No Excuses: Keystone XL Pipeline Clears Major Hurdle

[thereisnospoon]

Americans will not get any of the refined gas that results from Keystone.

So why should America take the environmental risk?

You don't know that.
BTW, exporting fossil fuels will make this country into an economic powerhouse.
More revenue to the federal government. Lower taxes on individuals. More money in the pockets of the people. Stronger economy.
Where's the problem?

I do know that. They've said so.

We are awash in fossil fuel: why isn't our gas down to $0.99 like it was the day Clinton left office?

Commodities trading and taxes.
Here in NC we pay almost 70 cents per gallon when state sales, highway and federal taxes are considered.
Oil is a valuable commodity. it is not just a fossil fuel. It is a way to make money.
There is nearly 100 times more money in the oil markets than there was ten years ago. Back then a days trading was measured in the millions of dollars. Today it's hundreds of millions.
Many pension funds are heavily invested in commodities. So are 401k's and other index, ETF and other funds. Oil is also used as a hedge against the US Dollar. If the US Dollar falls, traders buy up oil and gasoline futures.
Do I like paying $3.25 per gallon for gas? No. But I understand the marketplace.
Funny, I don't hear any bitching when the price falls to historic lows as it did in 2008 just after the recession began. or in 1998 when traders bet on the price continuing to rise to levels never seen before. or in 1991 right after the gulf war started and the price of a barrel of oil tripled in a week, only to fall below the level is started a week before the first shot was fired. Traders thought there was among other things, an embargo by the Arab members of OPEC and a supply interruption from Saudi Arabia due to military activity.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because the Canadian people are not stupid enough to spoil their land when the Tea Bag Brotherhood is willing to foul the air they breath here in the US!

That is an idiotic response..
Oh....It's B-R-E-A-T-H-E.....
Just like other libs, you oppose THIS project because Obama told you to do so.

It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word.
- Andrew Jackson

You must be a product of outcome based education.
You tried real hard but did not achieve. But we'll give you a passing grade anyway.


"It's a damn poor mind that cannot spell properly and then not bother to use the resources that can help in that area." ME..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you engaging in selective reading?

None of this tar sand oil is bound for U.S. markets. All of it is going overseas.

And?

Why should we risk out environment in order to serve Canada and China's interests?

Risk...It is what makes us Americans.
"Why should we"...The first thing the liberal asks himself when he wakes up in the middle of the afternoon.
Where the hell did China enter into this discussion?
Answer: Nowhere. "China" is the liberal fall back position/buzz term. You're wearing it out.
BTW, Canada's best interests are in OUR best interests.
FYI, genius....Canada is our largest trading partner by over 100 billion dollars US.
Got that there Mr Why Should We?

 

[Trajan]

They desperately need a new entry point. You won't find anyone who says otherwise (with any credibility), Democrat or Republican.

Stimulus money was spent by 2011. One third of it was tax cuts. A lot of it was in Green initiatives, which I took advantage of.

they do? I have heard that they need to rebuild the 59th street bridge etc....

so one third was tax cuts so what?

so, did you get a solyndra T-shirt at least?

You've decided to veer off into Retard Land. Enjoy the trip.

solyndra wasn't a green initiative?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So will building a new entry point to NY to go along with the GW Bridge and Lincoln and Holland tunnels.

So will building new schools and fixing bridges and infrastructure.

Keystone is far from the only construction job on the horizon.

do they need a new entry point? or is that just a project for the sake of a project?

we need more schools

fixing bridges? what happened to the stimulus $$?

They desperately need a new entry point. You won't find anyone who says otherwise (with any credibility), Democrat or Republican.

Stimulus money was spent by 2011. One third of it was tax cuts. A lot of it was in Green initiatives, which I took advantage of.

Green initiatives? Such as Solyndra?
What tax cuts?
The nearly one trillion dollars in stimulus money was thrown down a rat hole.
Most of it was used to preserve ( temporarily) unionized public employee jobs. Most of which no longer exist.
Let us not forget those 'shovel ready projects'..

 

[edthecynic]

You don't know that.
BTW, exporting fossil fuels will make this country into an economic powerhouse.
More revenue to the federal government. Lower taxes on individuals. More money in the pockets of the people. Stronger economy.
Where's the problem?

Higher prices at the pump.
What could possibly be a problem with higher fuel prices???

Ok..I'll bite.. How would the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline translate to higher gas prices?

The Canadians behind the Keystone XL have said as justification to the Canadian government that the cost of building the pipeline would be offset by increasing the price of Canadian oil to the US by $3.9 BILLION per year.

Keystone XL is a tar sands pipeline to export oil out of the United States | Anthony Swift's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

"When Canadian regulators at the National Energy Board (NEB) considered the Keystone XL proposal in 2008, they asked TransCanada to justify another pipeline when there was already so much spare capacity. TransCanada conceded that Keystone XL would take oil from existing pipelines, increasing shipping costs. However, TransCanada argued that this cost would be more than offset as shifting Canadian oil from the Midwest to the Gulf would increase the price that Americans paid for Canadian oil by $3.9 billion."

Would Keystone XL pipeline raise US gas prices?- MSN Money

U.S. consumer advocate organization Consumer Watchdog begs to differ. Its latest report claims the Keystone XL pipeline will end up raising gasoline prices by up to 40 cents per gallon for U.S. drivers -- especially in the Midwest -- while having no long-term economic benefits for the U.S. economy.

Much of the Canadian oil in the pipeline, according to the report, would go "directly to Gulf Coast refineries owned by the same multinational companies investing in the tar sands," companies including Exxon Mobil (XOM -0.49%), Chevron (CVX -1.18%), Koch Industries, Marathon Oil (MRO -0.74%) and Shell Oil (RDS/A +0.40%). And those refineries, Consumer Watchdog says, would turn the crude in gasoline and diesel fuel for export.


"A vote for Keystone is a vote to raise gas prices on Americans and send the profits to a foreign oil company," billionaire Thomas Steyer, founder of Farallon Capital Management and an alternative energy advocate and investor, commented in Consumer Watchdog's press statement.


"The Consumer Watchdog reports makes clear that the Keystone XL Pipeline will lead to higher prices for American drivers at the pump," he said, "and increased profits for foreign oil interests at a time when our U.S. economy is still in recovery."


The Canadian government has made no bones about the importance of the Keystone XL to help export Canadian oil to non-U.S. markets.

 

[Synthaholic]

You don't know that.
BTW, exporting fossil fuels will make this country into an economic powerhouse.
More revenue to the federal government. Lower taxes on individuals. More money in the pockets of the people. Stronger economy.
Where's the problem?

I do know that. They've said so.

We are awash in fossil fuel: why isn't our gas down to $0.99 like it was the day Clinton left office?

Commodities trading and taxes.
Here in NC we pay almost 70 cents per gallon when state sales, highway and federal taxes are considered.
Oil is a valuable commodity. it is not just a fossil fuel. It is a way to make money.
There is nearly 100 times more money in the oil markets than there was ten years ago. Back then a days trading was measured in the millions of dollars. Today it's hundreds of millions.
Many pension funds are heavily invested in commodities. So are 401k's and other index, ETF and other funds. Oil is also used as a hedge against the US Dollar. If the US Dollar falls, traders buy up oil and gasoline futures.
Do I like paying $3.25 per gallon for gas? No. But I understand the marketplace.
Funny, I don't hear any bitching when the price falls to historic lows as it did in 2008 just after the recession began. or in 1998 when traders bet on the price continuing to rise to levels never seen before. or in 1991 right after the gulf war started and the price of a barrel of oil tripled in a week, only to fall below the level is started a week before the first shot was fired. Traders thought there was among other things, an embargo by the Arab members of OPEC and a supply interruption from Saudi Arabia due to military activity.

Wall St. speculation costs between 40 and 80 cents per gallon. FAIL.

 

[Synthaholic]

they do? I have heard that they need to rebuild the 59th street bridge etc....

so one third was tax cuts so what?

so, did you get a solyndra T-shirt at least?

You've decided to veer off into Retard Land. Enjoy the trip.

solyndra wasn't a green initiative?

Solyndra was a pittance. It was $300 million.

Ted Cruz cost taxpayers $20 BILLION with his shutdown.

Your outrage is out of whack. Enjoy Retard Land.

 

[Synthaholic]

do they need a new entry point? or is that just a project for the sake of a project?

we need more schools

fixing bridges? what happened to the stimulus $$?

They desperately need a new entry point. You won't find anyone who says otherwise (with any credibility), Democrat or Republican.

Stimulus money was spent by 2011. One third of it was tax cuts. A lot of it was in Green initiatives, which I took advantage of.

Green initiatives? Such as Solyndra?
What tax cuts?
The nearly one trillion dollars in stimulus money was thrown down a rat hole.
Most of it was used to preserve ( temporarily) unionized public employee jobs. Most of which no longer exist.
Let us not forget those 'shovel ready projects'..

Holy shit! How big of a fucking idiot are you, anyway?

Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts | PolitiFact

The Stimulus Plan: The Tax Cuts - ProPublica

Tax cuts and incentives for families, individuals and small businesses provided by the 2009 economic stimulus package

I've now decided that you are too fucking stupid to take seriously any longer.

 

[Synthaholic]

Last year, while pushing for the KXL, House Speaker John Boehner released a statement claiming that the pipeline “will create over 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs.” On Friday, as the State Department released its “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” on the project, Boehner once again released a statement reiterating his previous claim that the pipeline would bring “more than 100,000 jobs.”


The trouble is, that’s not true. At least according to the actual State Department report, which was the occasion for Boehner’s Friday statement.


In the section on “Economic Activity During Construction” (page 26), the report estimates that “Construction spending would support a combined total of approximately 42,100 jobs throughout the United States for the up to 2-year construction period.”


That sounds pretty good! Until one bothers to keep reading. “A job consists of one position that is filled for one year. The term support means jobs ranging from new jobs (i.e., not previously existing) to the continuity of existing jobs in current or new locations.”


Approximately 16,100 of those temporary jobs would be “direct jobs at firms that are awarded contracts for goods and services, including construction” and the rest, “approximately 26,000,” would be the result of “indirect or induced spending.” In other words, that would be “goods and services purchased by the construction contractors and spending by employees working for either the construction contractor or for any supplier of goods and services required in the construction process.”


So, in addition to people who work for suppliers (where they may already be employed prior to the approval of KXL), people who work at restaurants or motels near the construction site or for any of the suppliers, also count as “jobs” in this estimate. For example, the report cites “ranchers providing beef for restaurants and construction camps.”


Fair enough. Two years of jobs for those folks, many of whom will be able to continue working in the jobs they already have (so those jobs are not “created,” per se, by the construction of the pipeline.)


After it’s built, however, either one or two years later, according to the very next section of the Executive Summary titled “Economic Activity During Operations,” the report states quite clearly [emphasis added]:

Once the proposed Project enters service, operations would require approximately 50 total employees in the United States: 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.



​

That’s it. The Keystone XL Pipeline will offer 35 permanent jobs in the U.S. for the life of the pipeline, according to the U.S. State Department’s final analysis.


LINK

 

[chikenwing]

Last year, while pushing for the KXL, House Speaker John Boehner released a statement claiming that the pipeline “will create over 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs.” On Friday, as the State Department released its “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” on the project, Boehner once again released a statement reiterating his previous claim that the pipeline would bring “more than 100,000 jobs.”


The trouble is, that’s not true. At least according to the actual State Department report, which was the occasion for Boehner’s Friday statement.


In the section on “Economic Activity During Construction” (page 26), the report estimates that “Construction spending would support a combined total of approximately 42,100 jobs throughout the United States for the up to 2-year construction period.”


That sounds pretty good! Until one bothers to keep reading. “A job consists of one position that is filled for one year. The term support means jobs ranging from new jobs (i.e., not previously existing) to the continuity of existing jobs in current or new locations.”


Approximately 16,100 of those temporary jobs would be “direct jobs at firms that are awarded contracts for goods and services, including construction” and the rest, “approximately 26,000,” would be the result of “indirect or induced spending.” In other words, that would be “goods and services purchased by the construction contractors and spending by employees working for either the construction contractor or for any supplier of goods and services required in the construction process.”


So, in addition to people who work for suppliers (where they may already be employed prior to the approval of KXL), people who work at restaurants or motels near the construction site or for any of the suppliers, also count as “jobs” in this estimate. For example, the report cites “ranchers providing beef for restaurants and construction camps.”


Fair enough. Two years of jobs for those folks, many of whom will be able to continue working in the jobs they already have (so those jobs are not “created,” per se, by the construction of the pipeline.)


After it’s built, however, either one or two years later, according to the very next section of the Executive Summary titled “Economic Activity During Operations,” the report states quite clearly [emphasis added]:

Once the proposed Project enters service, operations would require approximately 50 total employees in the United States: 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.



​

That’s it. The Keystone XL Pipeline will offer 35 permanent jobs in the U.S. for the life of the pipeline, according to the U.S. State Department’s final analysis.


LINK

So ??? Thats what CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS do,when its done the workers go on to the next one,you have no point??

 

[Mr. H.]

Imagine if this project were not meant to carry crude, but crushed soy oil destined for a biodiesel facility in the U.S.

It would have passed muster 5 years ago.

That's the kind of hypocrisy and double-standard that is practiced when dealing with oil and natural gas VS agriculture.

For example, in a given two-year period hydraulic fracturing jobs cumulatively use less water than does agriculture in two days.

 

[Synthaholic]

Last year, while pushing for the KXL, House Speaker John Boehner released a statement claiming that the pipeline “will create over 20,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs.” On Friday, as the State Department released its “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” on the project, Boehner once again released a statement reiterating his previous claim that the pipeline would bring “more than 100,000 jobs.”


The trouble is, that’s not true. At least according to the actual State Department report, which was the occasion for Boehner’s Friday statement.


In the section on “Economic Activity During Construction” (page 26), the report estimates that “Construction spending would support a combined total of approximately 42,100 jobs throughout the United States for the up to 2-year construction period.”


That sounds pretty good! Until one bothers to keep reading. “A job consists of one position that is filled for one year. The term support means jobs ranging from new jobs (i.e., not previously existing) to the continuity of existing jobs in current or new locations.”


Approximately 16,100 of those temporary jobs would be “direct jobs at firms that are awarded contracts for goods and services, including construction” and the rest, “approximately 26,000,” would be the result of “indirect or induced spending.” In other words, that would be “goods and services purchased by the construction contractors and spending by employees working for either the construction contractor or for any supplier of goods and services required in the construction process.”


So, in addition to people who work for suppliers (where they may already be employed prior to the approval of KXL), people who work at restaurants or motels near the construction site or for any of the suppliers, also count as “jobs” in this estimate. For example, the report cites “ranchers providing beef for restaurants and construction camps.”


Fair enough. Two years of jobs for those folks, many of whom will be able to continue working in the jobs they already have (so those jobs are not “created,” per se, by the construction of the pipeline.)


After it’s built, however, either one or two years later, according to the very next section of the Executive Summary titled “Economic Activity During Operations,” the report states quite clearly [emphasis added]:

Once the proposed Project enters service, operations would require approximately 50 total employees in the United States: 35 permanent employees and 15 temporary contractors.



​

That’s it. The Keystone XL Pipeline will offer 35 permanent jobs in the U.S. for the life of the pipeline, according to the U.S. State Department’s final analysis.


LINK

So ??? Thats what CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS do,when its done the workers go on to the next one,you have no point??

That's funny - whenever I talk about another stimulus to build infrastructure or fix aging bridges, some wingnut like you comes along and argues that those are just temporary jobs and won't fix unemployment.

Wingnuts are hypocrites who talk out of both sides of their mouths - I'm SHOCKED!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

Imagine if this project were not meant to carry crude, but crushed soy oil destined for a biodiesel facility in the U.S.

It would have passed muster 5 years ago.

That's the kind of hypocrisy and double-standard that is practiced when dealing with oil and natural gas VS agriculture.

For example, in a given two-year period hydraulic fracturing jobs cumulatively use less water than does agriculture in two days.

Please post the environmental damage reports on a soy bean spill. Thanks!

Fracking is going to cause a major earthquake, somewhere. And it may be doing grave damage to the earth.

 

[Mr. H.]

Imagine if this project were not meant to carry crude, but crushed soy oil destined for a biodiesel facility in the U.S.

It would have passed muster 5 years ago.

That's the kind of hypocrisy and double-standard that is practiced when dealing with oil and natural gas VS agriculture.

For example, in a given two-year period hydraulic fracturing jobs cumulatively use less water than does agriculture in two days.

Please post the environmental damage reports on a soy bean spill. Thanks!

Fracking is going to cause a major earthquake, somewhere. And it may be doing grave damage to the earth.

Soy diesel is every bit the useless program that is ethanol. That's my point. We accommodate agriculture- the true raper of environments, yet let petrophobic hysteria rule the day.

And I'm not going to ask you to post evidence of your "grave damage" claim. I'll take it as your opinion and not argue it just for the sake of arguing.

 

[Synthaholic]

Imagine if this project were not meant to carry crude, but crushed soy oil destined for a biodiesel facility in the U.S.

It would have passed muster 5 years ago.

That's the kind of hypocrisy and double-standard that is practiced when dealing with oil and natural gas VS agriculture.

For example, in a given two-year period hydraulic fracturing jobs cumulatively use less water than does agriculture in two days.

Please post the environmental damage reports on a soy bean spill. Thanks!

Fracking is going to cause a major earthquake, somewhere. And it may be doing grave damage to the earth.

Soy diesel is every bit the useless program that is ethanol. That's my point. We accommodate agriculture- the true raper of environments, yet let petrophobic hysteria rule the day.

And I'm not going to ask you to post evidence of your "grave damage" claim. I'll take it as your opinion and not argue it just for the sake of arguing.

Well, I'm against ethanol. It only raises the price of groceries.

We should be using hemp oil. Hemp actually gives back to the soil, renewing it.

Fracking has caused a bunch of minor earthquakes, notably in Arkansas.

 

[Samson]

Please post the environmental damage reports on a soy bean spill. Thanks!

Fracking is going to cause a major earthquake, somewhere. And it may be doing grave damage to the earth.

Soy diesel is every bit the useless program that is ethanol. That's my point. We accommodate agriculture- the true raper of environments, yet let petrophobic hysteria rule the day.

And I'm not going to ask you to post evidence of your "grave damage" claim. I'll take it as your opinion and not argue it just for the sake of arguing.

Well, I'm against ethanol. It only raises the price of groceries.

We should be using hemp oil. Hemp actually gives back to the soil, renewing it.

Fracking has caused a bunch of minor earthquakes, notably in Arkansas.

You can use Hemp oil, and I won't stop you

It costs a mere $1260/bbl......that's $30/gallon

I'll continue to experience a rare "minor earthquake" and pay < $3/gallon

 

[tinydancer]

Then why do you need to transport your dirty tar sands across America?

Pump it, pipeline it across Canada, and refine it all yourselves.

Because you want and need our oil and have for years.

Ah you believe in the myth of dirty tar sands. Despite your latest review by your government. Got it. I'll tackle that tomorrow.

Why don't you think about this? We've been your number one supplier for many a year now.

Canada provides you with "ethical oil". Our country is not run by a dictator. All who work in the oil fields are paid more than handsomely with fabulous benefits.

Our First Nations profit greatly from the contracts and thousands of First Nations are employed directly or indirectly in a remote part of Canada.

We don't starve or brutalize our peoples. We have fabulous human rights compared to the middle east. We pay everyone awesome amounts who work in the oil industry as compared to Venezuela.

And the carbon footprint from transporting our oil to your refineries is miniscule compared to you shipping in tanker loads from the Middle East or from Venezuela.

Let alone the damage from a leak is minor compared to a tanker swamped at sea releasing thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean and corrupting the seas.

Don't you care about the planet Syn?



Ethical oil. It's the way to go.

Are you engaging in selective reading?

None of this tar sand oil is bound for U.S. markets. All of it is going overseas.

We're your number one supplier and have been for years. You've been getting Athabasca oil sands oil for years on end.

Call it what you will. You've been buying it for forever.

And pray tell why would we stop selling to you?

AND we already ship to Asia from a current pipeline in place from Alberta to the coast.

You know. A coast. Like in Canada has a province in the west that borders the freaking Pacific Ocean for crying out loud.

See this diagram. See the freaking black line from Alberta to Vancouver? See that big mass of nothing to the left of Vancouver.

That's called the fucking Pacific Ocean Jack. Then the oil gets loaded onto tankers to customers in Asia. Holy toledo!!!!!!!

I've had others tell me we need a pipeline to the Gulf Coast to ship to China but I honestly thought you had more smarts than that.

 

[Synthaholic]

Soy diesel is every bit the useless program that is ethanol. That's my point. We accommodate agriculture- the true raper of environments, yet let petrophobic hysteria rule the day.

And I'm not going to ask you to post evidence of your "grave damage" claim. I'll take it as your opinion and not argue it just for the sake of arguing.

Well, I'm against ethanol. It only raises the price of groceries.

We should be using hemp oil. Hemp actually gives back to the soil, renewing it.

Fracking has caused a bunch of minor earthquakes, notably in Arkansas.

You can use Hemp oil, and I won't stop you

It costs a mere $1260/bbl......that's $30/gallon

I'll continue to experience a rare "minor earthquake" and pay < $3/gallon

Well, of course it costs that currently, dumbass. If we were growing it in huge amounts, the price would go down.

Why do us Liberals always have to explain supply and demand to conservatives?

 

[Synthaholic]

Because you want and need our oil and have for years.

Ah you believe in the myth of dirty tar sands. Despite your latest review by your government. Got it. I'll tackle that tomorrow.

Why don't you think about this? We've been your number one supplier for many a year now.

Canada provides you with "ethical oil". Our country is not run by a dictator. All who work in the oil fields are paid more than handsomely with fabulous benefits.

Our First Nations profit greatly from the contracts and thousands of First Nations are employed directly or indirectly in a remote part of Canada.

We don't starve or brutalize our peoples. We have fabulous human rights compared to the middle east. We pay everyone awesome amounts who work in the oil industry as compared to Venezuela.

And the carbon footprint from transporting our oil to your refineries is miniscule compared to you shipping in tanker loads from the Middle East or from Venezuela.

Let alone the damage from a leak is minor compared to a tanker swamped at sea releasing thousands of barrels of oil into the ocean and corrupting the seas.

Don't you care about the planet Syn?



Ethical oil. It's the way to go.

Are you engaging in selective reading?

None of this tar sand oil is bound for U.S. markets. All of it is going overseas.

We're your number one supplier and have been for years. You've been getting Athabasca oil sands oil for years on end.

Call it what you will. You've been buying it for forever.

And pray tell why would we stop selling to you?

AND we already ship to Asia from a current pipeline in place from Alberta to the coast.

You know. A coast. Like in Canada has a province in the west that borders the freaking Pacific Ocean for crying out loud.

See this diagram. See the freaking black line from Alberta to Vancouver? See that big mass of nothing to the left of Vancouver.

That's called the fucking Pacific Ocean Jack.

Good! Send it all across Canada! We don't want it endangering America The Beautiful (in ANY language).