• 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

Eighty Deuce said:
Well, if that has been the only way it ever has gotten done, I find it diifficult to then give credence to your assertion that "they have no business doing it that way".

Do you realize the absurdity that woulod result with a pipeline company having to essentially gerrymander the route all over, likely with land purchase options spread a million different ways, to try to build a pipeline to carry the lifeblood of our industry ? Of the heat in virtually every home ?

Your position lacks both basic reality and logic. Give it w awhack though, I am curious as to how you think it gets done then. Any pipeline, Anywhere.
Click to expand...

I do not care.It is a private company wanting land for non-public utility use and non highway/road use.They should never be allowed the use of eminent domain period.If they want a piece of property bad enough then they can pay the owner what he or she wants even if that owner wants above so called fair market value or find someone else who will sell to them.Private property rights are more important than some oil company wanting to build a pipeline all the way across the country so they can export it and American property rights are definitely more important than some foreign owned company's desire to build a pipeline.
 
Last edited:
Psychoclown said:
You know I was all for the pipeline until I read this. I'm glad you pointed this out.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people were not aware of the fact the Canadian owned oil company is using eminent domain to seize property in the US.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Well, if that has been the only way it ever has gotten done, I find it diifficult to then give credence to your assertion that "they have no business doing it that way".

Do you realize the absurdity that woulod result with a pipeline company having to essentially gerrymander the route all over, likely with land purchase options spread a million different ways, to try to build a pipeline to carry the lifeblood of our industry ? Of the heat in virtually every home ?

Your position lacks both basic reality and logic. Give it w awhack though, I am curious as to how you think it gets done then. Any pipeline, Anywhere.
Click to expand...

The XL pipeline is hardly carrying lifeblood for our industry. The oil is all slated for export, most of it as gasoline. We already export 400,000 barrels of gas a day, why do we have to have all the risk and pollution if we don't need the gasoline anyway?
 
iguanaman said:
The XL pipeline is hardly carrying lifeblood for our industry. The oil is all slated for export, most of it as gasoline. We already export 400,000 barrels of gas a day, why do we have to have all the risk and pollution if we don't need the gasoline anyway?
Click to expand...

The risk of transportation by truck is much higher than by pipeline. The pipeline won't run into a bridge if a truck driver falls asleep. The pipeline won't flip over if a car cuts it off.

So here are the options. Either use eminent domain to buy the land at inflated prices and then lease it to the company for a profit or let the company drive the oil over land tare up the roads and spill more oil everyday than the entire life of the pipeline. Which do you chose?
 
iguanaman said:
The XL pipeline is hardly carrying lifeblood for our industry. The oil is all slated for export, most of it as gasoline. We already export 400,000 barrels of gas a day, why do we have to have all the risk and pollution if we don't need the gasoline anyway?
Click to expand...

Why do we export anything then ? The overwhelming pollution issues are with the actual use of fossil fuels. How has the Alaskan pipeline worked out ? Exceedingly well.

Further, no land is being "seized" by anyone (as another poster said). The fact remains that we still import 40% of our crude. It is for our twisted politicians to stop the policies that favor import, while at the same time running this oil to our refineries and then to export as more gasoline. We need the pipelines to transport any oil that replaces our ocean imports. That is a fact. If you' re against the pipeline, then you support our oil dependence on the Middle East.
 
iguanaman said:
The accurate jobs number is 4500 to 5000 temporary construction jobs not 20,000. The oil won't be used to reduce our imports or lower our costs. Most of the benefits go to Canada and abroad while all of the risk and pollution are ours to keep. It's a bad deal all around and even the Republicans knew it. Otherwise they would not have put that deadline so that studies could not be completed.

How about if I dump 20,000 gallons of crude in your front yard...don't worry its "hardly an ink dot". :lol:
Click to expand...

How much water does an inground swimming pool hold? - Yahoo! Answers

Apparently its enough to fill a 15x30 swimming pool. Maybe you need to re-examine how much oil you think that is. Cause its not as much as you are making it out to be.
 
Temporal said:
Keystone oil sands pipeline rejected - Jan. 18, 2012



The story is just starting to break, but this is great news for people living in the regions that would be affected by this. The pipeline would have moved through very ecologically sensitive areas and the public was not consulted on this.

Looks like the protesting paid off. It might still get the nod in further applications - and probably after the election - but at least for now the environment is that much safer.
Click to expand...

This issue will harm Obama in the election.

We could have had 10,000 to 50,000 more jobs, greater energy security, and lower gas prices if this project were underway.

Instead, Obama bowed to the environmentalists, and showed that he doesn't care about the economy or jobs growth.

That will not play well with the American public.
 
A couple observations:

One thing I like about this pipeline is that it could supply 0.7mbd (million barrels per day). Currently we import 1.096mbd from Saudi Arabia.
How much petroleum does the United States import? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
I understand this oil is not intended for domestic use, which I don't like, but once the pipeline is in place we could always change our mind. In my view paying oil money to Saudi Arabia is the equivalent of giving some of that money to terrorists, which I positively despise. This pipeline (according to the link in the OP) could be expanded to 3.0mbd which could go a long way to eliminating ALL imports from the ME, which I would love to see.

I would prefer to see that the US works with Canada who is an ally and a major business partner, than force them to work with China. We may need much more oil in the future. So if we establish a better business relationship with them now, when we aren't really planning that oil for ourselves, it will be far easier to change strategic policy later with a pipeline already in place. The pipeline will NOT insure cheaper gas or cheaper oil. All it does is insure a stable supply from a reliable business partner, something we certainly are not finding in the ME. In short, I'd much rather work with Canada than ANY nation in the Middle-East.

If anyone has followed my posts much at all, you'd know that I'm a profound supporter of alternative energy. In fact, I'd like to eliminate all oil consumption for energy purposes. But let's face facts. Changing our infrastructure from an oil economy to a primarily electric and nuclear economy is a DECADES-long project. With people's uncertainty and even resistance to alternative energies the changeover could take many decades instead of the mere 30 to 40 years that I'm hoping for. In the meantime, we'll still need a LOT OF OIL to keep our economy going. Building thousands of windmills and hundreds of solar plants and maybe a hundred nuclear plants, and installing all of these systems is going to trigger consuming MORE oil, not less. Afterward, we'll see a substantial dip in demand, but not to begin with.

So as it stands now, we need to insure we have a steady supply of oil from a reliable country, not only for now but in the decades to come. Canada fits this bill perfectly. This pipeline is generally a good idea, but lets not get stupid about it. Build around the aquifer. From the map posted earlier, I see the pipeline only covers the north-eastern corner of the aquifer, so it's not a crazy suggestion to build around it. Cease with the cattle-baron mentality over people's land. Offer them double or even triple for their land if that's what it takes. That would cost less than a detour, but still detour if necessary and get on with it.
 
This issue will harm Obama in the election.

We could have had 10,000 to 50,000 more jobs, greater energy security, and lower gas prices if this project were underway.

Instead, Obama bowed to the environmentalists, and showed that he doesn't care about the economy or jobs growth.

That will not play well with the American public.
Click to expand...

LOL The only ones hurt are the Reps. who have egg on their face AGAIN. It was their ridiculous deadline that nixed this application. Transcanada was invited to reapply and accepted. I still don't like the whole idea. Tar sands are the dirtiest and most expensive oil on the planet to produce, we have lots of real crude we can just pump out all over the world. Those tar sands should be saved for when we are REALLY running out of real crude.

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- TransCanada Corp.’s $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline still will move ahead with an alternate route after President Barack Obama’s decision to deny a permit, investors, public officials and analysts say.
Obama blamed congressional Republicans yesterday for imposing a deadline on his decision, which he said left no time to approve the project. His administration invited TransCanada to reapply, an overture the Calgary-based company promptly said it would accept.
Denying the permit pushes a final decision on the pipeline into 2013, safely past this year’s presidential election.

Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route - Businessweek
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Have you ever been to, or flown over, the Canadian Rockies? I don't think they're building any pipeline to their western shore.
Click to expand...

