RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "The Obama administration has decided that it will not issue a permit before Feb. 21 for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, according to people with knowledge of the decision."

Protesters marching in Washington against the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, 11/06/11. (photo: Daniel Lippman/MCT)
Protesters marching in Washington against the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, 11/06/11. (photo: Daniel Lippman/MCT)



Obama Administration to Reject Keystone Pipeline

By Neela Banerjee and Christi Parsons, Los Angeles Times

18 January 12

 

he Obama administration has decided that it will not issue a permit before Feb. 21 for the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, according to people with knowledge of the decision.

The announcement, which could come as early as Wednesday, comes in response to a 60-day deadline Congress imposed in late December on the decision-making process for the permit as part of a deal to extend a payroll-tax break and unemployment benefits for two months.

Today's decision, expected from the State Department, would make official what the administration has said from the outset: that under current law, it cannot accelerate the permitting process, especially in light of the need for additional environmental reviews of a new path for the pipeline through Nebraska.

Nebraska hasn't identified possible alternate routes that would allow the pipeline to circumvent a key aquifer.

"It's a fallacy to suggest that the president should sign into law something when there isn't even an alternate route identified in Nebraska and when the review process is" not yet done, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. "There was an attempt to short-circuit the review process in a way that does not allow the kind of careful consideration of all the competing criteria here that needs to be done."

It's unclear whether the administration will reject the pipeline project outright or will revert to the longer time line that it announced in November, which calls for a final decision to be made in early 2013, the people familiar with the decision said.

The decision is sure to intensify a bitter political fight over the pipeline. Republicans believe they can further damage President Obama's shaky standing in the polls by arguing that his refusal to approve Keystone XL robs Americans of thousands of construction jobs.

"President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. "The president won't stand up to his political base even to create American jobs. This is not the end of this fight."

The petroleum industry asserts that the Keystone XL project would create at least 20,000 jobs, but the State Department and independent groups estimate that no more than 6,000 jobs would be generated.

Environmentalists have pushed the administration to turn down the permit, arguing that the transportation of petroleum from Canada's oil sands would profoundly damage the environment. They also contend that much of the gasoline and other products refined from the Canadian oil would be exported, doing little for American energy security.

A denial of the permit now would not prevent the State Department from considering the application in the future. But the department can't do that until the application is complete, one administration official said, suggesting the permitting process could stretch out for months, possibly into next year.

"You can't permit what doesn't exist," the administration official said.

In a new report, Obama's jobs council urges him to expedite the production of fossil fuels close to home, in part by "allowing more access to oil, gas and coal opportunities on federal lands."

Obama has said that a shift away from dependence on foreign oil is a priority, without suggesting how that stance would affect the Keystone project.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

We are going to return to our original fully-moderated format in the comments section.

The abusive complaints in the comment sections are just too far out of control at this point and have become a significant burden on our staff. As a result, our moderators will review all comments prior to publication. Comments will no longer go live immediately. Please be patient and check back.

To improve your chances of seeing your comment published, avoid confrontational or antagonistic methods of communication. Really that is the problem we are confronting.

We encourage all views. We discourage ad hominem disparagement.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+73 # Risa de Angel 2012-01-18 12:49
WOOHOO! He must have read all my letters and all the petitions I signed and forwarded and facebooked to friends.
 
 
+23 # PhilO 2012-01-18 14:23
Excellent!!!

Just in time for the campaign season, I think our President has just discovered his cojones!!!!
 
 
-4 # impeachemall 2012-01-18 16:28
Quoting Risa de Angel:
WOOHOO! He must have read all my letters and all the petitions I signed and forwarded and facebooked to friends.


Hold onto your woohoos, Risa - the title of this article is purposefully misleading. O didn't "reject" the pipeline -- he simply postponed the issuance of the permit until after February 21. Like all our corporate owned politicians, O doesn't give a damn about your letters and petitions.
 
 
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 18:57
Do not be so sure. We the People have stopped a lot of things but then we do things.
Nay sayers do nothing and expect everything...ti me is coming when you will need a vest and there will be none left. We are leaving those who are against, those who careless, those who do nothing where they belong....in the Past
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 18:54
Thank you for doing it. I appreciate it for all of the People, Wildlife, and the Planet
 
 
0 # JONN X 2012-01-19 16:37
Quoting Risa de Angel:
WOOHOO! He must have read all my letters and all the petitions I signed and forwarded and facebooked to friends.


Better yet, it's an election year. He was told that it would be politically beneficial to "push back" on this pipeline til after the election. Believe me, it will be pushed back through and approved this time next year after he win.

Why does anyone here still trust Obama? He only does things like this ( ie things that seem progressive and "good" ) when his panel of experts tell him and his financial supporters ( the lobbyist ) that the political gain will be worth the temporary set back in collecting profits from ( insert anti-progressiv e agenda) and that they will make more after as a result.

Side note:
Obama doesn't care about us, and he's certainly not a liberal. Is he better than Newt Gingrich if it comes down to it? I ask this in theory, regarding the idea of a second term version of Obama. I would imagine no. They would be equal. Who knows though. I do know, however, that he won't have to be re-elected and can focus on his corporatist agenda single handedly just like Bush did in his second term. They have to at least pretend during the their first term.
 
 
+24 # Barbara K 2012-01-18 12:52
Thank you, Mr. President. I just knew you would do the right thing with this.


NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our future depends on it
 
 
+25 # Barkingcarpet 2012-01-18 12:58
May it be so! AND while we are at it, lets put an end to the corrupt insanity and end corporate rule.
WE need leadership and governance which protects "The People," the environments, and the commons, and regulates corporate interests so that there WILL be a livable future.
Money and profits are NOT wealth OR security.
Healthy community and healthy environments ARE real wealth and security folks.
 
 
+2 # John Locke 2012-01-18 15:04
Barkingcarpet: Obama just put off a decision until possibly next year, but he will ultimately allow the pipeline... don't read more into the article than was stated... also as the article stated this misinformation by Boehner that "President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. Has alot of sway with the neocons and the lower class who believe the republicans are on their team...we know this pipeline won't be of any benefit to the US, nor will it create more than maybe 1500 jobs for Americans... It's another 1% snow job, and Obama will cave in as he always does,
 
 
+3 # Ralph Averill 2012-01-18 16:20
Mr. Locke,
Please define "the lower class" and perhaps your source for insight on what that group of people may be thinking.
 
 
+11 # Barkingcarpet 2012-01-18 17:21
I say "may it be so," with pounds of salt and wishfool wishing, and zero expectations that it is in any way a done deal.

It I$ up to us to take the whirled back, and remove a lot of spin and bullshit, until we get a world back.

As far as I can tell, we have 2 choices before us, continue with business as usual and rush quickly into oblivion, or change and demand/create a livable future.

Join me in being a N.O.O.P.
NOT ON OUR PLANET! No more war, nukes, gmos, or corporate bullshit.

It IS up to us, and we have NOTHING to lose, and a livable future to gain.

We are allowing the inmates and loony nutjobs to run things, while really, we ARE the power. N.O.O.P! No more.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:03
Most of those jobs are already bought an paid for, and most not lasting.

But with momentum and that is what we must keep up, the pipeline could be stopped permanently. This Country and he knows it, does not have the money or resources to undo the mess, the havoc, the poisons that come with it.

Also WOrld Environmental council is fining Canada for its emissions and these tar pits are keeping Canada in its hole. Time Canada is made to clean up. I do not care if they ship it to whomever wants it, but we do not get any of it. Profits will not benefit the USA in anyway, I do not see the rich corporations paying their fair share yet...show that to the noecons and their inbreds.
I believe if we are to keep this out, we must continue to show why, and we must show Ms O and the kids why. She is an important person, cares about children and families. I do not believe she would want to see children poisoned, do you?

Never vote Republican
 
 
0 # Archie1954 2012-01-18 12:59
This is a matter for the US to decide which it now seems that it has. Fine and good. Canada could really care less because it will simply sell its oil to China or Japan.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:07
If you read the transcripts, Canada doesnot want to clean it up as it is an expensive thing to do. They are being fined for this for decades.
They said it is not feasible to transport to Vancouver but it is okay for us to transport it 5 times further. Love ya Canada but this is your Mess, clean it up once and for all.

If this was such a good money maker, Canada could have built the refineries needed decades ago and been done...nope, they figured someone would jump in...well, time they do the jumping.
 
 
+10 # fredboy 2012-01-18 13:00
Keystone will kill the nation's key fresh water source in coming years. If any of you are around in 40 years remind everyone that Fredboy told you so.
 
 
+33 # bugbuster 2012-01-18 13:09
Fixing roads and bridges across the US would create a lot more construction jobs and add a lot more value for a lot more people than this dicey pipeline boondoggle.
 
 
-15 # HJ7 2012-01-18 17:20
So what will you drive on those roads and across those bridges if Venezuela and the Arabs cut of your oil imports? I wouldn't cheer too loudly as once that oil is flowing somewhere else it will not be available to the USA no matter how much you need it.
 
 
+11 # Regina 2012-01-18 18:11
Hey -- it's headed for export anyway -- why do you think they want the pipeline headed for a port??? This boondoggle will enrich the oil industrialists and wreck the drinking water of millions, bringing us nothing but grief on every piece of the action. And Keystone's interest in a U. S. Gulf port arose from the Canadian veto of a pipeline to the west coast of Canada -- for export.
 
 
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:16
glad someone reads
 
 
-2 # HJ7 2012-01-18 22:07
Quoting Regina:
and wreck the drinking water of millions,.


The US already has almost 800,000 km of oil pipelines. Much of it old. I'm astonished that all your water has not been ruined already since such a tiny increase in the kilometers of new pipeline is such a threat while vastly longer old pipelines are out there.
 
 
+1 # William Bjornson 2012-01-19 03:09
Do you know anything about pipelines, Newt? Do you know how they move what they move? Pumping. Let's take an example and for data we'll use the new government greenhouse gas reporting site at: ghgdata.epa.gov /ghgp/main.do There is a gas pipeline that passes roughly north to south for about 300 miles across my state of Oregon called the Gas Transmission Northwest Pipeline. It takes gas to California. There are a number of 'compressor stations' (CS) along the route, for which there is data for only 5 although there are more. Use 'Other Industrial' as your setting and the data for these five will be shown. The compressor stations burn gas to supply the energy to pump the gas through the pipe. The sum of CO2 emissions for just these 5 CSs in 2010 was 289,414 tons of CO2 per year plus the CSs not reporting, for just 300 miles of pipeline pumping natural gas. This new pipeline pumping imported sludge (much higher energy overhead) 1700 miles to the Gulf Coast for export will generate as much CO2 and pollutants as any of our dirtiest power generators. You say there are ~500,000 miles of pipeline in the U.S. Hmmm. Also, there are refineries in Mandan, North Dakota. Very close and they could supply the upper tier of states which now must ship in their supplies from the coasts, more wasted energy. Unnecessary, makes no sense economically. A major polluter, much wasted energy to sell this oil abroad and make a few pennies more. This is corruption, Newt.
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:16
Yo this is not oil, it is a very bad byproduct, read up. If this is such a money maker than why did Canada wait decades and let this environmental catastrophe build up? why didn't they build the refineries to clean it up themselves? Why didn't they ship it the thousand miles to Vancouver and ship it out? Because there is no metal or plastic that will be able to transport it safely. Guess you missed the World News Report of Engineers and EPA stating this fact. 2011 has no safe mode to transport this safely or adequately. I would be so happy to give you all those articles but you know what it is time people like you start reading and perhaps learning something.

