White House gives blessing to partial Keystone XL construction
White House gives blessing to partial Keystone XL construction
By Andrew Restuccia - 02/27/12 02:27 PM ET
The White House backed TransCanada Corp.s bid to build a major portion of the Keystone XL oil pipeline Monday, a move that could shield President Obama from growing GOP attacks over the project.
Obama's support for the southern portion of the pipeline gave the White House another chance to blunt GOP attacks by touting support for U.S. oil development. But it quickly re-opened a rift with the presidents environmental base, which condemned the project.
TransCanada, which has been working for years to win federal approval of Keystone XL, said Monday that it will begin construction on a section of the pipeline that runs from Cushing, Okla., to Texas.
The White House quickly reiterated its support for the pipeline segment, which would carry crude oil pumped from land in the Midwest and surrounding areas to refineries in Texas. The pipeline can't be extended to carry oil sands crude from Canada until the company receives a cross-border permit from the State Department, a permit the president rejected in January.
the rest:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/212785-white-house-backs-major-segment-of-keystone-pipeline
(SHIT!, kpete)
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)peeping in the big tent?
saras
(6,670 posts)RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)[font size=1]...chin! not balls!...[/font]
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Thanks a lot, RiF.
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)...and believe me, you watn Obama's regulators administering the permits and not Romney's or Santorumn's.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)and processing...it will increase global warming so badly no efforts in other areas will offset it...this sucks...Obama doesn't get it at all.
Censor-Ready
(17 posts)"Obama regulator" is an oxymoron.
And what is "administering permits"? Once the approval is given, industry is in self-reporting mode until something explodes and they want federal money for the cleanup.
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)Makes a scary story though.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Examples and history please.
Swamp Lover
(431 posts)In addition, any problems will require investigation. Do you want the response to any reported complaints to be answered and acted upon by Obama or one of the idiots who are running from the other side.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)We are really good at forgetting our history lessons, but two years ago is not yet distant enough to be forgotten.
First they said this:
Than the injured parties sue to get justice and the courts said this.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/17/37457.htm
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/18/unbelievable-courts-rule-taxpayers-bp-transocean-liable-gulf-oil-spill-clean-costs-29071/
BP gets their ruling and starts the finger point so they can wiggle out the cost of their spill.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-03/us/us_bp-halliburton-lawsuit_1_bp-and-halliburton-blowout-preventer-cameron-international-corp?_s=PM:US
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-bp-transocean-idUSTRE80Q00E20120127
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-bp-trial-idUSTRE81M1W520120223
More trials and more delays
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/bp-oil-spill-trial-settlement_n_1304403.html?ref=green
LONDON/NEW ORLEANS (Reuters/Tom Bergin and Jonathan Stempel) -- The trial to decide who should pay for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill has been delayed by a week, to allow BP Plc to try to cut a deal with tens of thousands of businesses and individuals affected by the disaster.
Less than 24 hours before the case was set to start in a New Orleans federal court, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier pushed back the date to March 5 from February 27.
Since this is not a story, but is current news it doesn't scare you enough.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)libmom74
(633 posts)Just like how they dealt with the whole BP fiasco in the gulf.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)Build a pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas, then it's "Oh, lets extend it to Kansas! C'mon, what could possibly go wrong in Kansas?!!"
Then Nebraska, then South and North Dakota.
Then it will be, "C'mon, Mr. President. We're there! Won't you grant a permit to go across the US/Canadian border?"
Jakes Progress
(11,122 posts)Naive - believing that this isn't the first step to approval after the election.
Purposefully blind - pretending that this isn't the first step to approval after the election.
Sure. Trans Canadian oil is going to spend a few million dollars building a pipeline to move Oklahoma oil to Texas without any assurance (behind the curtain) that it will become a part of their design. Right nice of them.
Naive - trusting big oil to do the right thing.
Purposefully blind - supporting big oil and its agenda because it coincides with a particular celebrity politician.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)A great way to ensure PLENTY of Oil Dollars flow into the re-election coffers.
A little more incentive will get this deal done.
The polls ALL say Obama is going to WIN BIG in November,
so what can you do to help us out here and get this pipeline built?
...and people say the Obama Administration doesn't know how to "negotiate".
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)What's not to like about this pipeline?
No oil for us. Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets. Source: Tar Sands Action.
Very few or no jobs. Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs. Previous Studies Are Misleading; Project May Kill More Jobs Than It Creates. Source: Cornell University Global Labor Institute
Almost certain leaks. TransCanada predicted that the Keystone I pipeline would see one spill in 7 years. In fact, there have been 12 spills in 1 year. Source: Tar Sands Action.
"Game over" for the climate. NASA scientist James Hansen says if the oil sands were exploited as projected, the carbon emissions produced would mean it was "game over for the climate." Source: The Guardian
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)FogerRox
(13,211 posts)and the proposal to expand the loading facility in Vancouver to handle supertankers (currently only Suezmax tankers can be loaded at Vancouver).
JJW
(1,416 posts)Insanity!
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)for quite a while now.
Hotler
(11,392 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)fucking surprise if the scotus wasnt so important i might just say fuck you to sir cavesalot
boppers
(16,588 posts)Now there's nothing left to live for. It's all over.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)what a charlie brown. the gop will never let him off the hook for ANYTHING. even if he built the damn thing himself, just like getting bin laden, he'll have done it too late or too early or both. they wont like the way he did it blah blah blah. for such a smart guy he acts (sometimes) like such a naive novice.
Response to kpete (Original post)
Post removed
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Response to kpete (Original post)
savalez This message was self-deleted by its author.
savalez
(3,517 posts)I doubt they could have stopped it anyway.
"The plans announced Monday do not require federal approval. In January the Obama administration rejected a more controversial proposal from TransCanada to build a pipeline from the Montana-Canada border through Nebraska."
More at CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/27/news/companies/keystone_pipeline/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3
Response to savalez (Reply #21)
freedom fighter jh This message was self-deleted by its author.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)it amazes me we still cannot get more people behind solar, wind, and tidal power.
BearsandBulls
(3 posts)Okay so now that we've accomplished increasing the number barrels of oil that is sent to refineries, can we focus on what everyone in America seems to blind to see. According to truebluenaturalgas.com We have enough natural gas to fuel America for 10 years with reserves that already exist, 82 years worth of gas that we know exists if we drill for it, and a nearly unlimited supply (possibly). So why on earth does every politician in America seem bent on not using it?
For that I have fewer answers. Maybe the lobbyists have a stronger grip on capitol hill than I thought, but let's go over the advantages to switching to American Natural Gas.
1. It would wipe out our dependency on foreign oil.
2. It would create jobs to drill for it
3. It's less expensive than gas
4. it's more environmentally friendly than gas
Am I missing something?
[link:http://www.truebluenaturalgas.org/how-much-natural-gas-does-the-us-have/|
FogerRox
(13,211 posts)Lets just start with wind power
1. It could wipe out our dependency on foreign oil by 2050.
2. It would create jobs
3. It's less expensive than nat gas
4. it's more environmentally friendly than nat gas
patrice
(47,992 posts)Bainbridge Bear
(155 posts)but not at all surprising. Also remember that BP has been issued new drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
truthisfreedom
(23,138 posts)sneakiest tricks ever played by a US President. What other use could it be put to, if no other path for the northern portion is approved? Transcanada is best known for its natural gas pipelines, not oil.
nwliberalkiwi
(367 posts)The fix was in a long time ago. Hillary's former campaign manager is the lead lobbiest for the pipeline. I'm suprised the the POTUS didn't cave until after the election. I voted for Obama the first time, but now I'm writing in Bernie Sanders. I hope the Repukes carry the election and take both houses and the Presidency. This nation is dead! What a sell out!
fasttense
(17,301 posts)He gives with one hand and takes away with the other then claims he's a centrist.
In a country that has been so destroyed by the 1%, bending to their wishes is not a centrist position. It is a position design to make it look as if he is progressive and maybe a little lieberal while all the time pushing the agenda of the uber rich.
He always does this. He gives a fraction of an inch to his liberal base on a social issue then promotes the right wing economic agenda. The right wing 1% got tax cuts for the rich, no public option, bailouts, no enforcment of finacial regulations, war, hiring freezes, reductions in heating oil assitance and free trade agreements. The liberals got the end of Clinton's Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)"could shield President Obama from growing GOP attacks over the project" that's what's important.
progressoid
(49,933 posts)But DUers keep telling me that the President is on our side and not the oil companies.
Hotler
(11,392 posts)Now that the XL pipeline is behind him he can focus in putting more pot smokers in prison.