Obama Vetoes Keystone XL Pipeline Bill 437
An anonymous reader writes: As expected, President Obama has vetoed a bill that would have given the green light for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. "By saying no to the legislation, Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline. The White House has said the president would decide whether to allow the pipeline when all of the environmental and regulatory reviews are complete. ... Since 2011, the proposed Keystone pipeline, which would deliver up to 800,000 barrels daily of heavy petroleum from the oil sands of Alberta to ports and refineries on the Gulf Coast, has emerged as a broader symbol of the partisan political clash over energy, climate change and the economy."
Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess Tom Steyer got what he paid for.
Hint: "environmentalist" billionaire Steyer made his billions off coal, now owns a huge stake in a Canadian pipeline that would compete with the Keystone, and spent a LOT of money playing an "environmentally concerned" person trying to stop the Keystone pipeline.
And the /tards rant about Fox News and the Kochs...
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty sure Berkshire Hathaway (BNSF Railway) is dancing a little jig today as well.
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:5, Informative)
This, especially this. Pushing petroleum through pipelines instead of on his railroads would make him very sad, and nobody wants to make one of the biggest DNC contributors sad, now do they?
Meanwhile the partisans will clog up Facebook and similar with variations of 'yay our Lord and Savior saved teh environmentz!' versus 'teh imperialz president OMG!'... ...while the fat cats laugh at the little people a little before they plan their next chess move (and lobbyists) in Washington DC.
Meanwhile the world begins to do its best impression of Titanic-Meets-Iceberg ever.
Fucking politics, gotta love it (eyeroll).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I heard an Oil Train just derailed and blew up the other day.
At least the Oil Clean Up crews and probably funeral homes will have increased business.
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:4, Informative)
Disclaimer: I work Emergency Management in West Virginia. Further disclaimer, I work with people who were personally affected by that derailment and were evacuated...
The cause of the derailment is still under investigation but the Keystone pipeline's existence would not have stopped what happened. The train was transporting oil to Pennsylvania which is not where Keystone goes. So that explosion has exactly zero to do with Keystone.
I just didn't want people thinking the derailment in WV would have been avoided if Keystone was done. It is my personal belief that a combination of factors including the huge snow storm happening at the time had a big influence on the derailment, but I am willing to wait for the final determination.
BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
With all the smoke coming from the left and right, is the Keystone XL pipeline a good or bad idea?
Right now, gas prices are relatively low, but they are rising, and oil will be back in the triple digits soon enough, almost definitely by Memorial Day. So, having the ability to use oil sands is a good thing since oil prices have replaced standard inflation for the reason for price hikes on virtually any type of good/service out there, and once oil starts going to $150-250 a barrel, the economy here in the US will grind to a halt, just like it did in 1972 and 2008. Plus, an oil sands pipeline is a lot cheaper than another theater of conflict in the Middle East.
Of course, there are the downsides of the pipeline:
It paralyzes growth in alternative energies, because medium term to long term, oil needs to be relegated for making plastic, not causing more climate change.
It makes people rich who are not exactly good global citizens. ISIS just destroyed a major part of mankind's history today by torching museums and libraries in Mosul today, and demand for oil just supports nations and groups like that. Oil used now just means wars later.
The record of oil pipelines isn't exactly sterling, with regards to leaks. Assuming it follows most construction done by the absolute lowest bidder, it won't exactly be leak-proof, and it will be a crap-shoot of what the pipeline fouls up.
tl;dr... is this pipeline a net good, or a net bad overall?
Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
The oil sands are already being refined.. much in the upper midwest.
The pipeline will bypass the midwest refinery's and send the oil down to a duty free port on the gulf of mexico where it can be exported.
This will cause gas prices to RISE in the midwest, as well as cause more oil products to leave north america causing energy to rise overall.
The pipeline is ONLY being built to get to the pre-existing duty free port so that they can manipulate a higher price for the oil.
Re: (Score:3)
American refineries don't pay as good as China so the whole idea is to build the 3 pipelines to ports where it can be shipped to China and refined there.
The Canadian government has repeated this over and over, we need to sell it as quick as possible and it is stupid to create jobs in N. America when China will pay more.
Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now, gas prices are relatively low, but they are rising, and oil will be back in the triple digits soon enough, almost definitely by Memorial Day.
Then you can make a ton of money right now by buying WTI futures or options. The consensus Memorial day price is under $60 - you can clean up to the tune of 1000%s of profit if you put money on your "almost definite" knowledge.
Re:BS aside, is the K-XL a good thing or not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, hello? Oil is cheap right now because there's a price war going on... The Saudis voted to keep OPEC overproducing for the time being, probably at the prodding of the US Sec of State to hurt Russia in retaliation for the Ukraine thing. Russia's economy is very dependent on oil right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01... [nytimes.com]
Yes, this hurts US oil production too, which is probably why the Saudis agreed to do this. The US has been producing more of its own shale oil through fracking, which is relatively expensive. This will probably make some of the smaller players go bankrupt, so their assets can be seized and utilized by the larger oil companies at fire sale rates.
US demand for oil has also dropped (by about as much as US domestic production increased), we like to think due to more efficient use of renewables and electric vehicles, but probably mostly due to the recession. The US appears to be recovering from the recession, and certainly these cheap oil prices has gas guzzler sales bouncing back. So it's likely gas prices will bounce back in a big way once OPEC goes back to "normal" market-adjusted production capacity in a few months.
In any case, there are several good reasons for OPEC to delay competition by temporarily cutting prices, but the prices are certainly artificially low now and can easily be bumped back artificially high once we're a bit more distracted from developing our energy independency.
Re: (Score:3)
Relatively expensive fracking is, but not that expensive.
The Saudis have been soaking us for years. Along with Russia. (Even now, Rosneft? takes revenue in dollars and pays expenses and salaries in rubles.)
North Dakota has changed that equation, and it's looking like about $60 a barrel right now. Even the tar sands make money well under $100.
So it won't go back to where it was for a while. (knock on wood...)
Re: (Score:3)
This pipeline will not be used to help out US demand for oil, it is all going to be exported. Price of oil is completely unrelated to the keystone pipeline, except as a rallying cry to get inattentive voters to call their congressional representatives.
Re: (Score:3)
How long does it take in your mind to prove that something does not harm you? Studies showing smoking was harmful took decades to show, that does not "speak volumes to the lack of impact" smoking had on people. There may or may not be an impact but your logic on it is fairly weak.
Re: (Score:3)
I love how, in the meantime, we're sticking it to Canada too.
Apparently, their politicians don't have a big problem being our political football, but eventually Canadians are going to start taking it personally. Their media will play it up, politicians will then use it, and then they'll say fuck it.
They could build the shit to deal with that oil if they had to, but they were under the impression that we had refineries willing to buy it. Heh, we even got them to build the pipeline.
Obama does one thing very w
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:4, Informative)
Actually BNSF hates shipping oil. It's too high risk in terms of brand value loss when a spill occurs. Source: I work for a different Berkshire subsidiary.
Now in my own opinion. I prefer the pipeline, however the maintenance of pipes is generally crap and leaks are common. If there was a guarantee of proper maintenance then I'd be all about it vs the other available options. Perhaps this could be done by requiring an environment clean up, but we've seen how well that works in the past
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:5, Informative)
You *do* realize that the oil that would be flowing though the XL Pipe literally goes solid at room temperature? Environmental risk exists, but it's not like this stuff is going to get too far away from a leak before cooling.
Re: (Score:3)
You *do* realize that the oil that would be flowing though the XL Pipe literally goes solid at room temperature?
How do you think they push it down the pipe, then? Do they heat it up to such a high level so that it maintains an easy flow throughout the entire pipeline, assuming that it might get re-heated at pumping stations? Or do they mix it with something else to allow it to flow easier regardless of temperature? Assuming they do heat it instead of just adding an agent to make it flow easier, how long would it take to cool and solidify in the open air after spilling? What's the flow rate of the pipeline, if the
Re: (Score:3)
How do you think they push it down the pipe, then?
They use a pig [pipepigs.com].
Re: (Score:3)
You're talking oil. This is bitumen, more like the asphalt you drive on. It needs a lot of dilution before it'll flow as well as heat.
When it spills it floats for a while then the dilutents evaporate and it sinks. Way worse to clean up then crude oil.
Of course the current Canadian government doesn't care about the environment at all, just the profits of getting that bitumen to China and Indochina as they're all oil men who have very good jobs waiting for them.
Re: (Score:3)
however the maintenance of pipes is generally crap and leaks are common.
Citation needed. (Disclaimer: I work in the pipeline industry, but not for TCPL nor have any stake in KXL).
This simply isn't true and is fear-mongering about pipelines at it's best. Sure, you can point to a few stories, but fact remains pipelines have over a 99.999% safe delivery rate. The vast majority of spills are where there's breaks in the line - eg. pump stations, terminals, manifolds, etc., and those are only are already-contained and monitored property. Opponents like to point to devastating sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His point was that you just proved it. :/
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Fox News is a news channel with a history of saying things I don't want to hear, and was founded to be a "conservative" media outlet because of the demonstrably true fact that other media outlets are "liberal".
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The media bias is evident when you look at who and why they attack certain individuals. Biden has gotten away with a lot of stuff. He basically groped a woman in public, in front of cameras, and the reaction was "Oh, Biden....", but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified. Another example of bias is look at DHS funding: some media outlets are blaming Republicans of denying funding, yet it's Dems that are blocking the vote through parliamentary measures
Re:Liberal? (Score:5, Informative)
but when Dan Quayle only accepted a different spelling of potato at a spelling bee, he was vilified
That's not what happened. The kid actually spelled potato correctly and Dan Quayle 'corrected' him into spelling it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And Quayle wasn't vilified. He was the butt of many jokes, but he deserved to be the butt of all those jokes for being so damned stupid. Recognizing someone's stupidity isn't the same as vilifying them.
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:5, Insightful)
formation of the tea party were before he had even suggested doing anything.
That much is true. The Tea Party was actually a reaction to the huge bailout reaction to the subprime mess that was suggested PRIOR to Obama taking office. A fair observer would note that while Obama was president-elect, he WASN'T yet president.
There are many valid objections to Obama but they are not from the tea party brigade.
That I disagree with. The Tea Party has issues with Obama's policy which are valid and have nothing to do with Obama's race, yet they get cast as racist by the political commentators in the media, and the media reports this as news. Where I'm sure there are racists who are Tea Party members (just like there are racists who are democrats) this is NOT the official policy nor the basis of the Tea Party's existence. I've not seen or heard any evidence of racism at any of the Tea Party rallies I've attended either from the speakers or attendees, but I'm a middle aged white guy and I obviously don't go to every Tea Party meeting.
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it. Fundamentally, Obama wants exactly the opposite, a larger more powerful government that costs more and has to tax more to pay for itself. But there is nothing in that fundamental difference of opinion that has anything to do with race.
Re:Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:4, Informative)
I've not seen or heard any evidence of racism at any of the Tea Party rallies I've attended either from the speakers or attendees, but I'm a middle aged white guy and I obviously don't go to every Tea Party meeting.
I have, and I'm a middle aged white guy. But then the ones I went to were back when it was "new" (prior to all the mainstreaming of it).
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party at it's core is about government spending and taxes and limiting both to the minimum possible by scaling back government's involvement in our everyday lives, not expanding it.
Yet everything I saw in the meetings I went to were about expanding the government. More prisons, more drug laws, more laws against gays. It was the Bigot party for those who didn't like the Republican Party because it was too inclusive. I've seen news reports that conservative Republicans have said to stop fighting gay marriage because the people have spoken. The anti-democracy teabaggers (yes, they still used that name, not realizing the connotations, back when I went to a few meetings) want to push their beliefs on everyone, regardless of popular support. Teabaggers want a dictatorship, so they can tell everyone how to live.
At least based on the meetings I went to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a big tent.
The only thing they all have in common is that they don't want to be oppressed by you leftists.
Re: Best money Tom Steyer ever spent (Score:3, Insightful)
Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC didn't start the Tea Party, it was started from the ashes of the Ron Paul campaign in December, 2007 - well before Obama was the presumptive candidate.
But hey, your fantastical 'because they hate brown people' claim is believed by millions of unquestioning Democrats... Probably the same Democrats that "just discovered" they have to pay a fine if they failed to get Ob
The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Informative)
This bill would move forward with the XL portion of the pipeline. The Keystone pipeline currently terminates at the refineries near Chicago, Il. The XL portion of the pipeline would extends the line to the Gulf Coast, allowing for the oil to be more easily re-sold on the world market as opposed to being land locked into the US market.
The XL portion was never meant to reduce oil prices in the US, it was meant to increase profit margins by reducing costs to transport the oil and oil products to higher priced markets.
Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?
-Rick
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Informative)
The KeystoneXL has nothing to do with energy policy. It does not move the meter one bit in regard to US energy. It is all about profits policy for a foreign corporation.
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better, taking peoples' land for the sole benefit of a foreign corporation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The XL portion was never meant to reduce oil prices in the US, it was meant to increase profit margins by reducing costs to transport the oil and oil products to higher priced markets.
Can we take down the environmentalism straw man yet?
Nope - because oil is a world market. It will certainly reduce prices in the US by increasing the global oil supply.
The US is a net exporter of everything energy-related except oil. Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic - both for environmental reasons (using less), and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East (of course, oil supply form there also affects world markets, but we'd be self-sufficient if it came to a real war, and so would maybe engage in fewer small wa
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nope - because oil is a world market"
Correct, except that it costs money to move. Having a continuous pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast makes it dramatically cheaper to get the crude to the world market. Having the line terminate in Chicago makes it cheaper to refine and distribute regionally. This offsets shipping costs of bringing imported fuels in to the middle of the country. While oil as a whole is a fungible commodity in the concept of investment and pricing, the realistic implementation of it is still dependent on infrastructure and transportation.
"It will certainly reduce prices in the US by increasing the global oil supply."
The XL pipeline doesn't alter the world's supply. The same oil is already being pumped and refined, it just makes it cheaper to get to higher priced markets. It would reduce prices in the US if it were more profitable to sell in the US, which is largely what we currently see with the Keystone pipeline terminating in Chicago. With the termination point in the Gulf, the reduced cost of international distribution allows a greater profit to be earned by shipping it to other countries.
"Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic"
And the XL pipeline would have no meaningful impact here. This is Canadian oil.
"and because we'd no longer have a strategic interest in the Middle-East "
The US doesn't currently have any strategic oil interests of our own in the Middle-East, and the XL pipeline would not impact that. The US only imports ~1/4 of our total oil consumption, the vast majority of that comes from Canada and Central America because it's closer and cheaper than floating barges over from Saudi Arabia.
Europe on the other hand, has extremely limited oil supplies, they are quite dependent on Russia, the eastern block states, and the Middle East for their fuel. And the XL pipeline, even with direct access to the coast, isn't going to push enough oil to offset any sort of major disruption from Saudi Arabia or Russia.
So in closing, no, the XL pipeline would not change us into a net exporter, it would not reduce gas prices in the US, and it would not have a meaningful impact on the global oil supply.
-Rick
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Informative)
The shit's dirty. If we needed fuel to escape orbit to avoid imminent planetary disaster, and we've squandered our other options, maybe, but damn, just on the outside chance the climate change scientists are correct in their hypothesis... right?
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of producing the tar sands oil is high enough ($75-$95/barrel) that at current prices (below $55/barrel) it's uneconomical to produce so it won't help reduce prices until the price goes back up over $95/barrel.
Re: (Score:2)
Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic - both for environmental reasons (using less)
Using less only here? You mean it doesn't get burned by anyone once it's ben exported? Or are you talking about the diesel for the trains?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:4, Funny)
Oil Laundering...
Re: (Score:2)
But the pipeline wouldn't make the U.S. an exporter. It would be carrying Canadian oil so they could bypass the U.S. market and sell it to others who are willing to pay more.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Informative)
What?
The Keystone pipeline has four phases, three of which are complete. The first three bring oil down to the Gulf Coast from Canada. XL has nothing to do with that.
The XL potion brings oil from Canada through Montana and Nebraska before it connects to the rest of the pipe. It has an initial capacity of 700,000 barrels, and can be increased to 900,000. http://www.downstreamtoday.com... [downstreamtoday.com]
Also, there is massive shipping operations in Texas that allows the oil to easily be transported to coastal parts of the U.S.
So I really don't know where you got that info, but maybe double check it next time...?
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh good call. My knowledge is dated. The 3rd phase was the leg that connected the gulf cost and it was completed last year.
I should have double checked. If you excuse me, I'm going to go wipe this egg of my face.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
That depends. Can we take down the "job creation" straw man while we're at it?
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is Chicago landlocked? The entire point of its existence is the fact that it's a good port to ship things from the interior of the US out the St. Lawrence Seaway to the rest of the world.
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Informative)
Almost.
The Keystone-Cushing extension (Phase II), running away480-kilometre (300 mi) from Steele City to storage and distribution facilities (tank farm) at Cushing, Oklahoma, completed in February 2011.
The Gulf Coast Extension (Phase III), running 784-kilometre (487 mi) from Cushing to refineries at Port Arthur, Texas was completed in January 2014, and a lateral pipeline to refineries at Houston, Texas and a terminal will be completed in mid-2015.
It is only the Phase IV leg, running from between Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Nebraska that wasn't approved. That part crosses the U.S.-Canadian border.
Obama signed off on the rest (symbolically, I believe, as I don't think it required Federal approval), back in 2011.
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because Buffet is richer than God doesn't mean he thinks he has enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Keystone Pipeline already exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Is this his first veto? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is this his first veto? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a simple cure for the filibuster threat - demand that they actually hold one. You try speaking for 12 or more hours straight with no bathroom breaks and no sitting down. Supposedly, back in the 1960s when Southern senators were holding them fairly often, it took the designated speaker a week to get ready and almost as long to recover.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Is this his first veto? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is this his first veto? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I think that's fantasy land since it would just mean rulings in favor of those who can afford the best lawyers (something I haven't heard a Libertarian answer to)
I've had that answered here on slashdot. The only answer so far was that you should have a kickstarter to pay your legal fees. That's right. Pass the fucking hat, citizen! Then you can afford justice! So, really no different from capitalism, then.
more like polar opposites (Score:3)
Anarchists aren't against rules, they're against rulers. Libertarians are just fine with rulers, so long as they are "job creators", otherwise known as robber barons and oligarchs. Oh, and the "property rights" fetish, when the property is owned by the aforementioned barons and oligarchs.
Re: (Score:2)
...I was about to say something about reconciliation and making the first gesture toward peace, but you've discredited yourself fairly well. Anarchy only appeals to a rather small minority of the population, and the minority is even smaller once people start really thinking about what it would be like without a government to maintain roads, staff fire departments, hire teachers...hell screw that, what really whittles down the minority is thinking about how fast the terrorists would take over the country wit
Re: (Score:2)
A bill requires multiple 2/3rds Senate votes to make it to the president... I wonder how many US born citizens understand this?
Apparently not you, otherwise you would know that normal filibuster votes are 3/5, not 2/3.
Re:Is this his first veto? (Score:4, Insightful)
Few bills - His first two years was a Democrat controlled congress so anything that reached his desk was something he wanted.
Ever since, until this year, the Republicans controlled the house and the Democrats the Senate and Reid basically played bad cop to Obama's good cop. Reid would block and deflect any legislation that wasn't in the Democrats interest so all legislation was slowed down considerably as most bills originate in the house. (which is why there's been no budget bill for years just continuing resolutions on the one passed years ago, Reid would never act on them). Now the Republicans have control of the congress so legislation Obama doesn't want has reached his desk.
Even though this legislation could be reasonably stated to be a bipartisan bill. There's not enough votes currently to override but it's not an insurmountable number, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Even though this legislation could be reasonably stated to be a bipartisan bill.
Eh, that's stretching it a bit, at least in the Senate. It's bipartisan in the sense that it got more than 0% of the Democrats to vote for it, but not much more: 20% of the D caucus voted for it, 80% against.
Way more bipartisan than Obamacare (Score:3)
OTOH, more than 58% of Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war as did 40% of the House Democrats.
I guess Democrats wanted the Iraq war a lot more than they want the pipeline, and they wanted the war *way* more than Republicans ever wanted Obamacare.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, after looking it up, I see that it is only his 3rd. For comparison, George W. Bush did 11, Bill Clinton did 36, George H.W. Bush did 29, and Ronald Reagan did 39. Is that because he's signing lots of things, or because the congress is sending him so few bills?
It's been the Senate under democrat control that's been blocking just about everything of any political consequence from reaching his desk. Even now, with the cloture 2/3'rds cloture rule, the democrats are generally preventing debate on anything they don't want to see on Obama's desk. The XL pipeline happened to garner enough support to get though the series of 4 (I think) of the 66% required votes to get it passed though the Senate.
Re: (Score:2)
Harry Reid had been acting as a firewall for the past 6 years keeping anything that could possibly embarrass Obama from reaching Obama's desk.
He still is.
Remember that it takes multiple supermajority votes to get a bill though the Senate. Reid controls enough votes (assuming his party's Senators stick together) to stop any bill he wants from making it though the process. Of course these "Rules" can be changed with a majority vote, but so far this idea hasn't been advanced by the majority, even though the last party in control of the Senate suspended parts of the rules for some nominations.
So minority leader Reid is blocking just about an
Is this an extension of a unix-pipe? (Score:2, Insightful)
or why the fuck is' this on slashdot (beside every fucking news-channel/-site/-blog in the us)...?
Reversable Veto? (Score:2)
Is this legal?
Mr. Obama retains the authority to make a final judgment on the pipeline on his own timeline
I mean, if congress passes it first, that makes it potentially law if the President agrees. But can a president sit on something until any time he chooses or veto his previous veto?
If so, I can see some strategic uses for that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reversable Veto? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it is absolutely legal. He already had the authority to make the decision so he would in no way be "vetoing his veto".
If Congress is unsatisfied with this outcome, they may attempt to override that veto, but they probably can't get enough votes for that.
Re: (Score:2)
How does issuing permits fund such a project? I thought only Congress could authorize monies.
(Well at least in theory anyway; i.e. before Harry Reid and the Republicans gave the presidency unlimited spending power.)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news: CN RAIL posts RECORD profits. (Score:3, Informative)
Trains are a red herring (Score:3)
Rail is a bottleneck on the tar sands, as the developers aren't going to mine far beyond their capcity to transport the product, which is why they want the pipeline. Which gives more time for a less fascist government to replace Harper, or just forget about the whole project with the current cheap price of oil. But once you've got an investment like a completed pipeline, you're going to want to get your money back, even if means waiting years for the price of oil to go back up.
the oil already moves (Score:2)
Right now this oil moves via rail, which is far riskier than a pipeline.
Interesting Move By Mr Obama (Score:3, Insightful)
XL is obsolete (for now) ... (Score:3)
... Bakken oil came through and made Canadian shale unnecessary. The US has more oil than God, now.
Oil companies are going to go all OPEC on us and start cutting back on production to manipulate prices for maximizing profits.
Canadian oil is a buzz killer. That's why you won't see much opposition to the veto.
Stupid idea anyway (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you want to live in a 140 F (40 C) world, you need to leave 2/3 of all the coal and tar sands in the ground and not export them like morons.
Earth will get along fine after we kill ourselves off due to our shortsighted nature.
Re: (Score:2)
not to mention he has chosen to offend Canada for no reason..
This presumes that the oil will not reach the intended refineries, which is false. The oil is already getting there, albeit via a shorter pipe and lots of trucks and trains (ironically, less environment-friendly than the Keyston XL). The current pipeline is owned by some very deep pockets, however.
Re: (Score:2)
The point about offending Canada isn't about whether he allows it or not, it's about the convoluted and interminable process that they have gone through to find out whether it is allowed. Realistically, they cannot start entertaining other (more costly) options, until the final rejection is received.
If there's one thing I hope could unite people that disagree on whether it should be completed or not is that the process should have a deterministic end point where a final decision is reached. It doesn't have
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Canada makes a huge deal with China to ship their oil through Hudson's Bay. The union folks who once supported Obama will be mightily impressed by the number of tankers taking it straight to Asia.
Re: (Score:3)
It might damage Obama, but I'll wager that one way the GOP is not going to capitalize on this is by playing up how much they support unionized labor.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be interesting to put some measure to vote before Congress without allowing the
Re: (Score:2)
A grand total of fewer than 50 permanent jobs.
Re:Should be damaging (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Capacity begets usage. It's so true it's even been a meme ("if you build it, they will come") from before the Internet made "memes" a meme! Building a pipeline to ship the oil faster will cause more oil to be shipped in a shorter period of time.
If you don't like having the oil shipped by rail, then fix that problem instead! (Make the rail cars safer, prohibit shipping oil by rail -- whatever.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never understood why it's called an Obamaphone since he actually had fuck all to do with it.
Because his administration allowed the ~$9/month subsidy to be applied to cell phones, instead of being restricted to land lines.
And it's clear that lazy unmotivated poor people deserve to be tied down to land lines, rather than be allowed the chance to bask in the stunning luxury of having a cell phone when looking for a job.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some really rotten people realized that conservatives couldn't cope with a cooperative civilization, so set up fake news outlets to exploit the fears of these limited-thinkers. They feed them lies every single day, which keeps the rubes afraid, angry, and unthinking. This psychological terrorism to delay the end of the archaic Republican party was intentional, and should be criminal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's where a lot of refineries are located. The infrastructure there is also set up for distribution of refined products throughout the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It puts a big pinch on us since without the pipeline we have a natural advantage if we want to buy the oil. With the pipeline we get to watch it flow right past us and on to somewhere else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the nuttiest of the Republican propaganda victims actually believe this nonsense. We should all feel sorry for them, even though they've been taught to hate modern people. They can't help the fact that they were brainwashed, often from birth.
Re:Obama vetoes jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
The XL pipeline would provide only temporary jobs for the construction of the pipeline. It might require a few dozen permanent jobs for maintenance and other costs associated with any ongoing concern. Then again, the US firms (if any) charged with maintaining the pipeline once it's built may not hire anyone new for these roles.
I get the impression that you're joking, but it's more important than at any time in the past to correct false assertions: Most everyone has lost his sense of humor, and facts are routinely confused with personal or group truths. It will be more important to correct false assertions tomorrow -- why not procrastinate in order to ramp up the significance of your unfounded exaggerations?
Better suggestion for you -- from Len Grossman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Now I want to see an endless stream of railcars (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI - oil is currently flowing through the Keystone pipeline from Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast, and it's been flowing that far for over a year. It's been flowing to Illinois refineries for almost 5 years. But don't let facts like that stop your hatred for Obama.
Re: (Score:3)
I find that hilarious.