Gee what will use the roads... Tourists by chance? I guess you have not read that many companies who left the USA are not making a profit. It costs too much between boats, trains, trucks, so many are rethinking coming back to .....

By the way, many of us are buying American, guess what, that means that if we continue to do so we will continue to see the American Companies grow. Mexicoe, South America, Canada all need to ship to us and each other, I said ship by truck is actually correct. Then of course we do have building materials from unfortunaltely the Koch Bros, Georgia Pacific that comes east so we can remodel, build. So what will cross those bridges, trucks for food, clothes, building materials, and safer on better roads. Hopefully people going to Jobs DUH
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-01-18 20:52
Quoting HJ7:
So what will you drive on those roads and across those bridges if Venezuela and the Arabs cut of your oil imports? I wouldn't cheer too loudly as once that oil is flowing somewhere else it will not be available to the USA no matter how much you need it.

Pretty short-sighted and suggestive of a true stick-in-the-mu d. Give us some forward looking ideas or go back to sleep.
 
 
+1 # ABen 2012-01-19 10:57
HJ7; the oil market is global, not national. Also, this oil is some of the dirtiest on the planet. Your thinking is short sighted.
 
 
+20 # Kasandra 2012-01-18 13:09
Sometimes, when the public outrage is really strong, these guys have an agenda of backing down "for a while," waiting until people will forget about it, and then they suddenly sneak it in! I sure hope not, in this case. We can't afford to mess up any more of our natural watersheds, etc., as even one error becomes a big hologram to ruin someplace else!
 
 
+6 # DPM 2012-01-18 13:09
Though this is good news, I believe it is a political decision linked to the election. After the election, I think the president will have the permit issued. Hope I'm wrong.
 
 
+5 # X Dane 2012-01-18 16:58
DPM, i do too. But we ALL need to keep up the pressure. Write and e-mail Obama and your representatives , so they realize that we are NOT GIVING UP.
 
 
+16 # grouchy 2012-01-18 13:17
FANTASTIC! The fat cats don't get one of their scams carried out. Bravo for the environment, bravo for us citizens!
 
 
+16 # lilpat126 2012-01-18 13:20
You mean he finally woke up enough to take a second look. Keep up the pressure everyone. We don't nee the mess. The oil id earmarked for export anyway. We won't see any of it. Like someone using your yard to dump their trash and telling you "too Bad, clean up the mess yourself."
 
 
+5 # colpow 2012-01-18 13:25
Selling our energy security to the chinese? Aren't the Alberta sands in Canada? What part of this is USA-centric?
 
 
+20 # humanmancalvin 2012-01-18 13:27
Score yet another great decision for the Obama administration. Imagine what this man could do for our country if the GOP would take its collective head out of its collective a*s and decide to do what is good for all versus what is good for the 1%, its corporate employers.
 
 
+13 # KLA3114 2012-01-18 13:35
So, It is about time to set limits on just what the American public will sacrifice in the pursuit of Oil energy. We, as Americans all, have been way too casual in our desire to protect the environment from the potential damage(s) wrought by Oil production. How many disasters like:The Exxon Valdez incident, The 2011 Gulf Oil disaster, and others, which all rank right up there with the all time major disasters (where the environment has been poisoned by the by-products of Oil production,) will it take before America gets serious about lowering our dependence on Fossil fuels? The quality of our environment is too important an issue for Americans to continue to "bury our heads in the tar sand", and to up the risks of making our planet entirely inhabitable. Critical decision time.
 
 
-16 # MidwestTom 2012-01-18 13:41
Warren Buffett owns the Burlington Northern RR; Warren Buffett is a major contributor to Obama's campaign; The Burlington RR hauls several 100 car trains of oil from the Bakken Shale and Canadian tar sand per day. was there any doubt how this would go? probably more pollution per barrel now than using a pipeline. The oil will get to the refineries one way or another, unless the Chinese move in and take it by building a pipeline to the Canadian coast, which the Chinese have offered to construct.
 
 
+6 # DoHickey 2012-01-18 18:09
Have you ever been on Canada's West Coast? They would be insane to jeopardize that jewel of their tourism.
But then again what they're doing to Alberta is insanity.
 
 
+6 # reiverpacific 2012-01-18 18:22
Quoting MidwestTom:
Warren Buffett owns the Burlington Northern RR; Warren Buffett is a major contributor to Obama's campaign; The Burlington RR hauls several 100 car trains of oil from the Bakken Shale and Canadian tar sand per day. was there any doubt how this would go? probably more pollution per barrel now than using a pipeline. The oil will get to the refineries one way or another, unless the Chinese move in and take it by building a pipeline to the Canadian coast, which the Chinese have offered to construct.

