Jump to content
dahur

Say Thanks To Everyone Who Fought Keystone XL...

Recommended Posts

Obama Rejects Construction of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline

By CORAL DAVENPORT

NOV. 6, 2015

The president said the Keystone XL oil pipeline would not be built, ending a seven-year review of the project, a subject of climate policy debate.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date November 6, 2015. Photo by Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images. Watch in Times Video »

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Friday that he had rejected the request from a Canadian company to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, ending a seven-year review that had become a symbol of the debate over his climate policies.

Mr. Obama’s denial of the proposed 1,179-mile pipeline, which would have carried 800,000 barrels a day of carbon-heavy petroleum from the Canadian oil sands to the Gulf Coast, comes as he seeks to build an ambitious legacy on climate change.

“America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,’’ Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.’’

The move was made ahead of a major United Nations summit meeting on climate change to be held in Paris in December, when Mr. Obama hopes to help broker a historic agreement committing the world’s nations to enacting new policies to counter global warming. While the rejection of the pipeline is largely symbolic, Mr. Obama has sought to telegraph to other world leaders that the United States is serious about acting on climate change.

 

The once-obscure Keystone project became a political symbol amid broader clashes over energy, climate change and the economy. The rejection of a single oil infrastructure project will have little impact on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but the pipeline plan gained an outsize profile after environmental activists spent four years marching and rallying against it in front of the White House and across the country.

Mr. Obama said that the pipeline has occupied what he called “an overinflated role in our political discourse.’’

“It has become a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter,’’ he said. “And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.’’

The rejection of the pipeline is one of several actions Mr. Obama has taken as he intensifies his push on climate change in his last year in office. In August, he announced his most significant climate policy, a set of aggressive new regulations to cut emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants.

Republicans and the oil industry had demanded that the president approve the pipeline, which they said would create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Many Democrats, particularly those in oil-producing states such as North Dakota, also supported the project. In February, congressional Democrats joined with Republicans in sending Mr. Obama a bill to speed approval of the project, but the president vetoed the measure.

Both sides saw the Keystone rejection as a major symbolic step, a sign that the president was willing to risk angering a bipartisan majority of lawmakers in the pursuit of his environmental agenda. And both supporters and critics of Mr. Obama saw the surprisingly powerful influence of environmental activists in the decision.

“Once the grass-roots movement on the Keystone pipeline mobilized, it changed what it meant to the president,” said Douglas G. Brinkley, a historian at Rice University who writes about presidential environmental legacies. “It went from a routine infrastructure project to the symbol of an era.”

Environmental activists cheered the decision as a vindication of their influence.

Photo
00keystone-web02-articleLarge.jpg
Activists protested against the proposed Keystone pipeline outside the White House in January. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

“President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate,’’ said Bill McKibben, founder of the activist group 350.org, which led the campaign against the pipeline. “That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight.’’

Environmentalists had sought to block construction of the pipeline because it would have provided a conduit for petroleum extracted from the Canadian oil sands. The process of extracting that oil produces about 17 percent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than the process of extracting conventional oil.

But numerous State Department reviews concluded that construction of the pipeline would have little impact on whether that type of oil was burned, because it was already being extracted and moving to market via rail and existing pipelines. In citing his reason for the decision, Mr. Obama noted the State Department findings that construction of the pipeline would not have created a significant number of new jobs, lowered oil or gasoline prices or significantly reduced American dependence on foreign oil.

Dallas, Texas

All this pipeline does is make refiners millionaires so they can sell more diesel to Asia, while American children breath more fossil fuel fumes and global warming increases.

  • 1085 Comments
  • Write a comment

“From a market perspective, the industry can find a different way to move that oil,” said Christine Tezak, an energy market analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington firm. “How long it takes is just a result of oil prices. If prices go up, companies will get the oil out.”

However, a State Department review also found that demand for the oil sands fuel would drop if oil prices fell below $65 a barrel, since moving oil by rail is more expensive than using a pipeline. An Environmental Protection Agency review of the project this year noted that under such circumstances, construction of the pipeline could be seen as contributing to emissions, since companies might be less likely to move the oil via expensive rail when oil prices are low — but would be more likely to move it cheaply via the pipeline. The price of oil has plummeted this year, hovering at less than $50 a barrel.

The recent election of a new Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, may also have influenced Mr. Obama’s decision. Mr. Trudeau’s predecessor, Stephen Harper, had pushed the issue as a top priority in the relationship between the United States and Canada, personally urging Mr. Obama to approve the project. Blocking the project during the Harper administration would have bruised ties with a crucial ally.

While Mr. Trudeau also supports construction of the Keystone pipeline, he has not made the issue central to Canada’s relationship with the United States, and has criticized Mr. Harper for presenting Canada’s position as an ultimatum, while not taking substantial action on climate change related to the oil sands.

Mr. Trudeau did not raise the issue during his first post-election conversation with Mr. Obama.

U.S. & Politics By Carrie Halperin and Emily B. Hager 4:51How Keystone XL Got (So) Political
Continue reading the main story Video How Keystone XL Got (So) Political

As Washington debates Keystone XL, here’s how the 1,179-mile pipeline became so political.

By Carrie Halperin and Emily B. Hager on Publish Date January 8, 2015. Photo by Andrew Cullen/Reuters.

The only legacy that Obama has built is that of a failed presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors and political posturing.

The construction would have had little impact on the nation’s economy. A State Department analysis concluded that building the pipeline would have created jobs, but the total number represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the nation’s total employment. The analysis estimated that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction and the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. The department estimated that the project would create about 35 permanent jobs.

Republicans and the oil industry criticized Mr. Obama for what they have long said was his acquiescence to the pressure of activists and environmentally minded political donors.

“A decision this poorly made is not symbolic, but deeply cynical,’’ said Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who leads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “It does not rest on the facts — it continues to distort them.’’

Jack Gerard, the head of the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for oil companies, said in a statement, “Unfortunately for the majority of Americans who have said they want the jobs and economic benefits Keystone XL represents, the White House has placed political calculations above sound science.’’

Russ Girling, the president and chief executive of TransCanada, said in a statement that the president’s decision was not consistent with the State Department’s review. “Today, misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science,’’ said Mr. Girling, whose company is based in Calgary, Alberta. “Rhetoric won out over reason.’’

The statement said that the company was reviewing the decision but offered no indication if it planned to submit a new application. If a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, a new submission of the pipeline permit application could yield a different outcome.

“President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is a huge mistake, and is the latest reminder that this administration continues to prioritize the demands of radical environmentalists over America’s energy security,’’ said Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president. “When I’m president, Keystone will be approved, and President Obama’s backward energy policies will come to an end.’’

As Mr. Obama seeks to carve out a substantial environmental legacy, his decision on the pipeline pales in import compared with his use of Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The power plant rules he announced in August have met with legal challenges, but if they are put in place, they could lead to a transformation of the nation’s energy economy, shuttering fossil fuel plants and rapidly increasing production of wind and solar.

Those rules are at the heart of Mr. Obama’s push for a global agreement.

But advocates of the agreement said that the Keystone decision, even though it is largely symbolic, could show other countries that Mr. Obama is willing to make tough choices about climate change.

“The rejection of the Keystone permit was key for the president to keep his climate chops at home and with the rest of the world,” said Durwood Zaelke, the president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a Washington research organization."

cons lie like they breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pharaoh princess Barbie will be gone soon enough...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A seven year review?

 

What a load of shit.

 

His teleprompters don't last that long.

 

image003.jpg

 

Hahaahaahaaa.

 

That oil will be transported by rail (Buffet) or some other pipline ... or the Keystone pipeline.

 

It will be burned or made into plastics or whatever ... anyways.

 

Hopefully it will be burned while making piping for nuclear powerplants.

 

KJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama Rejects Construction of Keystone XL Oil Pipeline

By CORAL DAVENPORT

NOV. 6, 2015

The president said the Keystone XL oil pipeline would not be built, ending a seven-year review of the project, a subject of climate policy debate.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date November 6, 2015. Photo by Mandel Ngan/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images. Watch in Times Video »

WASHINGTON — President Obama announced on Friday that he had rejected the request from a Canadian company to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, ending a seven-year review that had become a symbol of the debate over his climate policies.

Mr. Obama’s denial of the proposed 1,179-mile pipeline, which would have carried 800,000 barrels a day of carbon-heavy petroleum from the Canadian oil sands to the Gulf Coast, comes as he seeks to build an ambitious legacy on climate change.

“America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,’’ Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.’’

The move was made ahead of a major United Nations summit meeting on climate change to be held in Paris in December, when Mr. Obama hopes to help broker a historic agreement committing the world’s nations to enacting new policies to counter global warming. While the rejection of the pipeline is largely symbolic, Mr. Obama has sought to telegraph to other world leaders that the United States is serious about acting on climate change.

 

The once-obscure Keystone project became a political symbol amid broader clashes over energy, climate change and the economy. The rejection of a single oil infrastructure project will have little impact on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but the pipeline plan gained an outsize profile after environmental activists spent four years marching and rallying against it in front of the White House and across the country.

Mr. Obama said that the pipeline has occupied what he called “an overinflated role in our political discourse.’’

“It has become a symbol too often used as a campaign cudgel by both parties rather than a serious policy matter,’’ he said. “And all of this obscured the fact that this pipeline would neither be a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some, nor the express lane to climate disaster proclaimed by others.’’

The rejection of the pipeline is one of several actions Mr. Obama has taken as he intensifies his push on climate change in his last year in office. In August, he announced his most significant climate policy, a set of aggressive new regulations to cut emissions of planet-warming carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants.

Republicans and the oil industry had demanded that the president approve the pipeline, which they said would create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Many Democrats, particularly those in oil-producing states such as North Dakota, also supported the project. In February, congressional Democrats joined with Republicans in sending Mr. Obama a bill to speed approval of the project, but the president vetoed the measure.

Both sides saw the Keystone rejection as a major symbolic step, a sign that the president was willing to risk angering a bipartisan majority of lawmakers in the pursuit of his environmental agenda. And both supporters and critics of Mr. Obama saw the surprisingly powerful influence of environmental activists in the decision.

“Once the grass-roots movement on the Keystone pipeline mobilized, it changed what it meant to the president,” said Douglas G. Brinkley, a historian at Rice University who writes about presidential environmental legacies. “It went from a routine infrastructure project to the symbol of an era.”

Environmental activists cheered the decision as a vindication of their influence.

Photo
00keystone-web02-articleLarge.jpg
Activists protested against the proposed Keystone pipeline outside the White House in January. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

“President Obama is the first world leader to reject a project because of its effect on the climate,’’ said Bill McKibben, founder of the activist group 350.org, which led the campaign against the pipeline. “That gives him new stature as an environmental leader, and it eloquently confirms the five years and millions of hours of work that people of every kind put into this fight.’’

Environmentalists had sought to block construction of the pipeline because it would have provided a conduit for petroleum extracted from the Canadian oil sands. The process of extracting that oil produces about 17 percent more planet-warming greenhouse gases than the process of extracting conventional oil.

But numerous State Department reviews concluded that construction of the pipeline would have little impact on whether that type of oil was burned, because it was already being extracted and moving to market via rail and existing pipelines. In citing his reason for the decision, Mr. Obama noted the State Department findings that construction of the pipeline would not have created a significant number of new jobs, lowered oil or gasoline prices or significantly reduced American dependence on foreign oil.

Dallas, Texas

All this pipeline does is make refiners millionaires so they can sell more diesel to Asia, while American children breath more fossil fuel fumes and global warming increases.

  • 1085 Comments
  • Write a comment

“From a market perspective, the industry can find a different way to move that oil,” said Christine Tezak, an energy market analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington firm. “How long it takes is just a result of oil prices. If prices go up, companies will get the oil out.”

However, a State Department review also found that demand for the oil sands fuel would drop if oil prices fell below $65 a barrel, since moving oil by rail is more expensive than using a pipeline. An Environmental Protection Agency review of the project this year noted that under such circumstances, construction of the pipeline could be seen as contributing to emissions, since companies might be less likely to move the oil via expensive rail when oil prices are low — but would be more likely to move it cheaply via the pipeline. The price of oil has plummeted this year, hovering at less than $50 a barrel.

The recent election of a new Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, may also have influenced Mr. Obama’s decision. Mr. Trudeau’s predecessor, Stephen Harper, had pushed the issue as a top priority in the relationship between the United States and Canada, personally urging Mr. Obama to approve the project. Blocking the project during the Harper administration would have bruised ties with a crucial ally.

While Mr. Trudeau also supports construction of the Keystone pipeline, he has not made the issue central to Canada’s relationship with the United States, and has criticized Mr. Harper for presenting Canada’s position as an ultimatum, while not taking substantial action on climate change related to the oil sands.

Mr. Trudeau did not raise the issue during his first post-election conversation with Mr. Obama.

U.S. & Politics By Carrie Halperin and Emily B. Hager 4:51How Keystone XL Got (So) Political
Continue reading the main story Video How Keystone XL Got (So) Political

As Washington debates Keystone XL, here’s how the 1,179-mile pipeline became so political.

By Carrie Halperin and Emily B. Hager on Publish Date January 8, 2015. Photo by Andrew Cullen/Reuters.

The only legacy that Obama has built is that of a failed presidency. This is all smoke and mirrors and political posturing.

The construction would have had little impact on the nation’s economy. A State Department analysis concluded that building the pipeline would have created jobs, but the total number represented less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the nation’s total employment. The analysis estimated that Keystone would support 42,000 temporary jobs over its two-year construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction and the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. The department estimated that the project would create about 35 permanent jobs.

Republicans and the oil industry criticized Mr. Obama for what they have long said was his acquiescence to the pressure of activists and environmentally minded political donors.

“A decision this poorly made is not symbolic, but deeply cynical,’’ said Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Alaska Republican who leads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “It does not rest on the facts — it continues to distort them.’’

Jack Gerard, the head of the American Petroleum Institute, which lobbies for oil companies, said in a statement, “Unfortunately for the majority of Americans who have said they want the jobs and economic benefits Keystone XL represents, the White House has placed political calculations above sound science.’’

Russ Girling, the president and chief executive of TransCanada, said in a statement that the president’s decision was not consistent with the State Department’s review. “Today, misplaced symbolism was chosen over merit and science,’’ said Mr. Girling, whose company is based in Calgary, Alberta. “Rhetoric won out over reason.’’

The statement said that the company was reviewing the decision but offered no indication if it planned to submit a new application. If a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election, a new submission of the pipeline permit application could yield a different outcome.

“President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline is a huge mistake, and is the latest reminder that this administration continues to prioritize the demands of radical environmentalists over America’s energy security,’’ said Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president. “When I’m president, Keystone will be approved, and President Obama’s backward energy policies will come to an end.’’

As Mr. Obama seeks to carve out a substantial environmental legacy, his decision on the pipeline pales in import compared with his use of Environmental Protection Agency regulations. The power plant rules he announced in August have met with legal challenges, but if they are put in place, they could lead to a transformation of the nation’s energy economy, shuttering fossil fuel plants and rapidly increasing production of wind and solar.

Those rules are at the heart of Mr. Obama’s push for a global agreement.

But advocates of the agreement said that the Keystone decision, even though it is largely symbolic, could show other countries that Mr. Obama is willing to make tough choices about climate change.

“The rejection of the Keystone permit was key for the president to keep his climate chops at home and with the rest of the world,” said Durwood Zaelke, the president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a Washington research organization."

 

 

cons lie like they breath.

 

 

How do you like Obama's TPP trade agreement?

 

Ya we need to make toxic waste.

 

You will be eating and wearing toxic waste soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will probably decrease the amount of tar sands oil produced, because other available oil costs less. There was no real advantage to this country to build it, and it would impair the US's credibility in convincing other countries to lower Co2 emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say Thanks To Everyone Who Fought Keystone XL...

 

Yeah.....it was a GOOD TIME, ALRIGHT!!!!!

And Warren Buffet is getting rich from the keystone XL being held up. As long as he donates lots of cash to Democrats that pipeline will never get approved and democrats will continue to stay in power and get rich. I think the word is hypocracy.

 

Uhhhhhhhhhh....that'd be h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y...as in....

 

"We knew they were alongside us, but we didn’t realize the extent to which they were all around us,” Newton says through the gusting wind. “When we looked at the recent (geological) survey we found they had assembled an absolutely massive land package in the Peace River area."

http://www.thestar.c...in_alberta.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say Thanks To Everyone Who Fought Keystone XL...

 

 

Hooray

 

wanking.gif

Gee......ya' jumped to the OTHER-side o' the fence, huh????

 

Weve accomplished a lot in the first 100 days of our new Conservative Congress:


Rep. Mia Love

Expanded access to college savings
Passed a responsible budget
Restored 40 hour work weeks
Passed the Keystone Pipeline

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah.....it was a GOOD TIME, ALRIGHT!!!!!

 

Uhhhhhhhhhh....that'd be h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y...as in....

 

 

I'm curious, why didn't Warren Buffett want the pipeline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aquifers in that area are a little safer now. At least for the time being.

Too bad Big Oil, and cons. You lose this round to the good guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Keystone Pipeline Spill Hardens Landowner Opposition

To Proposed Expansion

November 6, 2019

 

"A big oil spill from the Keystone Pipeline in North Dakota last week has hardened opposition to the controversial Keystone XL expansion among landowners along its route, who say they hope to use the incident to help block or stall the project in court.

 

Operator TC Energy Corp is in the process of securing land easements for Keystone XL from scores of reluctant landowners in Nebraska, one of the final obstacles to a project linking Canada’s oil fields to U.S. refineries that has been delayed for over a decade by environmental opposition.

 

The roughly 9,120-barrel spill from the existing Keystone line brings the number of significant releases since the system was built a decade ago to four - much higher than the company estimated in its risk assessments before it was approved - raising worries Keystone XL will be just as problematic. (Read story here)

 

“The spill confirms what we have been warning people about over the last 10 years,” said Jeanne Crumly, who owns a cattle ranch along Keystone XL’s approved path and fears a spill could contaminate her land and harm her cows."

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keystone-pipeline-leak/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2015 at 4:34 PM, dahur said:

The people I know in Canada are VERY happy about this decision.

I thought you gay guys liked pipe lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...