HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Now we are starting to he...

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:06 PM

Now we are starting to hear from China: "We don't want your dirty tar sands oil"

Naomi Kline just made this statement on The Ed Show during a discussion on the potential passage of Keystone!

China is cleaning up its environment now....

Is this a mere coincidence or did President Obama play a cool, diplomatic hand?

Sam

45 replies, 1910 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply Now we are starting to hear from China: "We don't want your dirty tar sands oil" (Original post)
Samantha Nov 2014 OP
Hekate Nov 2014 #1
Samantha Nov 2014 #2
Fred Sanders Nov 2014 #5
Samantha Nov 2014 #7
Andy823 Nov 2014 #12
tritsofme Nov 2014 #18
Spazito Nov 2014 #22
tritsofme Nov 2014 #25
Spazito Nov 2014 #27
tritsofme Nov 2014 #28
Spazito Nov 2014 #31
Samantha Nov 2014 #45
Samantha Nov 2014 #36
tritsofme Nov 2014 #41
Samantha Nov 2014 #42
Samantha Nov 2014 #34
tritsofme Nov 2014 #37
Samantha Nov 2014 #43
Fred Sanders Nov 2014 #3
Samantha Nov 2014 #16
Louisiana1976 Nov 2014 #4
HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #11
Xolodno Nov 2014 #6
Samantha Nov 2014 #8
Electric Monk Nov 2014 #19
Samantha Nov 2014 #38
Electric Monk Nov 2014 #39
IdiocracyTheNewNorm Nov 2014 #9
Samantha Nov 2014 #13
bvar22 Nov 2014 #10
freshwest Nov 2014 #14
Samantha Nov 2014 #17
freshwest Nov 2014 #21
Samantha Nov 2014 #32
freshwest Nov 2014 #33
Samantha Nov 2014 #44
L0oniX Nov 2014 #15
Strelnikov_ Nov 2014 #30
Samantha Nov 2014 #40
Eridenus Nov 2014 #20
Spazito Nov 2014 #23
Eridenus Nov 2014 #24
Spazito Nov 2014 #29
DonCoquixote Nov 2014 #26
Samantha Nov 2014 #35

Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:10 PM

1. This story is far from over

Coincidence? Don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:18 PM

2. They have been dancing around the issue of the literal legislative vote

without mentioning the fact by virtue of the Constitution, the President must approve pipelines that cross international borders. The only way of getting around THAT is to amend the Constitution, and we both know that is not going to happen.

Republicans keep saying they have the 60 votes to pass the Keystone legislation, blocking any possible fillibuster. A commentator I heard today (don't know his name but he was a guest on MSNBC) said if the House passes a bill, and the Senate passes it, of course the President might just do nothing, meaning not sign it nor veto it. In that event, the bill would automatically pass, so he confidently said. That is not true.

I guess this is just one more of those times a certain group of people want those of us who are against this pipeline to think the approval is inevitable.... Right.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:19 PM

5. Excellent point, and same with Canada, where federal elections are a year away. Congress votes

mean nothing, pure politics.

You get some powers when you are elected President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:23 PM

7. Naomi Kline made another excellent comment

People in Canada are starting to panic over the drop in the price of oil. The expense Canada would have to go to to work on this pipeline might not be a good investment at this particular time of our economic oil boom since there might not be a demand for this dirty crude oil -- especially if China doesn't want it!

This is just so beautiful I can't stand it.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:03 PM

12. Yep,

The lower oil goes the more expensive it will be to start new wells in Canada. It lost almost three dollars today and it's down to around $74.88 a barrel. Some analysts say it may get down to $50 a barrel, and even if it only gets in to the $60 range it will pretty much stop the plans to build the pipeline. If prices go back up and China no longer wants tar sand oil, it will probably be the end of the keystone pipeline also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:17 PM

18. If the president does not sign a bill, it almost always becomes law 10 days after passage.

That's the way it works. If he opposes, he must veto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:28 PM

22. If Congress adjourns before the 10 days, the bill fails, it's often called a 'pocket veto'...

I believe the last day scheduled as a work day for Congress in December is the 15th. Dems could offer amendments to the proposed bills delaying the vote and, unless the exact same bill is passed in both the House and the Senate, both bills go into Conference to try and hammer out one bill for both the House and Senate to vote on.

The timing on this is interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #22)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:47 PM

25. The timing of the Landrieu's December 6th runoff make a pocket veto strategy very unlikely

If the bill does not pass by then, there was very little point to this exercise.

Congress can generally thwart a pocket veto by designating an agent to receive the president's veto message when they are out of session, though I'm not sure that proposition has ever been tested when faced with a sine die adjournment as would be the case here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:58 PM

27. Bringing a bill before the Senate for a vote doesn't necessarily mean a vote takes place...

immediately. Whether Landrieu wins or loses changes little as the republicans already have the numbers in hand to control the Senate, the Dems know this, funding was pulled from her campaign. This is about something else as the Landrieu explanation makes no political sense.

The repubs can try the agent avenue, the courts would have to decide it's constitutionality which would make the attempt moot as to the issue.

What is more likely is the repubs will try to affix approval of the pipeline to a budget bill or a key finance bill, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #27)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:02 PM

28. If that's the case, then Obama might as well just veto.

The votes are definitely there in this Congress to sustain it.

I agree it is likely to get tacked on some must pass measure in the next Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #28)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:11 PM

31. He may well do a straight up veto as opposed to a pocket veto, I suspect he will...

certainly his spokesperson has indicated that is the direction he is leaning for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #31)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 01:49 PM

45. I think all of the talk about what happens by the legislature is a moot point

although it is being presented to the public as the road to getting the Keystone Pipeline approved. There is no President Permit in place and legislation cannot change that fact. My concern as stated below is that Republicans, along with Democrats who favor the legislation, are trying to execute a hocus pocus maneuver to deceive the public the legislature can authorize approval of the pipeline, BUT IT CANNOT. This is power grab by the Republicans to usurp the authority of the President to TAKE WHAT IT WANTS. It sets the tone for the way things will probably wash out from hereon, and that is a shame.

I have posted a couple of items below but have more I will contribute as time permits. And please excuse the tone of this thread. I am just getting upset with how this is being presented in an illegitimate manner by the press and the politicians.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:16 AM

36. The media is playing this up as if it is a strategy to help Landrieu win her runoff

But this is what I don't understand: her opponent is peddling the House version. That sounds to me like they both will have bragging rights. I guess if the Senate did nothing, he would have the advantage. The fact she is peddling in the Senate, whether it passes or not, makes it a moot point in the runoff election, doesn't it? Is this what is going on?

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #36)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:41 AM

41. It's Landrieu's strategy, she seems to think it will help her.

She has essentially forced the issue on the Democratic leadership, I think Republicans would have been just as happy to wait until next year and tack on a must pass bill.

But I tend to agree with you that it seems to have pretty limited value for her, and regardless she seems to be a dead-woman walking.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #41)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 02:21 AM

42. Okay, so it was her idea ....

I think you are correct, she's a dead-woman walking (I know the last thing we need is to lose another Senate race) but I just don't see how she wins.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:58 PM

34. I think this is different because it falls within that unique category

It is an Executive Branch function to approve this pipeline since it crosses an international border. Were it not for that, the President would not have to approve it. So if the Senate along with the House pass a bill and the President does not sign it, I do not see how it becomes a law.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #34)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:16 AM

37. If there are constitutional issues with the bill, that would have to be resolved in the courts

But if the president does not sign or veto any bill within 10 days, it generally becomes law without his signature, and this bill is no exception.

The only exception being when a president is able to use the "pocket veto" that we discussed below, which is rare and fraught with legal questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tritsofme (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 02:36 AM

43. I have been doing a lot of research on this and it is clear this pipeline has to have Presidential

approval. I will try to post tomorrow some links that I saved in this process. I do not intend to go to the mat over this issue; I am just trying to understand reconciling what happens if the President does not sign the bill and what you say your understanding is with what I have read.

It became clear tonight that because of all of the delays in the Keystone approval, certain pipelines which should have been approved by the President have had applications for approval processed by other agencies -- agencies, not the State Department. In other words, those seeking these approvals don't care one way or another what the law is...they just want a piece of paper saying okay, go ahead.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:18 PM

3. To reach the goals agreed to by 2030 China can no longer afford tar sands oil. Well played, Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fred Sanders (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:12 PM

16. Good point, Fred Sanders

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:18 PM

4. Good for China. I've seen pictures of air pollution over there and it is terrible. Tar sands oil

would make the air there even dirtier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Louisiana1976 (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:01 PM

11. I visited Bejing...June 2003? ... 2PM... I could look directly into the sun

--filtered by pollution--a softly glowing red-orange orb in a neutral gray sky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:21 PM

6. Not too mention...

...China and Russia agreed to a bunch of energy deals already that will be much easier to transport and more cost effective.

The environmental deal is just the exclamation point, to be more efficient with their energy consumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xolodno (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:27 PM

8. Isn't it just too wonderful? If it doesn't happen, the Koch Brothers would lose

ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS. Geez, after all that money they spent in the mid-term election to install the "right" politicians into office, they might lose a return on their investment due to a magnificent timely maneuver by our Democratic president and the change in the conditions of the oil market.

I love it.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:26 PM

19. That sounds like a lot, but for the Kochs $100,000,000 is about 2 days investment earnings

 

They are the .00001%


http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/4_ways_the_koch_brothers_wealth_is_incomprehensible_partner/

http://www.usagainstgreed.org/20131125_Analysis.txt

Kochs: $12 billion investment earnings in 2012 = $6 million per working hour (50 weeks, 40 hrs/wk)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:25 AM

38. I guess we will just have to take our consolation in the fact they are making no money

I think maybe we will be able to say the pipeline died a natural death by delay.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #38)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:31 AM

39. I think a bigger consolation would be if the oil sands stop polluting the fuck out of the north.

 

As mentioned, though, there are contingency plans in place. Going west, or maybe east, instead of south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:47 PM

9. It is possible he did, great move too, a shiv to both the GOP and the Koch Bros.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdiocracyTheNewNorm (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:07 PM

13. That is what I was thinking -- a polite but deadly maneuver

I guess we will see what happens.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:56 PM

10. Bad News.

If they can't sell that shit to China,
they will find a way to make us eat it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:07 PM

14. He's been stalling them for years, now it's come to a head. Bush wanted it in 2007.

I've kept track mentally, of the number of threats that the GOP issued over the KXL. Since 2009, there were many complaints, concluding in the Koch brothers creating the Tea Party in 2010 to stop Obama's agenda.

Some may not remember, but every budget bill Boehner offered had to be fought over as he put approval for the pipeline at the head of them, trying to extort him to sign off to the pipeline. When the Tea Party took majority in the House in 2010, they went into overdrive.

From 2011:

Koch Brothers Positioned To Be Big Winners If Keystone XL Pipeline Is Approved


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/idUS292515702420110210

OVERNIGHT ENERGY: GOP seeks political price for Obama’s Keystone pipeline delay


By Ben Geman and Andrew Restuccia -11/30/11

State of play: Republicans on both sides of Capitol Hill are taking steps this week to impose a political price on the White House for delaying a final decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline until after the 2012 election.

Senate GOP leadership on Wednesday promoted new legislation that would force a much faster decision on TransCanada Corp.’s proposed $7 billion Alberta-to-Texas pipeline.

They argue the bill (which E2 covered here and here) will help create jobs quickly, and alleged the recent administration delay was a political decision to appease green groups.

The pipeline puts the White House in a bind by splitting President Obama’s base — green groups loathe the project while a number of unions want it to proceed without further delay...


http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196347-overnight-energy

Obama Rejects GOP Bid to Tie Payroll Tax Cut to Keystone Pipeline Approval


Dec 7, 2011

President Obama warned congressional Republicans today that he will reject any attempt to tie a payroll tax cut extension to approval of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, which supporters say would create thousands of new jobs.

“Any effort to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut, I will reject. So everybody can be on notice,” Obama said during a press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Last month, the administration postponed a decision on the pipeline to allow for an extended environmental review that’s expected to last until after the 2012 campaign.

“The payroll tax cut is something that House Republicans and Senate Republicans should want to do regardless of any other issues,” Obama added. “The question’s going to be, are they willing to vote against a proposal that ensures that Americans, at a time when the recovery is still fragile, don’t see their taxes go up by a thousand dollars? So it shouldn’t be held hostage for any other issues that they may be concerned about.”

But Republicans insist Obama is playing politics with a project that has strong bipartisan support, including from labor unions, and which would help boost the lagging economy. Harper has also publicly pressured the administration to approve the deal...


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/obama-rejects-gop-bid-to-tie-payroll-tax-cut-to-keystone-pipeline-approval/

From 2012:

Sizing Up Obama's Keystone Pipeline Denial

By Amy Harder - January 23, 2012

Was President Obama right or wrong to reject the Keystone XL pipeline?

Last week, President Obama denied approval of a permit to build the pipeline, which as proposed would have sent oil from Alberta, Canada's tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. Obama said the "arbitrary" deadline set by congressional Republicans was not enough time to complete a review of the proposal for an alternate route that would not go through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska. TransCanada, the Canadian company seeking to build the pipeline, immediately said it would apply for another permit...


http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/sizing-up-obamas-keystone-pipe-1.php

XL Pipeline: Oil Chief Threatens Obama

The Guardian - 06 January 12

The head of the US's biggest oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups.

Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would definitely play a role in this year's national elections.


http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/9308-xl-pipeline-oil-chief-threatens-obama

From 2013:

10 Lies Republicans Tell, over and over and over!

4. REPUBLICANS LIE about drilling and the Keystone XL Pipeline:


Much to the chagrin of the “drill baby drill” crowd, the President has kept the oil industry out of ANWAR, and recently disallowed the XL-Pipeline. To let Republicans tell it, the oil supply and employment in the industry have been stymied by this President. It is a lie.

From The Los Angeles Times:

Oil imports down, domestic production highest since 2003


“....the United States reduced net imports of crude oil last year by 10%, or 1 million barrels a day. The U.S. now imports 45% of its petroleum, down from 57% in 2008, and is on track to meet Obama’s long-term goal, the administration maintains.

Imports have fallen, in part, because the United States has increased domestic oil and gas production in recent years.... Current production, about 5.6 million barrels a day, is the highest since 2003.

The U.S. has been the world’s largest producer of natural gas since 2009, the report says. Use of renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar, is still relatively small but has doubled since 2008.

The report credits administration policies for the improvements. It cites initiatives such as the higher fuel efficiency of passenger cars, the jump in renewable energy output, and improved weatherization of 1 million homes.


http://current.com/community/94053804_10-lies-republicans-tell-over-and-over-and-over.htm

A little more dirt from the above:

Boehner has significant investments in the Keystone XL Pipeline Project so he has actively promoted an agenda that will benefit him financially. If the Republicans were really interested in job creation, they would have passed the infrastructure bill. Construction workers could repair roads and bridges from now until eternity, but then again, I guess Boehner’s not invested in I-95.

And even the rightwingers know that Obama has been against the pipeline since the last three years, according to this undated blog here. Here's a lament penned by a Keystone supporter, extra emboldening and underlining is mine:

President Obama Denies Keystone Pipeline Permit

By LD Jackson

Let’s all be honest with ourselves. Did anyone really believe President Barack Obama would approve the permit for the Keystone Pipeline and allow it to go forward? Even though the preliminaries are finished, the environmental studies have been done, alternate routes through Nebraska have been proposed, etc., President Obama still thinks more time is needed. He originally wanted to put the decision off until 2013. You know, after the 2012 election is out-of-the-way. The Republicans in Congress nixed that plan and tied the permit to the payroll tax cut or holiday issue. From November 30, 2011, the President had 60 days to approve or disapprove the permit. He made his decision yesterday and as is usually the case, he blamed the Republicans for forcing his hand. His excuse? We need more time, at least another 18 months, to do yet another review. As far as I am concerned, that statement ranks right up at the top of the biggest lies the man has told since he took office.

Does anyone want to venture a guess how long the reviews for the pipeline have already been going on? Try three years. That’s right, this project has already been in the works for three years. More than that, if you count the time and effort Canada has expended on its end. Three years, yet our current President thinks that isn’t enough time. He wants another review, mainly about the environmental impact (isn’t that always his excuse), which will take about 18 months. Even though the environment studies have been finished and any concerns addressed, he needs more time.

The President is walking a fine line with this. On the one hand, he has the labor unions, who favor the project. That’s why they call them labor unions. They want the jobs, and I happen to agree. Turn the coin over and you have an issue that is near and dear to Obama’s heart, the environment and clean energy. If he approves the pipeline, he will be facing the wrath of multiple environmental groups, including some that have threatened to stop the flow of donations they are providing to his reelection campaign. As much as he says he wants to create jobs, the environment will always win this fight in the President’s heart. He will always side with the environment, even if their argument is bogus. Once again, this should surprise no one...


http://www.ldjackson.net/president-obama-denies-keystone-pipeline-permit/

Check out the Koch brothers comments here:

"I want my fair share--and that's ALL OF IT": The Kochs & the XL Pipeline

By Greg Palast

According to the transcript of the secretly recorded tape, Charles Koch was chuckling like a six-year old. Koch was having a hell of a laugh over pilfering a few hundred dollars' worth of oil from a couple of dirt-poor Indians on the Osage Reservation.

Why did Koch, worth about $3 billion at the time (now $20 billion) need to boost a few bucks from some Indian in a trailer home? Koch answered:


"I want my fair share -- and that's all of it."


Now "all of it" includes a pipeline, the Keystone XL, which would run the world's filthiest oil, crude made from tar sands, down from Canada to his family's refinery on the Gulf Coast of Texas...


http://www.opednews.com/articles/I-want-my-fair-share-and-by-Greg-Palast-130214-669.html

I even found a Yahoo story where the GOP is now trying to claim they stopped the pipeline. Bridge sales on the riiiiight...

I posted that on Feb 13, 2013, but knew the history of threats made to Obama since 2009. I always knew when push came to shove with a GOP Senate, he would not let me down. I posted it with a video at the demonstration at the White House with RFK, Jr. posted that day. No matter what anyone thinks of his other positions, he is an ardent environmetnalist. And he said that Obama would kill the pipeline, as he and his son were both preparing to be arrested for their acts of civil disobedience that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:48 PM

17. This is great you posted all this information and/or history

I left the thread to do a little research on this subject and was amazed at some of things I found. I can't go into it now in detail, but the one thing that really startled me was that the Republicans drafted a bill to circumvent Presidential approval of the pipeline. They might have even passed it, but of course did not send it to the Senate. Approval of this pipeline is clearly within the Executive Branch's purview, but it seems the Legislation Branch, particularly House Republicans, are trying to make a power grab on this issue.

The reason this is so glaring is that they threaten to impeach Obama for attempting to exceed his authority. He is making a grab for authority which clearly belongs to the Congress (so they say). This is just too much.

Thanks again for your wonderful contribution to this thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #17)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:28 PM

21. Thanks. I didn't post it in GD at the time as many were mixing up apples and oranges.

The arguing was that states were passing and building the pipelines. Those states were enacting the Koch brothers ALEC agenda, which Obama could do nothing about as it is their right to do so from the grassroots.

A regular pipeline in and of itself is not always a bad thing. There are many kinds of pipelines that have not carried this cargo.

It was the larger problem of wealth, climate change, the lack of real jobs or economic benefit to Americans that Obama focused upon. He disputed the 2,000 job figure touted by the right as a 'jobs program' as the sham it is.

Those were temporary jobs for construction, and why some unions did vote for them in their states. But once put into place, Obama said the net permanent jobs created would be 200 or less as the flow was automated and defects detected by computer, with only crews called out for that.

That's not a jobs program, that's a giveaway. He also cited that none of oil, another lie propagated by the GOP, would reduce the price of gasoline in America, as it was not going to be used here but exported.

The USA was simply the route, as if no one here had anything to say about it at all. And in less than a year, it would double the net worth of the Koches.

That makes it a danger to climate change, rivers, land, democracy and the very government itself. He is doing the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:11 PM

32. When this controversy first erupted, one of the Ivy League law schools had someone

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

who did an independent analysis of how many jobs would be created. At that time, promoters of the pipeline were saying something like 30,000 jobs would be created. The independent analysis came out stating only 5,000 jobs would be created and that the higher number was greatly exaggerated. One of the techniques used to bolster the higher number was if a job lasted 2 years, that was counted as 2 jobs! At the end of the initial construction, the independent analysis said only about 50 permanent jobs would be created since pipelines did not require a lot of people to maintain the performance. So I am not sure whose numbers are literally correct, but I do feel that there will not be a number of Americans receiving gainful employment a number of years from this project.

As far as the benefit to those who use need that type of crude oil in this Country, the independent analysis said the price would go up for them because the demand by China would increase the domestic price here.

In short, there seemed to be nothing worth it to Americans to have this pipeline running through the Country.

Additionally, one night I saw some native Americans protesting the pipeline, saying the implementation of the building of it would cross boundaries of their land given to them by the United States Government by treaty. These native Americans feared their water supply would be compromised. They had decided they were prepared to go to war and die if necessary to prevent the pipeline from compromising their lands. What I don't understand is just how anyone can justify breaking the treaties we made with them in order to pump this oil we don't need. That is truly horrific.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:56 PM

33. Thanks, I also heard the figure 50 on the jobs, as well. You did great, hope you saved the links.

There've been continuing native protests in Canada, but they do not seem to have stopped them. This is why Harper must go, he is in league with the Koch brothers. He does not respect their citizens or the treaties.

You may recall the spill in AR last year, with the river and streets flooed with bitumin petroleum. It was either the age of the pipeline, about 30 years old, or that the fuel needs to be pushed at a higher pressure than a standard fuel through the pipeline.

The whole thing was handled horribly, and the GOP state representatives didn't give the residents the time of day, as they were all ALEC legislators. This is part of the Koch agenda for two reasons, to make money for them and destroy democracy across the country.

They buy off voters with promises of jobs that cost the residents more in the long run than the wages. There has been a similar issue with fracking, as some farmers have been eager to sell their land to the oil companies at the expense of their neighbors and the environment, so they can retire elsewhere from the proceeds.

This a form of economic warfare that is going on daily, pitting neighbors against each other. It's very hard to fight from D.C. and it all local.

Thanks again for the data!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 01:40 PM

44. It appears plain that the Legislative Branch cannot approve the Keystone Pipeline

It is clear from what I have found that the Keystone pipeline does have to be approved by a Presidential Permit. What is disturbing is the fact the public is being led to believe the Legislative Branch can usurp this Executive Branch power, running roughshod over the President. If this is allowed to let stand, it might set a precedent that the Republicans continue to use to approve other pipelines crossing international borders. So we need to have to wade past all of the political hocus pocus being tossed at us and get down to the barebone facts. I hope you will continue to be involved in this discussion because I feel it is of vital importance and you have a lot to contribute in just looking at the bare bones. Here is one thing I will post now for you to look as your time permits. This is a report from the Energy Committee recommending the legislation approving the pipeline be passed. The report jumps from this assertion:

Although the Federal Government does not generally regulate
the siting of oil pipelines, the President has, for more than a
century, asserted authority to approve energy and
telecommunication facilities that cross international borders
pursuant to his constitutional authority over foreign affairs.
See Sierra Club v. Clinton, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1163 (D.
Minn. 2010). In 1968, President Johnson delegated his authority
to issue or deny applications for Presidential permits for
cross-border oil pipelines to the Secretary of State, based
upon the Secretary's determination of whether issuance of the
permit would serve the national interest. Executive Order
11423, 33 Fed. Reg. 11741 (Aug. 16, 1968). President George W.
Bush affirmed President Johnson's delegation to the Secretary
of State in 2004. Executive Order 13337, 69 Fed. Reg. 25299
(May 5, 2004).


at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt200/html/CRPT-113srpt200.htm

to the recommendation the legislation be passed. If you have the time, perhaps you might want to read the entire document. It is very interesting.

Additionally, I found an article reprinted from the National Law Journal asserting that a Presidential Permit is needed for international pipelines and no legislative approval is necessary. There is a notation that the article cannot be reprinted, so I not sure if can post the specific language I would like you to read. Here is the link:

http://www.hunton.com/files/upload/Attachment_2_Pres_Permits_Article.pdf

Simply speaking, at the bottom paragraph on the first page, the author states Presidential Permits are singularly within the purview of the Executive Branch alone and no statute authorizes their creation or use.

There is more but I will let you absorb this and see what you think.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:08 PM

15. China is already involved with Canada for tar sands oil.

 

China's US$37 billion bet on Canadian energy producers, from Sunshine Oilsands to Penn West Petroleum, is producing disappointing results amid sinking resource prices and operational breakdowns.

Penn West and Sunshine, partly owned by China Investment Corp, the nation's sovereign wealth fund, have tumbled 17 per cent and 48 per cent respectively this year. Syncrude Canada, whose owners include CNOOC and China Petrochemical Corp, cut its production target three times; while declining natural gas prices have triggered a review of Sinopec Daylight Energy's assets.

"The talk around the table is that the Chinese were not informed investors," said Sam La Bell, a Toronto-based analyst at Veritas Investment Research. "They had a long-term view that oil was going up and they had a mandate to go buy oil assets. They weren't necessarily being selective."

Chinese investments in Canada's energy sector have cooled this year to less than US$1 billion, after a record US$19.3 billion in 2012, including CNOOC's US$15.1 billion acquisition of Nexen.

China has invested about US$37 billion in the industry since the beginning of 2008.

The slowdown in acquisitions and lower returns come after Prime Minister Stephen Harper last year imposed limits on oil-sands purchases by state-owned enterprises.

Falling fossil fuel prices, delays in building pipelines for exporting oil, and the time and money to understand how to operate in the world's third-largest oil reserves have led to a difficult year for Chinese investors, said Goldy Hyder, president of Hill+Knowlton Strategies Canada which advised CNOOC during its purchase of Nexen.

"There's angst around Canada these days and more than a bit of 'buyer beware'. Next year we may start to see some cracks appearing, especially in the joint ventures over differences of opinion," he said.


http://peakoil.com/forums/pipeline-for-tar-sands-oil-announced-t64536-60.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:07 PM

30. Ka-Ching . . . It's a Greenwash


They ran the numbers, don't add up. So let's do a partial salvage by spinning some PR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:37 AM

40. This is fascinating

I am going to have to re-read this thread tomorrow. Just so much information, great information, I need to take it in again.

Thank you so much for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:27 PM

20. Keystone XL doesn't exist anymore.

 

It hasn't even existed since Canada approved an all-Canadian alternate pipeline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eridenus (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:32 PM

23. Keystone XL certainly does still exist...

there are many proposed pipelines, the west-east is only one, it has nothing to do with the existence of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #23)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:33 PM

24. Right, and Harper is already under stress to dump Keystone XL

 

because his coalition is about to collapse and Harper has grown very unpopular... and will be removed soon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eridenus (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:03 PM

29. There is no coalition in the Harper's government...

he has a majority, no coalition needed. Harper has grown quite unpopular, that is true and, hopefully he will be ousted next year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Original post)

Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:51 PM

26. One thing I have to ask

Was the idea to let Obama deny Keystone, than have Hillary come in saying "i will pass it." It sounds like both she and harper were trying a hail mary pass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:10 AM

35. I remember reading when she left the State Department she left the application on her desk

One can read into that statement whatever one chooses. While people commonly say the State Department approves these applications, its findings and/or recommendations must be shared with the President for his review and approval. So while the State Department does all the work, the final approval rests with the President. The fact she left it there I personally interpreted to mean, "I did my part and now I leave this for my successor and you to finish." She didn't want her name connected to the final approval in case she ran for her office, she would not have to defend her role on this during her campaign. Just my take. You might have quite another.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread