It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Passes Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Bill

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday passed a bill to force approval of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which President Obama is certain to veto in his first official clash with the new Republican-majority Congress.




The Senate voted 62 to 36 in favor of building the pipeline.


Source

This was just breaking.

Keystone passed the senate. Up to the emperor to decide it's fate.

I am guessing Obama will be the president of no, after the snip hes trying to pull in Alaska.



Either way, however, the bill is expected to reach the president’s desk as soon as next week.


I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

In with a bang, out with a whimper.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

What are the positives and the negatives of this pipeline?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

now we'll get a chance to see if this new congress has any guts or not. If they do, they'll try to override his veto on some of this stuff. I personally hope they have guts because there's a bunch of stuff this prez has done that needs to be taken off the books.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: caladonea

Positives ?

It is infrastructure, and would create middle class jobs

Negatives ?

We have a blind ideologue in office.

Take your pick on this one.

We ran a pipeline through Canada, now they want to run one through here.

For a guy that claims to be all bout 'fair share,fair play'.

He would sign it instead of fighting it for 5 years.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I was under the impression that the pipeline would only provide jobs during its construction?
Once finished we would be back in the same situation except were allowing a giant oil line to be ran through the heart of our country?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I think Obama, judging from his State of the Union remarks, had in mind to trade the passage of this for big gains in infrastructure funding (which never used to be a partisan issue but is now). Too bad the Democrats voting for it forced his veto hand - if he vetoes it. Maybe the deal has already been made for the infrastructure increase, that would explain it, and would be the only explanation if he doesn't veto. Thinking and rambling out loud, maybe the infrastructure increase will come within days, and not be overtly tied to this passage.
edit on 29-1-2015 by Aleister because: comma and 'funding', go hand in hand



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: caladonea
a reply to: neo96

What are the positives and the negatives of this pipeline?




To be honest it's just another pipeline. We already have thousands of miles of gas and oil lines running the landscape. It will not give many long term jobs and it will not destroy the environment. Just politics as usual.



Here is a map of pipes, I was wrong. There is over 2 million miles, not thousands.

www.propublica.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: intunewithmyself
a reply to: neo96

I was under the impression that the pipeline would only provide jobs during its construction?
Once finished we would be back in the same situation except were allowing a giant oil line to be ran through the heart of our country?


LOL you know how long it will take ?

At least a decade.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Getting this pipeline going is BIG for our Gov't, election year and all. However Obama doesn't care much for Harper(Our PM).



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Kill it. We don't need any foreign oil flowing in and out of our country with the oil spills in pristine lnd that it will undoubtedly bring with it.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.


Too funny!

So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!

Why do you hate Canada eh ?

Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.

Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.
edit on 29-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.


Too funny!

So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!

Why do you hate Canada eh ?

Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.

Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.

So you support some foreign company being able to tell an American citizen we are taking your land because we want to put a pipeline on it. Some American you are. What other parts of America do you want to hand over to foreigners seeing how you think they have more right to our lands than Americans?



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
LOL you know how long it will take ?

At least a decade.

TC is going to be mighty PO's if that is true.

They are planning on approx 2 years for construction.

Final Supplemental...

See page ES-6 for project description.

edit on 29-1-2015 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: neo96



I would say it get's killed by his mighty pen.

He should veto it. No American should support a foreign company to be able to use emanate domain to steal land from American citizens for a pipeline.


Too funny!

So they should just support our government that steals land using imminent domain!

Why do you hate Canada eh ?

Lot's of American corporations have plants there, and there is the Alaskan pipeline.

Guess Canada should rise up, and take it instead.

So you support some foreign company being able to tell an American citizen we are taking your land because we want to put a pipeline on it. Some American you are. What other parts of America do you want to hand over to foreigners seeing how you think they have more right to our lands than Americans?


Oh stop being so xenophobic.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

2 years eh ?

To go through this entire country ?

I am not buying it.

They intentionally low ball those estimates.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Dr. No Obama will veto this of course.

His Presidential Library will be filled with vetoes and EOs.



Maps




posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
If Obama veto's it relations with Canada hit rock bottom. There are lots of pipelines everywhere and by stopping this specific one Obama is denying Canada access to a critical market for it's biggest export product. China sure hopes he vetos Keystone, I can tell you that!

I don't think this Congress would override a veto at this stage, but having a vote and getting some democrats on the record of not overturning Obama's veto would be excellent campaign material down the pipeline, so to speak.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Yes and no.

It is easier to build a very long line, faster than it is to build a short line faster.

Aside from economies of scale, there are also far fewer interruptions due to adequate room for solid construction sequencing.

There is also the some pipe already manufactured, so there will be significantly less lead time required than originally proposed.



posted on Jan, 29 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: peck420

Thing is people are forgetting the American regulatory system.

Longer to build.

More costly to build.

Then that probably doesn't take in to consideration of weather, and geography.

They get it done in 2 years ?

Dealing with American bureaucracy ?

More power to our neighbors to the north.




top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join