BUT the railroads are heavily regulated, regularly inspected, reasonably efficient and accountable (I've looked at the rail inspector's certification requirements), and use less fuel per mile traveled than any other means of transport (I just wish that the country would see the sense and go to mass rail transit) unlike any hastily constructed and open to corruption and shortcutting pipeline, with it's additional land-rape, very much like the Nuclear industry -which we also HAVE to get Obama away from!
Pretty negative sort o' dude, ain't ya!
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:31
Railroads are also paid off, regulated or not. But if people had paid attention under GW they would have seen the changes on placards on transportation so as to get a pay off, but so people would not be alarmed at what was on the rails in their back yards or on roads in front of them.

It doesnot bother me the transporstation by rail, for sheer availability of our rails, and I trust it there than on a road in front of me, having a tractor trailer jack knife and spill. But train wrecks happen are just as unsafe for communities, water and wildlife. Canada made this mess and could have kept up with it, chose not to so as not to dip into profit margin. Wow does that sound like Cement Plants, Bethlehem Steel etc? Why yes and this mode of stupidity continues today..Profits before Safety...blame the worker/Union not the Corporation
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:26
Perhaps this info should be looked into and Mr Buffett start paying fines...Time the states he is going thru that pretend to want safe environment start a look see and start charging them per state for the cargo...wonder if it will be so profitable...an yone out west, pass this on to your Politicians and Environmental Groups. Hurt them with fines, permits thru each State, each County etc...takes chunks out of profit.

Canada vetoed this because of safe environment but Canada is on a rock in a hard place because their emission and environmental score card is costing them for decades.

We do not realize just how much contaminated, hazardous, nuclear waste is being transported daily in any situation because GW took placards off if you all go back. Many of us fought against it but GW did what he was told. Ask Sierra Club and other Environmental Org. Many sleeping for many years...time to wake up.
 
 
+15 # Lolanne 2012-01-18 13:43
Hot damn! We may not have won this war (yet) but we've won the battle for now at least Way to go, Pres!
 
 
+13 # giraffee2012 2012-01-18 13:57
Not only will the GOP produce a bunch of lies of this rejection - but I hope our President answers and rejects more of their crazy lies. Risa - it was your letters & petitions! Thanks

NEVER EVER vote GOP/TP but do VOTE 2012.
 
 
-4 # karmakat 2012-01-18 14:17
Yeah, well don't be surprised when he manages to backtrack later on down the road.
 
 
+1 # ER444 2012-01-19 02:19
WE have to reward him loud and clear with out support !!!! That is how politics works. President Obama must simply see that he has won more through winnong ou support than he has lost through losing Oil's.
 
 
+6 # motamanx 2012-01-18 14:19
Whew!
 
 
+14 # reiverpacific 2012-01-18 14:21
YES!!!
The planet finally gets a break -and O'b doesn't fold.
Gimmerings of light at last. I hope this a sign of a tougher more resolute leader who can see which way at least one of the winds is blowin'.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:36
Nice to see the Democrats get their heads out of the sand pits and start back on the side of People, Planet, Environment. They were admired for this and in the past twenty five years not a hundred...boy they slipped under quickly. Stuck in Tar Sands, eh
 
 
+11 # ER444 2012-01-18 14:24
Yihaaaa!!!! Finally a reason to whoop it up. Go Barack. Keep it up, more decisions like this and the massive liberal and indepent will give you 4 more years and a second chance to KEEP YOUR PROMISES !!!
 
 
+8 # panhead49 2012-01-18 14:25
The Keystone tar sands were only being shipped across America to get to the Texas refineries where it would then get shipped outtahere. Refined oil is our largest export.

And does anyone have any idea why Canada can't refine their own oil? Do they ship all their oil out for refining then re-import it?
 
 
+1 # DoHickey 2012-01-18 18:12
No warm-water port besides Vancouver? And Vancouver would never allow it?
 
 
+1 # HJ7 2012-01-18 21:49
There are numerous warm water ports and places to build them on Canada's west coast. Just check the map. We are talking about the Pacific ocean not the Arctic ocean. The US ships oil out of Alaska way north of Canada's pacific coast, any ice problem there?

The pacific pipeline is due to go to Kitimat which is ice free. There is a lot of available land and it's on Canada largest West Coast Fjord with lots of room for big ships to anchor in a sheltered location.

Did you know the USA already has almost 800,000 km of oil pipelines more than any other nation.
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:48
There are only so many refineries set up to do tar pit type oil. Canada could have done this and dipped into their Profit Margin instead of dipping Alberta into this Nightmare. With the Canadian Government who actually helps their own, I do not know why they let this ball keep rolling.
Now they are fined and in red in environmental points in World Council. So they decided to put a vote up to transport this material to Vancouver. Experts showed that it would not be adviable as the tar sand would not go thru modern pipes (we have since put this in front of OB thru Engineers, EPA etc.) This is very heavy, concentrated stuff that doesnot exactly flow. So Costs to have pumping done for 1300 plus miles would be costly. Issues of pipe failure, spills etc Cost was not in any win situation, would cost more, insurance thru roof, failure/clean up They could not afford it. There are transcripts. Most Canadians were glad but now Alberta is living with greed leftovers...contamination.
So someone talked to someone who talked to someone and the GOP told th4e Plains states to go and dig up the prairie, move plant species, and creatures because the pipes were coming. We started this in the West before anyone knew there was a plan. Then the Stated decided there would be NO Public Forum because this is the USA and we do not take Public Input seriously.
Tar is tar, this is beyond crude...few refine.
 
