not we build a pipe!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom