Obama nixes Keystone XL Pipeline permit.

• HitsRus

  

  Stupid is as stupid does.
  
  The Canadians are "deeply disappointed". Bejing is secretly chuckling. 9%+ unemployment still abounds. Astronomical deficits continue. Nice pick, Bonehead!
  Can he do any more damage before November? (seriously, Ron Paul people...Romney= Obama is a talking point ONLY)
  
  Yessir, we can see this president is serious about job creation. LOL.
  
  Oh, wait these are private sector jobs not government sector!
  
  The single most driving force that dictates our foreign policy is oil and its necessity to our economy....the problem being that most of the inexpensive sources of oil lie in regions of instability or hostility toward us. Now, here is an idea that brings oil from the Canadian tar sands to our refineries.... Without a deal on a pipeline soon the Canadians have said they will move the oil to Asian markets. The Obama administration has no plans to expedite a permit. SMH
  
  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-keystone-20120119,0,2322625.story
• jmog

  Moron.
• fish82

  

  I'm sure this won't bit him in the ass at all this summer when gas is $5.00/gal.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Ok... I'll take the other side of this.
  
  A few questions
  
  
  How does this help our energy independence?
  
  
  Job creation? How many of these jobs are pemanent?
  
  
  How do you feel about the gubmint taking your land and pay you what they consider "fair market value". And even if it is not your land, you have to look out your window every day and look at that shit?
  
  And what makes you think that the oil or gas will not go to China anyway? A big part of the oil in Alaska goes to the Asian markets anyway. And we are exporting a lot of gas.
  
  
  
  Drill Baby Drill.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/canada-pledges-to-sell-oil-to-asia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ......
• KnightRyder

  

  Obama made the correct and responsible decision. Oil-sands crude is the dirtiest oil on the planet. Before it can be pumped, it needs to be liquified by heating it to a high temperature and then treated with highly toxic and corrosive chemical additives. Building codes for pipelines in this country were written for traditional crude; not oil-sands crude, which is more corrosive, hotter, and must be pumped at a much higher PSI than conventional crude. The Keystone line would have been constructed on the cheap in accordance with conventional pipeline building codes, thus making leaks inevitable according to TransCanada's own data. Do we really want this poisonous cocktail leaking into our water supply and precious farmland? And for what? So the oil can pass from Canada to the Gulf and then immediately be exported abroad? Screw that. Only an irresponsible child (or money hungry oil profiteer) would sign off on this can of worms without thoroughly examining all the risks and without conducting proper and thorough cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, several independent studies including one conducted by Cornell University have shown the project probably would have created somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 (temporary) jobs, and not the ridiculously exaggerated 20,000 jobs TransCanada claimed it would create. Not only that, virtually every independent study conducted on this issue has shown the pipeline would not move the U.S. one inch closer to energy independence. Think, folks. Why should the U.S. assume the risk of a catastrophic environmental disaster just to make it easier for Canada to get its dirty crude to the Gulf where it will immediately be exported abroad? 2,000 temporary jobs ain't worth the risk
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Unbelievable. It is one thing for the POTUS to put his election efforts ahead of the nation's welfare, we should expect that much from this pathetic political class.
  
  It is another for his sycophants to actually believe this BS. This should have been a no-brainer. A bi-partisan no-brainer.
  
  I don't know what else to say without being overly offensive. Apparently Obama can make the dumbest decisions possible and his folks will lick up the gravy. God help us all.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  KnightRyder;1060179 wrote:Obama made the correct and responsible decision. Oil-sands crude is the dirtiest oil on the planet. Before it can be pumped, it needs to be liquified by heating it to a high temperature and then treated with highly toxic and corrosive chemical additives. Building codes for pipelines in this country were written for traditional crude; not oil-sands crude, which is more corrosive, hotter, and must be pumped at a much higher PSI than conventional crude. The Keystone line would have been constructed on the cheap in accordance with conventional pipeline building codes, thus making leaks inevitable according to TransCanada's own data. Do we really want this poisonous cocktail leaking into our water supply and precious farmland? And for what? So the oil can pass from Canada to the Gulf and then immediately be exported abroad? Screw that. Only an irresponsible child (or money hungry oil profiteer) would sign off on this can of worms without thoroughly examining all the risks and without conducting proper and thorough cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, several independent studies including one conducted by Cornell University have shown the project probably would have created somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 (temporary) jobs, and not the ridiculously exaggerated 20,000 jobs TransCanada claimed it would create. Not only that, virtually every independent study conducted on this issue has shown the pipeline would not move the U.S. one inch closer to energy independence. Think, folks. Why should the U.S. assume the risk of a catastrophic environmental disaster just to make it easier for Canada to get its dirty crude to the Gulf where it will immediately be exported abroad? 2,000 temporary jobs ain't worth the risk

  As Paul Harvey would say, now we know the rest of the story. At least the Fox talking heads have something to babble about.
• jmog

  KnightRyder;1060179 wrote:Obama made the correct and responsible decision. Oil-sands crude is the dirtiest oil on the planet. Before it can be pumped, it needs to be liquified by heating it to a high temperature and then treated with highly toxic and corrosive chemical additives. Building codes for pipelines in this country were written for traditional crude; not oil-sands crude, which is more corrosive, hotter, and must be pumped at a much higher PSI than conventional crude. The Keystone line would have been constructed on the cheap in accordance with conventional pipeline building codes, thus making leaks inevitable according to TransCanada's own data. Do we really want this poisonous cocktail leaking into our water supply and precious farmland? And for what? So the oil can pass from Canada to the Gulf and then immediately be exported abroad? Screw that. Only an irresponsible child (or money hungry oil profiteer) would sign off on this can of worms without thoroughly examining all the risks and without conducting proper and thorough cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, several independent studies including one conducted by Cornell University have shown the project probably would have created somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 (temporary) jobs, and not the ridiculously exaggerated 20,000 jobs TransCanada claimed it would create. Not only that, virtually every independent study conducted on this issue has shown the pipeline would not move the U.S. one inch closer to energy independence. Think, folks. Why should the U.S. assume the risk of a catastrophic environmental disaster just to make it easier for Canada to get its dirty crude to the Gulf where it will immediately be exported abroad? 2,000 temporary jobs ain't worth the risk

  So what left wing environmental nut job website did you copy/paste this from?
  
  Having physically been to the oil sands sites in Canada and worked on fuel delivery systems as a chemical combustion research engineer, I can tell yout hat you are wrong. So wrong that is itsn't even funny.
  
  Is it hotter and pumped at a higher pressure? Yes.
  Is it so much hotter and higher pressure that current standards for piping won't work? No.
  
  Heck, we already do this in California, the same type of oil is in the San Juaquin valley, the same type of extraction (high pressure steam pumped into the ground to loosen up/heat up the oil to make it pumpable).
  
  How did we EVER manage to get the oil out of california?
  
  This is the kind of crap that pisses me off, as someone who has worked in combustion/fuel research for about a decade to watch some blog site that has no basis in science or reality be quoted as fact.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1059933 wrote:I'm sure this won't bit him in the ass at all this summer when gas is $5.00/gal.

  Lol. $5.00 a gallon really?
  
  If it is it will likely be because of our actions against Iran (via our sanctions against their central bank which processes all payments, if other countries follow our lead like they often do Iran will have no way to export oil to most places eliminating 50% of their GDP. At that point why wouldn't they close the strait? Nothing to lose).
• QuakerOats

  NAM’s Timmons Blasts Obama on Keystone Pipeline Decision
  This week President Obama killed progress on the Keystone pipeline.
  National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President Jay Timmons responded: “The President’s rejection of the Keystone XL project is a serious blow to job creation and a major setback to energy security. The decision to say no to a project that would create 20,000 manufacturing and construction jobs – with an additional 118,000 indirect jobs – defies logic when the U.S. is suffering from high unemployment and a struggling economy. For America’s future, it’s always better to choose sound policy over politics. Instead the Administration followed the political winds and rejected a clear way to create jobs.”
  NAM has created a web tool through which manufacturers are urged to express their disppointment to President Obama .
  Watch Timmon’s interview on the subject with Neil Cavuto of FOX News.
  
  
• QuakerOats

  Abe Vigoda;1060219 wrote:As Paul Harvey would say, now we know the rest of the story. At least the Fox talking heads have something to babble about.

  Yeah right, Paul Harvey is rolling over in his grave right now.
• KnightRyder

  

  jmog;1060245 wrote:So what left wing environmental nut job website did you copy/paste this from?
  
  Having physically been to the oil sands sites in Canada and worked on fuel delivery systems as a chemical combustion research engineer, I can tell yout hat you are wrong. So wrong that is itsn't even funny.
  
  Is it hotter and pumped at a higher pressure? Yes.
  Is it so much hotter and higher pressure that current standards for piping won't work? No.
  
  Heck, we already do this in California, the same type of oil is in the San Juaquin valley, the same type of extraction (high pressure steam pumped into the ground to loosen up/heat up the oil to make it pumpable).
  
  How did we EVER manage to get the oil out of california?
  
  This is the kind of crap that pisses me off, as someone who has worked in combustion/fuel research for about a decade to watch some blog site that has no basis in science or reality be quoted as fact.

  i too work in the oil industry, and no i'm not a chemical combustion research engineer. i'm the guy that has to clean up the mess that chemical combustion research engineers create with their stupid decisions that only work on paper or in some lab. get out in the real world and get your hands dirty. then maybe you could see what works and what doesnt. till then bag it.
• queencitybuckeye

  KnightRyder;1060290 wrote:i too work in the oil industry, and no i'm not a chemical combustion research engineer. i'm the guy that has to clean up the mess that chemical combustion research engineers create with their stupid decisions that only work on paper or in some lab. get out in the real world and get your hands dirty. then maybe you could see what works and what doesnt. till then bag it.

  Instead of the blowhard dick-measuring bullshit, how about refuting his facts?
• I Wear Pants

  queencitybuckeye;1060297 wrote:Instead of the blowhard dick-measuring bullshit, how about refuting his facts?

  I agree about the blowhard stuff.
  
  But neither really posted any facts.
• Devils Advocate

  

  Devils Advocate;1059934 wrote:Ok... I'll take the other side of this.
  
  A few questions
  
  
  How does this help our energy independence?
  
  
  Job creation? How many of these jobs are pemanent?
  
  
  How do you feel about the gubmint taking your land and pay you what they consider "fair market value". And even if it is not your land, you have to look out your window every day and look at that ****?
  
  And what makes you think that the oil or gas will not go to China anyway? A big part of the oil in Alaska goes to the Asian markets anyway. And we are exporting a lot of gas.
  
  
  
  Drill Baby Drill.

  
  Yaaaawwwwnnnnn.
  
  
• QuakerOats

  http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open
  
  
  I just read much of the Executive Summary of the final EIS. I cannot see any basis for rejecting the project, and this is a report from our own radicals.
• QuakerOats

  KnightRyder;1060179 wrote:Obama made the correct and responsible decision. Oil-sands crude is the dirtiest oil on the planet. Before it can be pumped, it needs to be liquified by heating it to a high temperature and then treated with highly toxic and corrosive chemical additives. Building codes for pipelines in this country were written for traditional crude; not oil-sands crude, which is more corrosive, hotter, and must be pumped at a much higher PSI than conventional crude. The Keystone line would have been constructed on the cheap in accordance with conventional pipeline building codes, thus making leaks inevitable according to TransCanada's own data. Do we really want this poisonous cocktail leaking into our water supply and precious farmland? And for what? So the oil can pass from Canada to the Gulf and then immediately be exported abroad? Screw that. Only an irresponsible child (or money hungry oil profiteer) would sign off on this can of worms without thoroughly examining all the risks and without conducting proper and thorough cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, several independent studies including one conducted by Cornell University have shown the project probably would have created somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 (temporary) jobs, and not the ridiculously exaggerated 20,000 jobs TransCanada claimed it would create. Not only that, virtually every independent study conducted on this issue has shown the pipeline would not move the U.S. one inch closer to energy independence. Think, folks. Why should the U.S. assume the risk of a catastrophic environmental disaster just to make it easier for Canada to get its dirty crude to the Gulf where it will immediately be exported abroad? 2,000 temporary jobs ain't worth the risk

  
  What a bunch of bulls!!t.
  
  Just on the surface you can tell (with half a brain) that this ridiculous. A $7 BILLION dollar project is going to merely "generate just 2,000 temporary jobs". Do the math, THAT IS COMPLETELY ASSININE. That should disqualify your post right then and there. On top of that though, much of the oil is going to Oklahoma (not for export), and the rest is going to our refineries in Texas, and is for domestic use. The radical environmentalists have gotten away for far too long with massive amounts of misinformation, lies, and distortions of epic proportion. It is time to silence them.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants;1060279 wrote:Lol. $5.00 a gallon really?
  
  If it is it will likely be because of our actions against Iran (via our sanctions against their central bank which processes all payments, if other countries follow our lead like they often do Iran will have no way to export oil to most places eliminating 50% of their GDP. At that point why wouldn't they close the strait? Nothing to lose).

  Gas probably will be $5/gal this summer. It would have nothing to do with the pipeline though. The more debt we run up the more money the Fed has to print and the higher the price of oil will go. If we go into Iran gas will probably be $10/gal because of fear over there and also because a new war will break us.
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1060279 wrote:Lol. $5.00 a gallon really?
  
  If it is it will likely be because of our actions against Iran (via our sanctions against their central bank which processes all payments, if other countries follow our lead like they often do Iran will have no way to export oil to most places eliminating 50% of their GDP. At that point why wouldn't they close the strait? Nothing to lose).

  Yes pants...really. And I know it won't be because of the pipeline, but do you really think it won't be incredibly easy for the pubs to beat him over the head with it?
• HitsRus

  

  To answer some of KnightRyder'smisinformed objections...from the final EIS issued from the Dept of State.

  The Department also consulted extensively with PHMSA, who is responsible for oversight of pipeline safety. Building on past experiences and taking into account input from experts inside and outside the government, the Department and PHMSA established 57 project-specific Special Conditions. PHMSA would have the authority to inspect and enforce the Special Conditions, which include requirements that exceed existing regulations, such as: the pipeline would be pressure tested to a higher pressure before it is placed in service, mainline valves on the pipeline would be spaced closer together, the pipeline would need to be inspected and cleaned more frequently, any internal corrosion in the pipeline would need to be repaired sooner, and the pipeline would be buried deeper. More detail on the Special Conditions is in the Executive Summary and discussed in depth in Section 3.13 and in Appendix U.
  

  
  It is NOT being constructed "on the cheap" as alleged...higher standards are included in the specs.
• stlouiedipalma

  I have two questions. Serious questions to which I do not know the answers. Can someone answer these with credible links to back them up?
  
  
  Is any of this oil going to find its way into American markets and reduce our dependency on foreign oil?
  
  
  How much money has the oil industry (and related businesses) given to Boehner and those who support fast-tracking it?
• LJ

  

  stlouiedipalma;1060777 wrote:
  
  Is any of this oil going to find its way into American markets and reduce our dependency on foreign oil?
  
  

  Canadian oil is foreign oil. It would still be subject to exchange rate fluctuations and so on
• HitsRus

  

  How much money has the oil industry (and related businesses) given to Boehner and those who support fast-tracking it?

  This is an irrelevant question since this has not been really fast tracked. The permit was applied for in 2008 and due diligence has been done. The State department has itself stated in a brief on 8/26/2011 that the determination would be done by the end of the year 2011. What has happened is that the Obama administration has DELAYED AND STALLED and tried to push back the decision until after THE ELECTION...a strictly political move so as not to piss off his base which includes the anti oil crowd...environmental extremists...man made climate change people etc. I believe Obama will approve it (if re-elected)...he just doesn't want to do it now.
  The Republicans are , of course, holding his feet to the fire...certainly political....but they are right to do it, as to delay its construction 'is not in the country's interest', no matter what the administration says.
  
  The country is struggling to get the economy going, and this huge construction project will provide jobs. Whether it is as many as oil industry analysts say, or as paltry as pipeline opponents say is irrelevant also, because by anybody's estimate it will create several thousand jobs, as well as several thousand more 'spinoff' jobs...all of which America's needs to get the ball rolling again so to speak. The claim by opponents that these jobs are 'temporary' is is political spin also, as ALL construction jobs are temporary. That does not mean they are less desirable. The project is a large investment($7 billion) in permanent infrastructure...a very nice injection into our economy when you consider the multiplier effect.
  
  

  Is any of this oil going to find its way into American markets and reduce our dependency on foreign oil?

  This is not about energy independence as much as it is about energy security. This is oil that will be sent to and refined here in this country(permanently)...from a friendly and stable source. In the event of an oil disruption in the middle east...the oil necessary to keep us running is here, in American markets, as opposed to having to go to Asia to bring it back. Moreover, the timing of this is important too. Canada is not going to sit on this oil waiting for us to act on the if/come. They have money invested and they are going to move the stuff. Make no mistake, China, India and other Asian players are moving quickly to secure their sources of oil for their burgeoning economies. While there is still plenty of oil, there is no question that the gap between demand and available supply will diminish considerably over the next 20 years, and being proactive in this regard is crucial as we attempt to transition to other sources.
  
  I am not an Obama guy to begin with, but this is one reason that he must be defeated . Everybody plays politics, but to do so against the national interest is a cardinal sin and should not be tolerated. This is a 'shovel ready' project if there ever was one...and it won't cost Treasury a dime. The administration needs to stop shoveling on this one.
• Skyhook79

  

  Devils Advocate;1059934 wrote:Ok... I'll take the other side of this.
  
  A few questions
  
  
  How does this help our energy independence?
  
  
  Job creation? How many of these jobs are pemanent?
  
  
  How do you feel about the gubmint taking your land and pay you what they consider "fair market value". And even if it is not your land, you have to look out your window every day and look at that shit?
  
  And what makes you think that the oil or gas will not go to China anyway? A big part of the oil in Alaska goes to the Asian markets anyway. And we are exporting a lot of gas.
  
  
  
  Drill Baby Drill.

  I don't think they mind too much since they are a few other pipelines.