 
0 # HJ7 2012-01-18 21:51
Quoting KittatinyHawk:

Now they are fined and in red in environmental points in World Council.


Which world council is this? Is the USA a member? How do they collect these fines?
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:32
For someone who wants to answer, snivel or vent You certainly do not even pay attention to the Environmental Sanctions. Yes the uSA is and always has been out there, but perhaps you do not realize that China is now beating us and they were not the Hazard they are becoming since GW's visit and push towards cars.
If I had actual time I could give you many facts, councils and world organizations however, you seem to have more time than I so look them up for yourself.
No one is bashing Canada, if you read half my answers to people, my friends live there. But your tar sands pits could have been dealt with from day one.
if you also notice I do hammer some corporations of america there are just too many and not enough time to bore all.
So grow up, get on web and start a research. We would love to help you. You all can organize, you did already...but your mess in Alberta is yours to clean up, that is Responsibility for Actions. Your Corporations made lots of money and spent it ... they should have been prepared to clean up, they knew what was going to happen. Many of you did also, and you allowed it to happen. Same here and around the world. Now I have a meeting to go to on Fracking Adios I actually do things, tonight I have classes in disaster incident system of planning. I am older, with handicaps, yet I am able to read, research and work at making this planet better, and getting Problems fined if not shut down.
 
 
+13 # mishanti2 2012-01-18 14:27
Listening to the GOP now..they keep saying this pipeline will create hundreds of thousands of jobs...where? Once the pipleline is laid they don't need to keep those workers anymore..so only a small amount of jobs will be available. WHO is going to pay when these pipelines start to leak? Or are they going to be hiring thousands to guard this? Is Canada going to give us this oil or do we still continue to buy this oil? This isn't going to create "energy independence".. .full of GOP talking points..
Am glad he is saying no for right now.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:51
Go and research Most people do not know about this, but there are articles, believe the BioDiversty Organization, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists can give you facts, and studies.
Got to do homework.
I saw engineers on TV decade ago say not way, then within two years our own say this is a no go, pipes cannot take it.
Personally if Texas wants it, fine let them have it but they can go pick it up by boat pay the costs, permits etc, Environmental Fees but I do not know who will allow it going out thru their port.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:38
If we look at GOP States that are facing Fracking, review that the Governors are not levying permits, or fines for individual municipalities or counties for clean up. Governor Corbvett and his group of morons are going to keep operating costs minimal as well as permits even over road. They if you look up Public Information on Corporation handouts, I will try to resource the exact name, Governor Corbett,GOP and Dems took very nice payments from Gas Companies at their last elections so they are continuing to grease their pockets. When these catastrophes happen today or in future, the taxpayers will pay the cost as well as the cost of the fuel as you are doing now. Talk about dumb, we are. You pay the taxes for all your Utilities, Gas, Oil so of course the profit margins for them are in blue.
Again it is not oil or crude, you all have misconception. If it was oil, Canada would be refining. It is the lowest sluggish crap, it is too thick for pipes. Get some background, then perhaps your answers will be in front of you.
 
 
+15 # Bill Clements 2012-01-18 14:32
Democrats need to push back on this ridiculous claim by Boehner that "tens of thousands of jobs" will be lost if this pipeline doesn't go through.

From the US State Dept.'s draft environmental impact statement:

"Construction of the proposed Project, including the pipeline and pump stations, would result in hiring approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers over the 3 year construction period. As indicated above, it is expected that roughly 10 to 15 percent of the construction workforce would be hired from local labor markets, thus 500 to 900 local workers throughout the entire region of influence would be hired."

Of course Boehner and his GOP colleagues are not the least concerned about the greenhouse gas emissions from Canadian oil sands crude oil which will be more than 80% greater than oil refined in the U.S. Moreover, this translates into three times more global warming pollution than conventional oil.

Another perfect example of how the GOP puts profits above all else, regardless the damage and destruction to the environment and the planet.
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:55
Canada is being fined for this emission as I stated. We can send it to Texas let them blow themselves up but they must get it their by boat not thru land as there is not a pipe that can handle the load. Can you imagine how many pumping stations, the emission from them and noise variables alone. Then if a pipeline melts down...it could take months til we saw the disaster, then we would have a tar pit, kill people, animals, land, water.
GOP have no brains, no less conscience.
 
 
-6 # HJ7 2012-01-18 21:20
Who is fining us and who is paying that fine. Please provide the evidence. Texas was a logical choice because they had the required refining capacity and needed the oil.

Most Canadians would prefer to refine the oil and keep the jobs here but we are told refineries are multi-billion dollar projects and the US has the free capacity.

I assume that those who object to the minute fraction of world CO2 production due to the oil sands will be closing down all your coal fired power plants that produce vastly more CO2?
 
 
+4 # Bill Clements 2012-01-18 22:52
Clearly, you didn't read my post. I wouldn't call it a "minute fraction of the world CO2 production due to oil sands" when the greenhouse gas emissions is projected to be 80% greater than oil refined in the U.S. resulting in 3 x's more global pollution than conventional oil.

Most of us would love an alternative to coal fired power plants here in the U.S. We'd love to shut those down, too. Anything to reduce global warming..... because the stakes are extremely high for life on planet earth.

And for anybody who isn't up on this pipeline, it's an export pipeline only, i.e., all of it is expected to go to Europe and Latin America. In other words, this pipeline will do nothing to reduce dependence on foreign oil! In fact, it will actually INCREASE gas prices for Americans!
 
 
-2 # HJ7 2012-01-18 23:13
Quoting Bill Clements:
Clearly, you didn't read my post. I wouldn't call it a "minute fraction of the world CO2 production due to oil sands" when the greenhouse gas emissions is projected to be 80% greater than oil refined in the U.S. resulting in 3 x's more global pollution than conventional oil.


1. You do understand that most of the CO2 due to oil comes when you burn it not when you refine it.

2. Less than 1/1000 is in my book a minute fraction.

3. Why the big fear of climate change. Not that long ago much of Europe and North America was covered by a thick ice sheet. A return to that worries me far more than the prospect of the earth returning to the incredibly rich biological state it was in when palm trees grew along Canada's arctic coast and much of our coal and oil was being created.
 
 
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-01-19 09:51
You might want to read through this article from Scientific American, Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. It directly addresses the content of your reply.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense&page=6
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:45
Union of concerned Scientists have excellent studies. Sierra Club. all one needs to do if they actually were on good side was put up Tar Sands, Alberta and well the kid could earn extra credits.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:44
Yes now we know that you are also disillusioned, as you think just yesterday this era was.
I believe you are in Jr HS, please take some extra classes, you do need it.
Republican mentality is everywhere!
 
 
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-01-19 00:26
Part II

Why will gas prices increase for Americans if this pipeline goes through?

TransCanada’s 2008 Permit Application states “Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II [U.S. Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil. Access to the USGC [U.S. Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”

Independent analysis of these figures found this would increase per-gallon prices by 20 cents/gallon in the Midwest.

According to an independent analysis U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through. At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:54
My spouse said if this was actually to go thru pipes, think of the flanges, fittings, ninety degree angle or any angle pipe. Our Engineers said pipes cannot takes this form of tar oil I do not use crude as it is much thicker/ denser. Now think of the pumping stations needed...emissi ons to do this. but every junction could be a blow out.
Spouse said if you look at our own needs at power companies, solution/tar is that thick the lines will have to heated up. Will have to have access points to run check pigs to check thickness of pipe walls and do clean out. Some point these pipes will be above ground where this happens.
Got to work in the field and we are not engineers. My spouse is in Contracting Field/Union. I am an Environmental Activist. Both of us are taking classes on disaster management which is available to all online thru FEMA.
Lots of studies have been done, no one wanted to listen decades ago, now everyone wants everyone else to clean up after them.
there is something we are not being told as a fish tale. If this is profitable after all the mechanics, pipes, equipment needed...I want stock. Jobs will be couple years, then done, just like other pipeline. Nice while it lasts.
Most of the jobs will be to Public Officials Relatives, Friends, couple nice nice to military to make Mrs OB happy but this is a joke. I have seen it before. Later I will get some info but most of us know where to look
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:42
Hey I guess someone must write texts for you because it is under Public Information.
Do some research yourself. I may have to clean up puppies, help change baby and senior diapers but you can do your own work.

We know all about our Corporations and if you would actually be able to read you would see we are fighting the Congress on many issues right now.

I personally have gotten more people fined for dumping, fires, emissions than you ever will because you are probably a snitch for some company. Your Tar Sands are not Minute or else you would have cleaned them up...in fact if there is not problem...why don't you get some shovels and clean up Alberta. Low emissions, there is no room anymore for any emissions.
 
 
0 # qasee 2012-01-18 14:43
Don't get your hopes up folks. They just kicked the can down the road. This is a done deal. The 1% and the propaganda machine will make it so.
 
 
0 # Glen 2012-01-18 15:11
Yeah, and I guess, qasee, that Obama made a deal, push pull, shove. Here's the budget if you give me the pipeline.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 19:57
Idiots would make it so. People with no brains, no homework would make it so...
We the People have beaten more things than you could count I am giving you consideration you can count. Do not be too sure this will be allowed .... Canada has to take control of their mess and clean it up as they should have when they started. Wouldnot be having problem if they would have invested time and money to refine there and then.
 
 
+10 # Bill Clements 2012-01-18 15:08
Given Obamas's record to date on any number of issues, though I would love to celebrate wholeheartedly, I can only manage a cautious bit of optimism.

They've effectively put off a final decision by punting it down the road until after the election in 2013. One can only hope they'll kill it then, but that's not a given by any stretch. If Obama fails to win reelection, it's going to get an immediate green light.

Republicans are screaming about the loss of jobs. Clean renewable energy and energy conservation are cheaper than new, unconventional fossil fuels. Moreover, dollar for dollar they produce far more jobs!
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 20:06
It can give more time, get more people aware. That is good. It gives lawyers for Organizations time to fight local and state government who thought the first time that Public Opinion was not going to happen. We if we actually worked at it together even here, could get a referendum, local, state, and federal on it. This has been done.
Time to build a fight, time to get good information, time to keep things quiet so as not to hear their engineers tell us how safe it is to drink without taking the first plunge at drinking.
Thinking about the pumping stations should be one subject many of you and friends could research. How large they would have to be, and now they hyave to come thru Canada...there environmental people said no once...now if we contacted them and got a think tank of the pipes, the couplings needed, sizes, pumping stations...Nois e, emissions...the y are a problem in areas for sewage and water, costly to run...Alberta to Texas there is something goin on here, as I do not see money in these tar oil, moving it thru pipes... At what force, what is that going to move at, this is not crude, this is something that can be investigated. There is something fishy in this scenario and you are all missing it.
 
 
+1 # Bill Clements 2012-01-19 10:05
Yes, KittatinyHawk, this delayed decision does buy us more time and that is good, as you say. My post was primarily commenting on the obstacles we the people face from our own government and the unholy alliance it has made with corporations. I do not underestimate the power of the people and what they/we can achieve.

What are you alluding to: "something fishy in this scenario?"
 
 
+4 # teachnet 2012-01-18 15:09
I hate to interrupt this yippee-fest with a dose of reality, but did anyone read the article, or just the false headline? The first sentence refutes the headline: The Obama administration has decided that it will not issue a permit before Feb. 21

He just said he wouldn't sign it until a month from now. Then he'll probably sign it.

Don't celebrate the battle until you've won the war. There's a long, long way to go.
 
 
+3 # X Dane 2012-01-18 17:04
teachnet. Then keep fighting the war so the White House and all know that we mean business!!
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 20:08
So not celebrate the War until the Battles are over.. these are not.
It can be stopped, and I have enough info on all the blogs for you all to get some brain power together to perhaps call for a referendum esp out west. Where are all these big time Environmental states who love tourism and love the big sky, fishing, colorado river etc?
 
 
-3 # droth1952 2012-01-18 15:33
Still not going to vote for him, but apparently the president's scrotum has finally begun to descend; first SOPA, now Keystone.
 
 
+3 # Bill Clements 2012-01-18 15:42
0
 
 
+6 # lkwdo56 2012-01-18 15:56
There's no point in being polite to Republican opponents and their cronies in Big Oil. Great Job Mr. President and better luck next time Charles and David Koch.
 
 
0 # JONN X 2012-01-18 16:20
People need to realize how this works. Obama decided in a political move during an election year, to turn down the pipeline. If he allowed the pipeline, it would have even further alienated his already disenfranchised base. This being the same base, who has watched him appease his large corporate donors over and over again versus doing what's right.

This was political - sadly like every single piece of slightly liberal legislature he signs or for which he pretends to stand. I wish it wasn't true, but unfortunately it's reality. He is merely putting off allowing the pipeline until after the election. That simple.

I voted for Obama but sadly he is "Bush Part Two". Obama was just a P.R. change for the corporatocracy. The only difference if you really dig deep is that Obama fights for and sometimes passes liberal gestures once in a while to keep his base just content enough. This is the the same way Bush would push to ban gay marriage or some other right wing gesture, and sometimes let it pass. In the end, they don't care about these things. They just want to keep their bases happy, so they carry on their real business - making things work for their corporate sponsors, oops, i mean donors.
 
 
+2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 20:10
But it is not up to him it is up to us...and then there is those in Canada that said no...they still have it and it still will have to come out of Canada, meaning there could still be there environmental disaster
Get involved nice to critique OB but look in mirror..you can do something and make a difference
 
 
-1 # HJ7 2012-01-18 23:17
What disaster do you have in mind. Unlike that deep sea rig that leaked in the Gulf when a pipeline starts leaking you simply turn off the tap.
 
 
+4 # bsmith 2012-01-18 16:36
Why arent we building the roads/bridges/t unnels/highways and other infrastructure needs that have been crumbling under our cars/trucks for years? The Interstate highway system was designed to last for 20 years and carry 1/5 the amount of vehicles it does today. It's our freedom decaying right in front of us and would put so many people back to work the lift to the economy would be grand! Forget this pipeline that represents .5% (if that) of the economic gain fixing our automobile transit system would.
 
 
+3 # X Dane 2012-01-18 17:10
bsmith, we are not building what you mentioned because the repugs keep obstructing.
Did you not see Obama go to Boehner's and MConnell's district to point out bridges that needed to be reinforced??
He went to Eric Cantor's distrct too.

BUT THE REPUGS ONLY WANT TO OBSTRUCT
 
 
+6 # RJB 2012-01-18 17:09
The demagoguery on the GOP side claiming jobs which will, according to the science, only incur the wrath of Mother Nature and claiming energy independence in this foolish global age by Obama is ludicrous. The oil will be sold on the global market for the highest dollar after ensuring that the biggest user, the military is fully supplied. The only thing you can trust is that what either party tells you untrue. How much abuse does it take for the abused to finally say, ENOUGH! Occupy is the only game in town.
 
 
+3 # Michaele 2012-01-18 17:31
Me thinks Obama is campaigning for re-election. For this campaign he's replaced the closing of Guantanamo with a brand new smiley face for voters to hop..e on. I so want to believe but feel as though I've danced this dance with him before. And for the record...I'll probably end up voting for him just to keep the truely crazy dangerous runners as far away from the WH as possible. But I can't call myself an Obama fan. For the first time in my 63 years I find myself contemplating how ineffective voting is...the mantle the president (current and next) wears into office does/will bear the logos of the corporations who bought the presidency.
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 20:15
It is up to us to make difference but when we sit back and text only, we are not doing what we are intended to do...
I am 53, going to classes, fighting for rights, marching, petitioning, researching
If everyone here got a group together and did some homework on what this entails and there is data, since there has been engineers giving testimony that this will not work, time we get it together and stop it.
Get a referedum on ballot. Get Canadian Organization that fought it to help but don't sit there and blame others...this Country is ours, so let';s start showing the Government who they work for!
 
 
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 18:53
Thanks RSN for putting in here for all to read from beginning. Thank all of you who wrote, called, signed petitions. We cannot win the War without help. Another day, another battle.

I have fought so many things and even temporary good news, is relief, let's us breathe so we can start anew.

This is not going away, the Nits who want Mitt will rerun this and no matter what he or public want, if Mitt gets in, this travesty will continue. It is already in the works so this Permit shutdown is a good thing. States have already destroyed wilderness/plai ns and creatures without any permission or permits. Let's watch them try to make that up, cause no one will pay them until it goes thru...perhaps they will learn a lesson, hopefully people will keep up the pressure.
Canada the tar in in your Pit, you deal with this big time money maker, you transfer it to the Pacific Ocean for all that money and all those pretend jobs. You made the mess, now it is time it is cleaned up. WHO, Environmental Council wants this cleaned up, time you clean up your backyard. I love ya, but this is your mess not ours.

Thanks Obama, You must continue to remember that we must leave the Children a Future, not more of our Past.

I think I am going to jump up and down, then get back to cleaning up fracking once and for all.
 
 
-1 # HJ7 2012-01-18 22:02
Alberta produces less than 1/10 of 1% of global emissions, the US produces over 200 times as much yet you beat up on Canada, Why?

The land that has been mined has to be reclaimed and replanted. (Millions of trees already.) That is the law. Did you know that.
 
 
+1 # elmont 2012-01-18 19:42
Oh, puh-leeze. In due time, The Big O will approve the pipeline. It's a wrap; a done deal. I wish it were otherwise, but his track record shows he doesn't have the political fortitude to do the right thing here (or anywhere else, apparently). Bring on all the red thumbs-down icons you like--it's called 'shooting the messenger'--but those red thumbs don't mean I'm incorrect. Damn, I wish I were.
 
 
+4 # in deo veritas 2012-01-18 19:57
America's energy security? All the oil that went through the pipeline would be shipped elsewhere. More GOP b.s. but what else is new?
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 21:20
If it was oil it could hook up to current pipeline, it is not oil/crude it is far worse and that is what most do not understand...no pipes can do it, pumping stations would be outrageous and if it would make that much profit, there is something very fishy...do homework.
 
 
-2 # HJ7 2012-01-18 23:28
Quoting KittatinyHawk:
If it was oil it could hook up to current pipeline, it is not oil/crude it is far worse and that is what most do not understand...no pipes can do it, pumping stations would be outrageous and if it would make that much profit, there is something very fishy...do homework.


Since they have been producing this oil for years and shipping much of it to the USA by pipeline could it be that the only fishy thing here is your grasp of the facts. I suggest you do your homework.
 
 
0 # Left Coast 2012-01-18 20:38
YIPPY SKIPPY!!!! I can't believe he made a rational decison. WOW!!!
 
 
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-18 21:21
This is the second No. Pressure must be kept on. It is not written in stone or tar
 
 
+3 # Tippitc 2012-01-18 21:15
Se we get the pipeline and a handful of temporary jobs - plus the pollution, but no oil - what a deal!! Seems like a no-brainer to me. Obama needs to quit trying to please everyone and find some backbone!!
 
 
+2 # brianf 2012-01-19 00:36
I said before Obama would lose if he let this pipeline go through. Now I think he has a chance of winning the election. This alone won't be enough, but this was absolutely necessary. No way can he win without his base, not with this economy, not with the anti-American Citizens United decision. Now there is hope.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 13:01
I heard fro ten organizations that there will be no pipeline, I wrote and called, waiting for this in writing. I will let you know when those copies come. That was sarcasm.

I am hoping we work with Canadians and stop this. We must show Canadians how to get the Shills who did this, clean it up.
 
 
+1 # KLA3114 2012-01-19 11:28
The Canadians have their hands full dealing with the environmental disaster that is extracting oil from these Tar sands. Whether or not the USA becomes the chief customer for the oil, the ecologic disaster is still happening in Canada and is hurting Canadians.
 
 
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-01-19 12:59
That is why the Canadians should make them pay. If anyone takes the time to look at our SuperFund Sites, we got organizations together and made many of them clean up.
We have Palmerton Superfund Site, they formed an Action Group who is working to make Palmerton better today. It is a lot of washover but the Community has Grants, and investments in them. Where repsonsible people came together, we got action. Even from Republicans but todays slumlords do not care about what happens to us, they do not see the future only now.
My friends live in Canada, they love their Country and fight for it. Now they have to unite and make those who made money and left them this mess, clean it up. There was a way to have done this better, but greed was all they saw.
Why should we hurt American Prairies, Deserts, Farms, Water, Indian Reservations, Families, Wildlife so more Corporations make more money on a Project that is not Safe. We know it is not safe. Federal Engineers of the Government, not ours, Testified.
 
 
-1 # JONN X 2012-01-19 16:21
Seriously. Go Obama! Right? No. He is just putting off allowing the pipeline until after the election. He already tried to "push back" on the decision, but unfortunately for him, he was was politically forced to by this deadline.

I'm sure there was a back room conversation with Obama and some Oil and Bank execs that went something like this:

OBAMA:: "Let me clear. This is just temporary. As soon as I get re-elected, we will re-present the pipeline bill and I will green light it. This is just a temporary bump".

BIG OIL/ BANKER: (winks at obama). "Sounds Good Mr. President".

( Banker writes another campaign bribe, oops, i mean donation ).
 
 
+1 # BLBreck 2012-01-20 22:10
I think it is right to praise Pres. Obama for this decision, but with all cynicism keep a watchful eye and make sure to keep the pressure on for a total rejection of the Keystone and the re-route that will be taken under consideration! It is up to us to make sure our leaders are listening and working for US not for their re-election!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN