Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

As expected, Obama has vetoed the legislation that approves the Keystone XL pipeline.

Seems this fight isn't over yet however.

Apparently, Obama can still issue a "Permit" that would allow construction?

More confusion and controversy as if there's not enough already.

Defying the Republican-run Congress, President Barack Obama rejected a bill Tuesday to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, wielding his veto power for only the third time in his presidency.

Obama offered no indication of whether he'll eventually issue a permit for the pipeline, whose construction has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate about environmental policy and climate change. Instead, Obama sought to reassert his authority to make the decision himself, rebuffing GOP lawmakers who will control both the House and Senate for the remainder of the president's term.

"The presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously," Obama said in a brief notice delivered to the Senate. "But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people."

-Defying GOP, Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill-

Canada needs to know! Are we selling to the US or to China?
If he does approve it himself, he is either going to sink or swim with it, don't you think? I'm not too sure why he would do this for any other reason.

originally posted by: superman2012
Canada needs to know! Are we selling to the US or to China?
If he does approve it himself, he is either going to sink or swim with it, don't you think? I'm not too sure why he would do this for any other reason.

Could be a jealousy thing with Obama.

He is a bit nutty.

originally posted by: superman2012
Canada needs to know! Are we selling to the US or to China?

Moot.

The oil is sold, by Canada, long before it enters the transportation end of the business.

I guess I haven't looked into this enough. Won't that help with a lot of jobs? Isn't it already being built?

It sure would have been nice for my company.

It's Crazy to Think that Keystone XL Won't Leak - FORBES Magazine

The corporations that build and operate this infrastructure talk about all the bells and whistles they have to make them safe, and promise to do so, but history says differently. Decades after these things are built, the industry just doesn’t care anymore.

It’s not that these pipelines and rigs can’t be run safely, it’s that they aren’t. Maybe the managers and operators who originally built them once cared, but after they’ve retired or died, the new managers don’t have the same ownership.

Just look at last weeks’ Exxon Pegasus pipeline spill in the middle of an Arkansas neighborhood. Almost a hundred thousand gallons of heavy crude poured down the street of homeowners who didn’t even know the pipeline was there. It was 65 years old. Everyone who worked on it is dead.

And this was the second U.S. spill in a week involving Canadian crude.

Keystone XL Creates Less Jobs Than People Expect - US News and World Report

An independent review by the agency, made public Jan. 31, found that while the project would create about 2,000 short-term construction jobs over two years (or 3,900 if construction took only a year), actually running the pipeline would provide just 50 long-term positions. It also would support another 40,000 "indirect" or "induced" jobs across the country during construction, ranging from canteen cars serving food along the pipeline route to factories manufacturing construction equipment for the project.

“That’s a similar amount of construction work to what’s necessary to build a medium-size mall, and after it’s built, far fewer permanent positions,” says Anthony Swift, staff attorney for the National Resources Defense Council, which has vocally opposed the pipeline. “Keystone XL has been pushed as this national jobs creator. It’s not.”

Constitutionally, it is the President's job to veto legislation that is against the best interests of the US.

Evidence that this pipeline would not only be dangerous, but is actually not all it's cracked up to be, is obvious.

a reply to: Gryphon66
What do you figure the spill rate is going to be if we continue to use antiquated lines, not even designed for the product they are currently carrying?

Same for rail?

As for jobs...I wonder what those heavy refineries are going to process? Either Canadian bitumen or Venezuelan heavy or (hell, why not) Russian heavy...or somebody has to fork over a couple hundred million to retro them for lighter products...well, I guess they could just shut them down.

I guess his buddy's at Berkshire Hathaway would rather have higher risk of train derailments as long as the money keeps rolling in to the DNC.

Seeing the wording in the bill it's a good thing that he vetoed it. It would have given a Canadian company the right to claim eminent domain and take away land that belongs to American citizens. It would have also made the oil tax exempt not to mention being able to use materials not made in America to build it. It makes you wonder if the people who voted for this are even Americans seeing how it leans more towards foreigners having more rights than Americans.

a reply to: buster2010

The wording is almost cut and paste from the Alaskan pipeline.

I wonder what would happen if that was shut down?

Or is your dissent only an issue when it concerns the US giving, rather than taking?

originally posted by: superman2012
Canada needs to know! Are we selling to the US or to China?
If he does approve it himself, he is either going to sink or swim with it, don't you think? I'm not too sure why he would do this for any other reason.

It could be because the people whose land they were going to have to steal to build it didn't want the pipeline on their land. Also the farmers didn't want it because of the risk of polluting the aquifer the rely on to water their crops.

originally posted by: superman2012
Canada needs to know! Are we selling to the US or to China?
If he does approve it himself, he is either going to sink or swim with it, don't you think? I'm not too sure why he would do this for any other reason.

It could be because the people whose land they were going to have to steal to build it didn't want the pipeline on their land. Also the farmers didn't want it because of the risk of polluting the aquifer the rely on to water their crops.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: buster2010

The wording is almost cut and paste from the Alaskan pipeline.

I wonder what would happen if that was shut down?

Or is your dissent only an issue when it concerns the US giving, rather than taking?

Giving there is no give here. The people don't want it on their land so they shouldn't have to let another nation steal the land from them. Also the Alaskan pipeline is in America not Canada/ America.

originally posted by: buster2010
It could be because the people whose land they were going to have to steal to build it didn't want the pipeline on their land. Also the farmers didn't want it because of the risk of polluting the aquifer the rely on to water their crops.

Ah, so only an issue if it is not for Americans.

Glad you cleared that up.

Now, I wonder what those concerned farmers are going to think when the existing pipelines...ruining over the same aquifers, start to degrade and fail?

A drill only lasts so long when you use it to pound nails.

a reply to: buster2010
The Alaskan came with guaranteed passage rights through Canadian waters.

I'm sure you knew that...oh wait, no you didn't, because that part doesn't affect Americans.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: superman2012
Canada needs to know! Are we selling to the US or to China?

Moot.

The oil is sold, by Canada, long before it enters the transportation end of the business.

Right, but wouldn't this make it more cost effective for the US enabling them to buy more? Didn't Harper say that if it doesn't go through it will be sold to the Chinese using the Northern Gateway?

originally posted by: xuenchen
As expected, Obama has vetoed the legislation that approves the Keystone XL pipeline.

Seems this fight isn't over yet however.

Apparently, Obama can still issue a "Permit" that would allow construction?

Keystone XL is required to (and did) apply to the State Department for a permit. The State Department must determine if the project is in our "National Interest".

The GOP were attempting a run-around by passing this bill and that is what Pres. Obama cited when he vetoed it...Which the GOP knew he would do, but they sent it to him anyways so that they could get a pat on the head from the oil industry.

originally posted by: buster2010
Seeing the wording in the bill it's a good thing that he vetoed it. It would have given a Canadian company the right to claim eminent domain and take away land that belongs to American citizens. It would have also made the oil tax exempt not to mention being able to use materials not made in America to build it. It makes you wonder if the people who voted for this are even Americans seeing how it leans more towards foreigners having more rights than Americans.

I agree with you....it's not the pipeline itself, it's everything else that comes with it....it like the dock workers strike, all you hear about is how bad this hurts all the businesses, and nothing about what the actual workers have been trying to get from months and months of negotiating with these shipping companies.....workers don't count, only the profits of the wealthy and corporate do.

a reply to: peck420

I'm not an engineer. Are you? What do you think the spill rate is going to be? Basic physics says that more material moving through means more material to spill. Have you checked the spillage rates of the current Keystone lines? Not exactly encouraging.

Perhaps Congress should pass some bills upgrading our national infrastructure ... you know, roads, bridges, culverts, pipelines, power grid? Nah, that'd be too Roosevelt for them, eh?

Hmmm. Well, I'm no specialist on oil refineries, but ... let's see if we can find someone who is ...

Existing heavy/medium sour crude refining capacity on the Gulf Coast is mainly used by off-shore imports of Saudi Arab heavy, Mexican Maya, and Venezuelan medium/heavy crudes at about 22-27 oAPI and some eavy crudes at 16-17 oAPI. Much heavier Canadian bitumen and extra heavy crude (6-10 oAPI) dilbits and Cold Lake heavy crude (11 oAPI) dilbit are an order of magnitude more difficult to upgrade and refine economically and efficiently, especially at current oil prices.

For Americans the pressing need and priority on the Gulf Coast is not to increase dilbit or heavy/medium sour crude refining capacity but must be to re-vamp Gulf Coast refineries to handle record and still increasing production of US light shale crude. Shale crudes have exactly the opposite problem: high light ends content which also cannot satisfactorily be handled by existing refineries. Under current US law, most of that domestic light crude cannot be exported anywhere except to Canada –but there are no restrictions on exports of refined products.

oilprice.com

Sounds like the right thing to do from the market perspective is to refit those refineries to process American product instead of letting Canada use them to enrich their markets.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: buster2010
It could be because the people whose land they were going to have to steal to build it didn't want the pipeline on their land. Also the farmers didn't want it because of the risk of polluting the aquifer the rely on to water their crops.

Ah, so only an issue if it is not for Americans.

Glad you cleared that up.

Now, I wonder what those concerned farmers are going to think when the existing pipelines...ruining over the same aquifers, start to degrade and fail?

A drill only lasts so long when you use it to pound nails.

No...there is no existing pipeline on the lands of those ranchers and farmers that are having their land seized by a foreign government.