The Keystone pipeline

Q

QuickSilver

SF VIP
Location
Midwest
Looks like this will be the first thing shoved through by Mitch and the kids... They now appear to have a filibuster proof 60 vote majority on THIS issue to put this on the President's desk. Now he will have to decide to sign it or veto it. Which he is likely to do as he has said he wants the State Department to finish it's review before he makes a decision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/05/senate-republicans-keystone_n_6104554.html


 

The Nebraska Supreme Court heard the arguments on September 5th. To date, no decision has been handed down as to whether or not the Governor had the authority to approve the route. If the NSC rules in favor of the Governor, I think the POTUS will move forward with authorizing the pipeline and upstage the Republican Congress. If the NSC does not rule by January, when the new Congress is sworn in, or rules against the Governor... Congress will push a bill through. That bill, whether signed by the POTUS or vetoed, won't be worth the paper it's written on as soon as a appeal to the NSC is filed with the SCOTUS. It will take another year for the SCOTUS to hand down a decision.
 

Can either of you tell me a good "objective" link where I could read the pros and cons of the pipeline. I am interested, or trying to pay more attention to these issues, but it's hard to find objective views. People have always suggested to me to make a list of the pros and cons of something, then whichever has the longer list, choose to go with that. Thing is, whenever I have tried that, I can manipulate it to come out how I want because I can always think up more pros, or cons, LOL!! Can anyone relate:confused:
 
I would be less against it if it wasn't for the fact that none of that dirty oil will be used in the US.. It's Canadian Tar sands (the dirtiest of the dirtiest) and it will be refined on the gulf and shipped to China. Yet we are taking the risk of having it ruin the Ogallala Aquifer that we depend upon for agriculture and livestock. The pipeline will also run across Indian land protected by treaty. So the Native Americans are now in the mix. It is estimated that it will only create about 35 permanent jobs not the thousands upon thousands proponents claim. A heck of a lot of risk for nothing... but to make a Big Oil Company happy.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...an-jones-says-keystone-pipeline-only-creates/
 
I'm in favor of the Keystone Pipeline, I think it would be good for the American workers and the economy. There has to be some give and take on both parties, not everything is black and white. I understand the oil is coming here anyway by railroad, but we're not getting the benefits of putting our middle class citizens to work. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...eyes-to-truth-in-keystone-xl-pipeline-report/


The State Department just came out with its latest report on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. The report finds that the pipeline’s construction would create almost 2,000 jobs that last for two years and would support more than 40,000 jobs.

The report further finds that the pipeline likely would not harm the environment when considered relative to what will happen if the pipeline is not built. Yet, even given these clear facts in favor of green lighting the pipeline, don’t expect an approval in the near future.

The State Department deserves considerable praise for such a fair and unbiased report. Essentially the report focuses on three aspects: jobs, environmental impacts from the pipeline, and what would happen if the pipeline were not built. The findings, taken together, make clear to anybody with an open mind that the pipeline should be approved.

On the jobs front, the report estimates the pipeline’s construction would result in 3,900 jobs over two years. The additional spending on construction material would push the job gains up to about 42,000 counting jobs building the pipeline, selling materials for the pipeline, and those supported by the spending of people in the first two categories.

Considering how the president claims that jobs are his top priority, a project that would create 42,000 jobs according to the administration’s own study while using no government money would seem to be a good deal.

5100962376_6dd49dbae8_b.jpg
keystone pipeline (Photo credit: shannonpatrick17)



The environmental risks from the pipeline were deemed to be minimal by a fair reading of the report. The route of the pipeline has been shifted since the initial application was filed and now avoids the most environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska that had raised concerns from many environmentalists.

There are still risks of spills from the pipeline, but the report puts those in perspective relative to other ways to transport the oil. A similar approach is taken to the impact of the pipeline on climate change.

When environmentalists first tried to block the Keystone XL Pipeline, their goal in blocking the pipeline was to have the oil stay deep in the Canadian tar sands where it lies now.

In the five years of dithering over the pipeline by the Obama Administration, that goal has not been fulfilled. Instead, the Canadians moved full speed ahead on bringing up the oil. For now, a lot of the oil is moved by rail.

In the future, if the Keystone XL Pipeline is not built, it appears likely that a new pipeline to Canada’s west coast and rail cars will send the same amount of oil to a mix of U.S. refineries and China.


With the State Department correctly admitting that the oil will be mined and refined regardless of whether President Obama approves the Keystone XL Pipeline, then the impact of the pipeline on climate change due to emissions from using these fossil fuels becomes negligible.

If anything, emissions should be somewhat lower if the oil is refined and used in the U.S. with our environmental regulation than if it travels to China.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with you Seabreeze, none of these issues are black and white, and the give and take. People HAVE to start working together. If we worked together the same amount of time we spend bad-mouthing, and hating the other side, I think it would be so much better. Why do some people HAVE to be right, even when they are proven wrong. It seems some folks cannot admit they "might" be wrong and consider the other side. That's why politics, religion and any other subject that is controversial is something I hesitate getting into:(
 
35 jobs..... It will create 35 permanant jobs... that's all. Is that worth the risk? It would be one thing if WE were going to benefit from the oil.. we aren't it's meant for export only, and it's not an even and American company... It's TransCanada. Why would you be in favor of THAT??????
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top