• 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!

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

Do you support the Keystone XL pipeline?

  • I am not American and I do support it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    68
:lol: yeah, and I've seen estimates that claim it would actually net reduce jobs, too; all ridiculous attempts to avoid a wedge between the environmentalist and union portions of the Democrat party.

Worth noting, however, is the same state department assessment said that it would indirectly create 38,000 jobs.

But by that measure (the one you presented) ALL construction jobs are "just temporary jobs". That seems to me to be a rather tough position for the party of Shovel Ready Stimulus to sell.

All construction jobs are temporary by nature; once it is built that construction job is done. But many construction workers (like me) often do maintenance and improvements on existing structures which help keep us busy (employed).
 
Many folks in Texas support the project because of the added jobs and revenue it would bring to the state. Oil getting to the gulf refineries by pipeline is less dangerous than by the use of rail to get it there.

The XL phase four has nothing to do with Texas. That segment from Cushing Ok, was completed last January. What is in debate is phase four or XL4, is in the north....duplicating a portion and building a new, shorter route.

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline (Phase IV), which would essentially duplicate the Phase I pipeline between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska,[9] with a shorter route and a larger-diameter pipe. It would run through Baker, Montana, where American-produced light crude oil from the Williston Basin (Bakken formation) of Montana and North Dakota would be added[7] to the Keystone's current throughput of synthetic crude oil (syncrude) and diluted bitumen (dilbit) from the oil sands of Canada.
Keystone Pipeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Many folks in Texas support the project because of the added jobs and revenue it would bring to the state. Oil getting to the gulf refineries by pipeline is less dangerous than by the use of rail to get it there.



For the record I oppose Keystone 4. Obama has screwed around and cost the bidders millions. With a northern route as an alternative I want those jobs to stay in Canada.
 
All construction jobs are temporary by nature; once it is built that construction job is done. But many construction workers (like me) often do maintenance and improvements on existing structures which help keep us busy (employed).

:shrug: apparently you don't count.
 
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?
It runs through my state.My problem is not the environmental impact but the fact they are using eminent domain to seize the property.Eminent domain should never be used for privately owned companies and it definitely should never be used for foreign owned companies.
 
Last edited:
I support states rights. If they want a pipeline, they have that right. The federal govts job to protect our lives and liberty, thats it.
 
It runs through my state.My problem is not the environmental impact but the fact they are eminent domain to seize the property.Eminent domain should never be used for privately owned companies and it definitely should never be used for foreign owned companies.

Thats only one short segment in Nebraska, but I agree.
 
Thats only one short segment in Nebraska, but I agree.
Nebraska isn't the only state that the foreign owned oil company is using eminent domain.
 
I do not support it because I do not see any pros. Most of the jobs it would create would be temporary - with only 35 permanent jobs*. Other than that, is it going to lower gas prices significantly? I don't think so. It's a drop in the global market, and I haven't heard anything about it. So to rehash:

1) No real jobs
2) No drop in fuel prices

What the **** are we doing here? Are we not looking at alternative sources yet? Let's build some more coal mines while we're at it.


* http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/u...roposed-keystone-xl-pipeline-entail.html?_r=0
 
For about fifty permanent jobs, we get more carbon emissions, increased risk of oil spills through private and sacred lands, more money in the Koch Bros.' pockets, and little if any reduction in US gas prices. Sounds like a great deal to me! ;)
 
I support states rights. If they want a pipeline, they have that right. The federal govts job to protect our lives and liberty, thats it.

Those are reasons enough for the United States government to block the pipeline.
 
:lol: yeah, and I've seen estimates that claim it would actually net reduce jobs, too; all ridiculous attempts to avoid a wedge between the environmentalist and union portions of the Democrat party.

Worth noting, however, is the same state department assessment said that it would indirectly create 38,000 jobs.

But by that measure (the one you presented) ALL construction jobs are "just temporary jobs". That seems to me to be a rather tough position for the party of Shovel Ready Stimulus to sell.

What would you say if all Obama created was temporary jobs? I can't imagine it would be complimentary.

Yet, here you are wondering why he doesn't create temporary jobs shipping Canadian oil to China.
 
I support states rights. If they want a pipeline, they have that right. The federal govts job to protect our lives and liberty, thats it.

So if one state did it and the next state over decided not to, that would be wonderful pipeline!
 
Do you support the pipeline and where do you live in proximity of the proposed pipeline? By "I live close" I am using that to show you are currently living in a state or a neighboring state that the proposed pipeline will go through, just couldn't fit all that. If you do support it but do not live nearby would you feel different if it went through your backyard?

To quote Bernie Sanders:

OIL for China
Profit for Koch Brothers
Pollution for America
 
I do not live close, and I could support it with certain conditions: that all the environmental analysis is done and planning for accidents is done, that agreements are made to keep the oil in continental North America, things like that. Where we are on all that I am not sure as I don't really follow this issue much.

That's not a bad idea. Keeping the oil that flows through it in the continental US.

I just wonder what sort of ownership changes the oil would have to go through from the Canadian tar sands, down to the Gulf where the refineries are. Wondering if ownership isn't really transferred, and if such a stipulation could be legally made.
 
Those are reasons enough for the United States government to block the pipeline.

They dont have the power. The pipeline has nothing to do with protecting the states from invasion. It has nothing to do with promoting freedom.
 
What would you say if all Obama created was temporary jobs? I can't imagine it would be complimentary.

Construction jobs are by their nature temporary. Would you like to rescore the "stimulus" discounting all construction jobs both direct and indirect?

Yet, here you are wondering why he doesn't create temporary jobs shipping Canadian oil to China.

No - the alternative was a pipeline across Canada, ending on their West Coast, and floating straight to China.
 
I live in a neighboring state, but not really all that close.

I do not support it simply because it's not up to us to make it easier to ship Canadian oil to China.

You do realize that it was an American request for proposal dating back to the Clinton era, as part of the then drive for self sufficiency. The US wanted this.

The Keystone network, this is one phase of four, predominately carries crude for the American market .

Obama has seized on this portion of the agreement and the "foreign oil" to bolster his case for not doing it.
 
I think the estimate was that after completion it would generate about 50 full time jobs. Not even a dent economically.

I suggest you do some research.

Google TransCanada Pipeline and look at their American operations and the projection of permanent jobs as a result of this extension/expansion.

Again, I am hoping Obama will veto early any attempt to force a start. Knowing the economic value now and down stream, I want this pipline 100% in Canada.

Feel free to keep shipping it by rail
 
I chose "I have no opinion" because I've seen too much from both sides, for and against, to know who's really right and who's wrong...or where the truth meets in the middle. I'm not ashamed to admit that I really don't know what the best course of action is here.
 
I have no interest in the argument, other than the symbolic humor of the proposed arrangement.
 
Can anyone even figure out why this is an area of contentious debate? We're having massive arguments over:

1) Whether to add a few thousand 2-year temp jobs.
2) About 35 permanent jobs.
3) Little to no affect on oil prices.

Honestly, though... what gives? Why are we even talking about it? Either do it or don't, but let's not pretend like it's going to change anything for the better.
 
Back
Top Bottom