However, this is exactly what they are now looking at doing... and if environmentalists think the environmental impact of such a pipeline won't be greater than the proposed pipeline to Texas, they are kidding themselves... besides the fact that if the pipeline IS built, the oil will then be shipped to Asia for processing, creating an even greater environmental impact on the oil
 
Gill said:
This will cost Obama at least 500,000 votes, so in one sense this was a good decision. In one fail swoop, he killed jobs, hurt our energy dependence, and pissed off our closest neighbor and ally.
Click to expand...

But the votes will mostly be in states he is going to lose anyway. He can't afford to alienate his environmentalist support base on the two coasts... even though putting the pipeline through to the Rockies will be WORSE environmentally, not better...
 
What I really find so hypercritical from Republicans is they shouted "Drill, baby, drill" under expanding domestic energy policies, yet they're so damned gungho over Canadia oil.

Northern neighbor/ally or not, it's still foreign oil no matter how you try to :spin: it, i.e., "job growth" indeed.
 
Objective Voice said:
What I really find so hypercritical from Republicans is they shouted "Drill, baby, drill" under expanding domestic energy policies, yet they're so damned gungho over Canadia oil.

Northern neighbor/ally or not, it's still foreign oil no matter how you try to :spin: it, i.e., "job growth" indeed.
Click to expand...

We should be drilling our own oil.

Canada is not anything like an unstable Middle East, nor is it ruled by a whacky dictator like Venezuela.

This project is good for American jobs, for American oil security, and it would lower gas prices.
 
ludahai said:
However, this is exactly what they are now looking at doing... and if environmentalists think the environmental impact of such a pipeline won't be greater than the proposed pipeline to Texas, they are kidding themselves... besides the fact that if the pipeline IS built, the oil will then be shipped to Asia for processing, creating an even greater environmental impact on the oil
Click to expand...

I've seen no evidence that they're considering a western route through Canada. I've seen a few western routes mentioned, but they all pass through the US.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL The only ones hurt are the Reps. who have egg on their face AGAIN. It was their ridiculous deadline that nixed this application. Transcanada was invited to reapply and accepted. I still don't like the whole idea. Tar sands are the dirtiest and most expensive oil on the planet to produce, we have lots of real crude we can just pump out all over the world. Those tar sands should be saved for when we are REALLY running out of real crude.

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- TransCanada Corp.’s $7 billion Keystone XL oil pipeline still will move ahead with an alternate route after President Barack Obama’s decision to deny a permit, investors, public officials and analysts say.
Obama blamed congressional Republicans yesterday for imposing a deadline on his decision, which he said left no time to approve the project. His administration invited TransCanada to reapply, an overture the Calgary-based company promptly said it would accept.
Denying the permit pushes a final decision on the pipeline into 2013, safely past this year’s presidential election.

Keystone XL Pipeline Seen Moving Ahead on Alternative Route - Businessweek
Click to expand...

Their ridiculous deadline?

The application was put in back in 2008. The environmental study was already done. Transcanada should not have to reapply.

All of that is Obama's doing.

Obama will not be able to deflect blame on this one. People are not that stupid.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Their ridiculous deadline?

The application was put in back in 2008. The environmental study was already done. Transcanada should not have to reapply.

All of that is Obama's doing.

Obama will not be able to deflect blame on this one. People are not that stupid.
Click to expand...

The route has been changed several times since '08, requiring additional study for the new routes. The rehubs aborted their own argument when they used a deadline that they were told in advance was impossibly short. Dumbasses. Why do you suppose they didn't use a more realistic span, like six or eight months? That's right -- because they were afraid it would be approved close to the election, taking away a campaign issue.
 
Ockham said:
Thank goodness! What would we do with 20,000 jobs this year and an estimated 100,000 jobs by 2015? [...]
Click to expand...
Well, as we can see above, it didn't take long for the propaganda to show up. Now, for the rest of the story....

Transcanada itself cast doubt on its employment forecast when a vice president for the company told CNN last fall that the 20,000 jobs Keystone would create were temporary and that the project would likely yield only "hundreds" of permanent positions.


Another reason for the discrepancy appears to stem from what that 20,000 figure really means. As Transcanada has conceded, its estimate counted up "job years" spent on the project, not jobs. In other words, the company was counting a single construction worker who worked for two years on Keystone as two jobs, lending fuel to critics who said advocates of the pipeline were overstating its benefits.

The Cornell researchers concluded:

The construction of KXL will create far fewer jobs in the U.S. than its proponents have claimed and may actually destroy more jobs than it generates....

The claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the U.S. is unsubstantiated. There is strong evidence to suggest that a large portion of the primary material input for KXL -- steel pipe -- will not even be produced in the U.S.
​

Keystone pipeline: How many jobs really at stake? - CBS News
Click to expand...
So, even if the 20,000 'job-years' figure were true (which seems unlikely), it still would not true --it would be more like 6,600 jobs for three years... and then back to the unemployment line, except for a few hundred.

As to 100,000 jobs by 2015, that is simply bizarre... if the pipeline were completed in 3 years (my figure, for illustration purposes), there would be -- as the TransCanada VP stated above -- a few hundred permanent jobs left. An alleged boomtown gone bust. With lots of empty Kool Aid packets laying around, blowing in the wind, it seems...

Peter Grimm said:
This issue will harm Obama in the election. We could have had 10,000 to 50,000 more jobs [....]
Click to expand...
Oops, there goes one of those empty Kool Aid packets now! <flutter> :mrgreen:

Oh, what a tangled web the right wing weaves, when they first begin to deceive.... :3oops:
 
jambalaya said:
Is that permanent jobs? What about construction jobs which have a more immediate impact and requires a lot more workers?
Click to expand...
No, sorry.

13,000 'job-years' on the construction, if TransCanada is not puffing up the figures....
 
AdamT said:
I've seen no evidence that they're considering a western route through Canada. I've seen a few western routes mentioned, but they all pass through the US.
Click to expand...

Canada seeks alternative route for Keystone XL pipeline

On Tuesday, an independent federal panel in Canada will begin its review of a proposed western pipeline that would carry the oil from Alberta to the coast of British Columbia. From British Columbia, the oil would be shipped on tankers to oil-hungry China.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is so much a more preferable scenario...
 
AdamT said:
The route has been changed several times since '08, requiring additional study for the new routes.
Click to expand...

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

Nobody is buying it.

AdamT said:
The rehubs aborted their own argument when they used a deadline that they were told in advance was impossibly short. Dumbasses. Why do you suppose they didn't use a more realistic span, like six or eight months? That's right -- because they were afraid it would be approved close to the election, taking away a campaign issue.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Obama will drop another couple notches on this one. Just all the more reason to throw him so far out of office that we never see him again.

Most inept President ever.
 
danarhea said:
For me, here is the deal:

1) I am not against the pipeline. I am actually in favor of it. However, in planning the route the pipeline is to take, you must follow the rules, and make an impact study. It has been this way for decades. What Republicans did was to make an impact study impossible, then to accuse Obama of being anti-energy. It was their plan all along, and it was transparent.
Click to expand...

Not so fast there Dan...

“The Keystone Pipeline has been through three years and it’s passed every approval process as required by the law. Even the president’s own State Department has indicated that this thing ought to move forward,” Boehner said. “The Canadians are in conversations with the Chinese, and if we don’t build this pipeline to bring that Canadian oil and pick up the North Dakota oil and deliver it to our refineries in the Gulf Coast, that oil is gonna get shipped out to the Pacific Ocean and will be sold to the Chinese.”

“This is not good for our country,” he continued. “The president wants to put this off until it’s convenient for him to make a decision. That means after the next election. The fact is the American people are asking the question right now: Where are the jobs? The president’s got an opportunity to create 100,000 new jobs almost immediately. The president should say yes.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...as-jobs-policies-have-made-the-economy-worse/
Click to expand...

This thing has been through more studies than any other pipeline in America...Why another year? Election maybe?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
[...] This thing has been through more studies than any other pipeline in America...Why another year? Election maybe?
Click to expand...
Probably ;)
 
Karl said:
Oops, there goes one of those empty Kool Aid packets now! <flutter> :mrgreen:

Oh, what a tangled web the right wing weaves, when they first begin to deceive.... :3oops:
Click to expand...

The truth hurts, doesn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom