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.

 

Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Im with you on that, the pipeline would also most definitely need to run through national parks which would mean destroying part of them.




posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

and the GOP announced they will try a veto override. Considering the fact it was a Bi Partisan bill I don't think there will be an issue getting enough votes from both sides to override.

Should get interesting.

They had to vote on it twice to get the votes they needed to even get it to the President. So chances are they won't be able to get the votes they need for a override. They need a two thirds vote for the override and they didn't even get that much to pass it.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
This is interesting stuff.

Vetoes by President

Let's see what happens with this one....



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, the evidence is pipelines are safer than rail transportation.

Arguing the jobs would be short-lived is spin. Pipelines are being built around the country as we speak. The issue is politically based...support of Buffet's BNSF railroad.

The real question is whether the next step, an override of that veto, is in the works and if there is a chance that occurs.

Even the unions support the GOP on this one...Obama stands alone.



Safer? That's a bit like claiming that drinking a little strychnine is safer than drinking a bunch.

Can you present the evidence you're referring to for us to review? The studies/research/whathaveyou that proves that "pipelines are safer than trains"?

Can you present evidence that demonstrates the XL construction would create good long-term jobs for Americans?

I would not debate for a second that the issue at hand is political.

President Obama hardly "stands alone." Unions hardly "support the GOP."

Polls Give Obama, Dems Lift on Keystone Pipeline (January 20,2015)



An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released Tuesday shows that 41 percent favor construction of the pipeline to bring crude oil from Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries, while 20 percent oppose it and 37 percent did not know enough to weigh in.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll unveiled Monday, meanwhile, asked whether Congress should pass legislation approving the project or wait until the Obama administration completes its review. Sixty-one percent favored completing the review before deciding, while 34 percent backed authorizing construction now.


I realize those are points of pesky evidence, but still, even more "positive" polls still so a significant number of Americans do not want the Pipeline.

The President is not alone.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL No Obama doesn't stand alone. But his support on it is dwindling. Even significant members of his own party voted for the pipeline-including the unions.

Once again you use 'good long term" jobs as if construction jobs aren't "good'? Construction jobs are, by their nature, short term. They are what built this nation, thank you very much, and don't deserve marginalization by you.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

and the GOP announced they will try a veto override. Considering the fact it was a Bi Partisan bill I don't think there will be an issue getting enough votes from both sides to override.

Should get interesting.


They would need 20 members of Congress to change their vote to over-ride a Veto.

They have already done all the arm-twisting and "lobbying" they can. I don't see them convincing another 20 to flip their vote.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

Once again you use 'good long term" jobs as if construction jobs aren't "good'? Construction jobs are, by their nature, short term. They are what built this nation, thank you very much, and don't deserve marginalization by you.



I don't think anyone is deriding construction jobs? Just being accurate with our terms.

By all accounting the Keystone XL Pipeline would create 35 New (permanent jobs)

And another 3,900 seasonal, temporary, construction jobs for each year of it's construction.

Now, while you explain that construction jobs are temporary by nature...it should be noted that construction employment (Apart from building a one-off pipeline) is more steady or predictable.

thus when the housing market collapsed ...it impacted construction workers who made their living in the home construction INDUSTRY.

What makes the Keystone XL Pipeline's temporary employment more useless than other construction is that there is NO LONG TERM INDUSTRY...Differentiating from a Home Builder, Road Construction worker etc. It will be a quick boom and bust of temporary employment...There is not long term industry in building Pipelines in X Nebraska etc. vs. Home Building, roads etc.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well seeing as you are looking at temporary jobs. Why put them to use making a structure that no one will see any benefit from except the oil barons? If we are going to create a bunch of construction jobs, then let's create them by rebuilding our infrastructure instead. The pipeline is clearly unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5
Good points. Yet, pipeline construction is on-going as we speak. Oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines. Repair, replacement and maintaining existing systems. Therefore, the 'industry' is fairly healthy.

Your numbers don't allow for the support side to those construction jobs. Trucking, housing...so on. The spin-off jobs cannot be ignored or discounted.

The XL pipeline, is also good for our Canadian neighbors. Not something that should be discounted.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Great! Let's increase the national gas tax and ENFORCE those revenues be used exclusively on infrastructure.That would take care of that issue permanently! On going revenue for ongoing repairs and expansion...works for me.

The rest of your post? Sorry, the 'oil barons' have zero interest on how the oil gets to the refineries. Rail or pipeline, they get their money either way.

We would be screwed without pipelines. The real stop on this one is Buffet and the BNSF, Obama's supporter.

Unconstitutional? Obviously your running out of talking points. Virtually nothing out of the Obama administration has been 'Constitutional'. As applied to pipelines then one might as well put every federal highway and Interstate into the same umbrella , powerlines... too late for that one as well....



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm not sure I can pick the rhetoric from the truth from your words. It's complete nonsense and literally goes against all the evidence pointed out in this thread already. Like where are you getting your sources for these wild claims?

Obama does a good thing and your derision for the man is so entrenched that you side with rich foreigners stealing land from our country over applauding something he did. You may need to take a step back from politics; you may be in too deep.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL No Obama doesn't stand alone. But his support on it is dwindling. Even significant members of his own party voted for the pipeline-including the unions.

Once again you use 'good long term" jobs as if construction jobs aren't "good'? Construction jobs are, by their nature, short term. They are what built this nation, thank you very much, and don't deserve marginalization by you.



And yet, all you offer in response is your own well-intentioned wisdom with no evidence.

What "built this nation"? My goodness Trucker, did you just make a pun?

Quote anything in my post "marginalizing" construction jobs. When you can't, blow it out your horn.

You have no evidence, so you resort to citing me for something I did not say.

That's right next to outright dishonesty.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Indigo5
Good points. Yet, pipeline construction is on-going as we speak. Oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines. Repair, replacement and maintaining existing systems. Therefore, the 'industry' is fairly healthy.



Perhaps for those construction workers willing to perpetually relocate for temporary work? Again, I would say it is significantly a smaller construction industry than Homes, Roads etc. and likely one that requires workers to uproot and move on an annual basis in order to get an economic return on any skills-growth with Oil Pipeline Construction...just not seeing it.




Your numbers don't allow for the support side to those construction jobs. Trucking, housing...so on. The spin-off jobs cannot be ignored or discounted.


Having extended family in Boom-Bust oil and mining towns, I would almost argue this worse than slow economic growth. The quick economic uptick encourages business and families to take root only to be rapidly abandoned. Towns that see quick derivative economic growth from these projects are soon centers of mass unemployment, abandoned building and despair....where-as if the town had been left alone or developed permanent economic activity, only those people, homes and businesses able to survive there would be present.


I am not sold on the virtue of brief, sudden, temporary economic activity for small towns.

Just my 2 cents...

If we want jobs...why not invest in infrastructure? Bigger than Keystone, desperately needed, longer term investment, more widespread and WE..THE USA actually benefit from the returns of the labor and investment.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Whoa whoa whoa ... now, we all know the Government can't create jobs ... we can't just give taxpayer's dollars away for meaningless projects like roads, bridges, culverts, etc.

Or say, the interstate system? Complete the missing interchanges?

That's just communist, like that well known communist President Dwight Eisenhower ...

Oh, by the way, that socialist/communist project provided jobs for over 35 years.

You know, the kinds of construction projects that really *did* build modern America.


edit on 13Wed, 25 Feb 2015 13:55:06 -060015p012015266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The rest of your post? Sorry, the 'oil barons' have zero interest on how the oil gets to the refineries. Rail or pipeline, they get their money either way.



Not correct. Pipelines are near infinitely less expensive than rail or trucking. It is that reasoning that explains Keystone et al. prediction it will only cost them 35 permanent employees for inspection and maintenance.

Just ask the stock analysts who will make money
CANADA


To a certain extent, TransCanada and rival pipeline operator Enbridge Inc. ENB, -1.49% which has some pipeline-extension projects of its own, should also be part of the equation.

But gains are largely priced in, and analysts caution that the two companies’ stocks already look pricy.

Analysts get more excited about the Canadian oil producers, the ones that would benefit the most as more of the heavy stuff starts to flow south.

Analysts at RBC listed Suncor Energy Inc. SU, +0.23% Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. CNQ, +0.20% MEG Energy Corp. MEG, +2.47% and Baytex Energy Corp. BTE, +0.75% as among their favorites.


USA


Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM, -0.10% would also benefit, as the U.S. oil giant owns most of Imperial Oil and also owns Gulf Coast refineries set up to handle the heavier crude from up north.

Cenovus also owns refineries in Illinois that could process the stuff, Pendill said.

As for the Gulf refiners, he said Phillips 66 PSX, -1.14% and Valero Energy Corp. VLO, -0.86% are the ones best equipped to refine the crude.

www.marketwatch.com...

Maybe we should define Oil Barons?



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I remember this one from a few years ago. A pipeline leaked and polluted the Kalamazoo River.

Source

If that's not good enough, here's the news story.

Here's another from 2013 in Arkansas.

Arkansas leak

Here's another where a pipeline leaked crude oil into a nature preserve in south western Ohio.

Link

This one was a Keystone pipeline that leaked.

Link

Hell, here's a whole list of pipeline accidents.

list

I could go on and on. There have been a lot of leaks. They are not safer.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Skid Mark because: Added more links



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark


I could go on and on. There have been a lot of leaks. They are not safer.


Yes...but you have to look at it from the Owners perspective...

An derailed, exploding train-car makes big headlines...graphic images for the news to show.

Where-as dozens or hundreds of people sick, cancerous or dying or spikes in the rates of still-borns etc. etc. resulting from leaky pipelines does not make for graphic headlines...who wants to read about sick people?
edit on 25-2-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Remember back in 2012 when Fox News was AGAINST the Keystone XL?

(that's right, AGAINST, or at least, they printed this article)

Six Reasons the Keystone XL was a Bad Deal All Along Fox News.com




1. Keystone XL Would Not Reduce Foreign Oil Dependency
2. Keystone XL Would Have Increased Domestic Oil Prices
3. Keystone XL Overstated Number of Jobs to be Created
4. Current Keystone Pipeline Leaked 12 Times in Last Year
5. The Environmental Concerns About Oil Leaks Are Justified
6. Mining Tar Sands Would Worsen Global Warming


(Not surprisingly, the foxnews.com faithful choked on the last item ... but still.)

I'm just trying to provide a balanced perspective here by citing a Fox News article.

They report; you decide.


edit on 15Wed, 25 Feb 2015 15:25:13 -060015p032015266 by Gryphon66 because: Corrected citation



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evidence in these threads? Where? I posted a VERY objective article on pipeline vs rail. It gives the nod to pipelines.

Is see nothing but politics on the XL issue. The oil will be moved north to south and already is to a degree. The volume will increase dramatically either way. One way above ground, the other 5 feet below the surface.

The difference between the two borders on semantics. Two means of transportation allows some degree of competition between the two.

When the Feds, in this case Obama, gives nod in favor of one over the other, it is not in the best interests of the nation, whatsoever. The EPA, the coordinating federal agency, State, has rubber stamped it, Both houses have approved it.

It falls back to Obama and Buffet. The point not one of the 'Obama supports' rebut in the slightest!

It will be interesting to see where this ends up. It may have to wait for the next administration. It will happen, sooner or later.



posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

OK, in the long term, pipeline transportation is cheaper than rail. Granted.

The oil WILL move either way. The cost? That will be passed onto the consumers, just like every other industry, that's thee and me.

Once again, they will make their money either way. FACT. Deal with it...



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join