Pres. Obama may delay Keystone pipeline decision til after election -- require enviro risks reduced

[bigtree]

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is considering a move that could delay a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline by requiring sponsors to reduce the project’s environmental risks before it can be approved, according to people with knowledge of the deliberations.

The step might put off a decision until after the 2012 election . . .

Further delays could make the pipeline financially unfeasible for TransCanada and the companies that plan to ship crude through it. The oil industry has argued that if Keystone XL does not get a permit, TransCanada and its clients would develop the oil sands anyway and ship the crude west in a pipeline to the Pacific Coast. But environmentalists contend that there is far too much local resistance in Canada for that to occur.

"My guess is, if there is a delay, it could very well kill the pipeline of its own weight," said John H. Adams, founding director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, at Sunday’s rally.




read more: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1379056&format=&page=2&listingType=politics#articleFull

[mod mom]

1. What does this mean, elect him then he'll allow it?

why not take the "brave" stance and just do the right thing and say no.

[bigtree]

3. he knows what the effect of a delay will be

Already local and state legislatures and interest groups are taking advantage of all the time they can get to generate as much opposition and resistance they are able. President Obama knows, as well as the outside observers, that a long delay will likely result in the pipeline plan being shelved.

[vi5]

5. So if that's the case...

and the plan will be shelved, then why not just do the right thing and put it to rest now? And do the right thing?

Even if what you're proposing is true, it's pure cowardice.

[bigtree]

8. I don't give a fuck what it is as long as it threatens the pipeline project

I think some folks care more about the politics than killing the project. If the politics work to opponent's benefit, I don't know what there is to complain about. If it makes you feel better calling the President of the United States a coward, have at it. That's one of the fringe benefits of private citizenry.

[vi5]

15. But here's the thing...

Him killing the project actually kills it. So if you're against this, then why would you not want him to do that instead of closing his eyes, crossing his fingers and hoping he doesn't have to make an difficult decision.

Saying you're in favor of this project getting killed but then saying you'd prefer him do something that maybe, sort of might have an outside chance of killing it rather than him actually doing what is in his power right now to stop it makes zero sense. THAT is being more concerned with politics than the actual merit of the case and situation itself. If your priority is stopping this thing then you'd prefer that he just stop it. If your priority is Obama not having to make any hard decisions that might alienate anyone and could have negative political implications then THAT'S the definition of politics over principle.

[bigtree]

16. my view

. . . is that he got caught with his blind side to, first, the environmental impact, and second, the politics. He's obviously made some kind of commitment to the Canadian government to allow this thing to go through. I often wonder why folks worry so much about the Saudis and don't think a second about Canada's influence on the U.S. They are our largest supplier of oil, by far. Those economic and political pressures are often invisible, but I can't imagine they don't wield some heavy influence.

Look at what the Canadian prime minister thinks in the weeks ahead (not right now, because he's just all brave face and all of that to keep investors together). When he balks, we know the President has turned the other way.

I'm not going to go into the character of President Obama on this thread . . .

[Raine]

28. Yup, no profiles in courage will be seen from

this WhiteHouse. x(

[vi5]

4. "Take the brave stance"

HA! That's hysterical.

[joeybee12]

24. I agree...I don't trust him to do the right thing on this...he'll delay it

so he can give it the go-ahead after the election.

[AngryAmish]

2. We used to be a nation that did things

Now we don't. We deserve endless wars in the middle east if this is the shit that is going to be pulled.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. Is he waiting to first get re-elected? nt

[bigtree]

9. from what I've read

. . . you don't just dilly-dally around making a decision if you intend the thing to go forward. The report earlier in the month suggested a delay until maybe May of next year. Now that would threaten the project but it might not kill it outright. After the election, on the other hand, is a pretty sizable delay. Not only would that give folks time to raise money and support to oppose the plan, it would give legislatures in the affected states time to hold hearings and see what they can do to use state law to circumvent the deal. Also, the companies have said they will likely switch off to an alternative plan if there's a delay as long as this report is suggesting. That's what the activist quoted in the article believes, as well. The President is certainly aware of the ramifications of a delay. I expect for the President to allow the EPA, which has been critical of the plan and the State Dept. process, to take on a more visible role in fleshing out his concerns he raised last week about the environmental impact of the pipeline route.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. Then maybe we should inundate the White House with letters letting him know...

that we know what he's up to.

[bigtree]

11. I see him possibly reversing his position

that might not mean he falls on his sword, but he gave a pretty solid nod to Nebraska when he visited this month that he wasn't going to ignore the environmental concerns which means, to me, that he's going to follow his EPA's lead who released a report outlining some pretty severe environmental impacts. No way he can ignore that. So, I'd start with his own EPA. Demand or request that he give them precedence over the State Dept.. in this decision.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. I hope so. But he might cave in if we don't make damned sure he knows we know

that he caves in all the time.

[bigtree]

13. did you see the protest yesterday?

. . . the thousand or more who formed a human ring around the WH? I didn't make it, but I'm sure they'll be others. More time, more support.

The towns affected are giving it to the WH, as well. In this case, I think the election-year protests in these affected communities are going to move him more than the letters, but they certainly can't hurt.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. The message is spreading, and more importantly, YOUNG PEOPLE are getting it!!!!

Thank GOD! I'm no longer in my 20s, but I'm QUITE AWARE that only with the aid of young people will this country's wrong ways change.

[Marr]

17. That's not true at all. C'mon-- it's plain as day what this is, and your

weird explanation of how Obama is giving everyone a chance to mobilize and stop it is just... well, weird. He could stop it right now, if he wanted to.

It's pretty obvious that he's putting off another unpopular, big business-first decision until *after* the election.

[vi5]

18. Bingo.

Hit the nail directly on the head.

He could stop it right now but is choosing not to.

He doesn't want to alienate liberals by letting it happen.
But he doesn't want to alienate big business and big business donors by killing it all together.

Any interpretation otherwise is just another example of people tying themselves into logical rhetorical knots in order to not have to call it what it is.

[bigtree]

19. almost everyone says that a delay that long would kill the project

A long delay will threaten the pipeline plans. Whether that delay in some final decision will occur is still a matter of open-speculation. All of the signals from the President and his administration in the past few weeks (the ONLY significant comments we've had from the WH) point to a delay. That's the nub of it. That's the state of it.

He could just approve it at any time, but he, himself, raised the environmental concerns in interviews he did this month with Nebraska radio. Why would he raise those if he was just going to press forward, anyway?


Tue Nov 1, 2011 7:47pm EDT

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Tuesday health and economic factors would be taken into account when he decides whether to approve TransCanada Corp's Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline proposal . . .

"My general attitude is, what's best for the American people? What's best for our economy both short term and long term? But also what's best for the health of the American people?" Obama said in an interview with Nebraska television station KETV, discussing the criteria he would judge when making a final decision.

"We need to make sure that we have energy security and aren't just relying on Middle East sources, but there's a way of doing that and still making sure that the health and safety of the American people and folks in Nebraska are protected," Obama said.

"And that's how I'll be measuring these recommendations when they come to me."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/01/us-obama-keystone-idUSTRE7A07ME20111101


And look at the statements just this month from the EPA

Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:56pm EDT

(Reuters) - The top U.S. environmental regulator on Thursday said her agency would soon comment on the proposed $7 billion Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, adding she was concerned about emissions and potential leaks that could result from the project.

"We have comments we are just about completing on the current environmental impact statement," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said at a Howard University event with youth environment leaders.

Jackson listed concerns about the pipeline including additional greenhouse gas emissions from producing the oil sands; the possibility of leaks on the line; and harmful emissions from refineries in communities along the Gulf Coast that could result from the project.

"This isn't a little tiny pipeline, this is a pipeline that cuts our country literally in half," she added. The $7 billion project would take 700,000 barrels per day or more from Canada through six states to refineries in Texas.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/27/us-usa-pipeline-epa-idUSTRE79Q60U20111027

[Marr]

20. Why would he raise those concerns? Because it's election season, that's why.

He hasn't killed it, either.

The delay isn't a threat to the project-- it's been expected for some time, because the people involved know how politics works. I remember reading a report about two months ago about how the Obama Administration was expected to weigh in some time in the next year. This isn't some bold delay tactic on behalf of the White House, it's just how the gears of bureaucracy turn. This particular spoke seems to be waiting for the election to pass.

[bigtree]

21. look, it isn't my own personal opinion that a delay will threaten the plan

It's been part of the discussion of the pipeline since the beginning. Just go and read some of the articles . . . You try and relate something here . . .

"My guess is, if there is a delay, it could very well kill the pipeline of its own weight," said John H. Adams, founding director of the Natural Resources Defense Council . . .
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1379056&format=&page=2&listingType=politics#articleFull

[woo me with science]

30. Of course this is the correct answer. nt

[Bragi]

7. The evil Koch brothers will be pissed

Too bad, so sad.

Will Canadian pipeline enrich Obama's bitter foes?
http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/11/will-canadian-pipeline-enrich-obamas-bitter-foes/

[Major Hogwash]

22. Hmmm, how could a delay make it financially unworthy??

I don't see how it could be more expensive for them in 14 months.
So, I am officially nonplussed by this article.

[bigtree]

23. if you've read any of the others in the past months

You'd see very clearly why it is the opinion of the industry observers and environmentalists alike that the plan won't likely bear a long delay. It always amazes me just how little folks bother to look into what's actually happening surrounding these issues we advocate for. Article after article cites the delay factor. It's not an invention of mine, nor is an invention of environmentalists directly involved in opposing the project. Google the issue and read beyond this one article. I even provided two more on this thread.

[Major Hogwash]

26. The price of oil won't be going down that much to make it unprofitable.

So, I didn't see where the reasons for it to become financially unfeasible were.

[defendandprotect]

25. Obama feeling somewhat pressured?

[Wisconsinite]

27. Why bother with a pipeline at all?

That's not the American Way, dammit! We should invade Canada (or at least Alberta Province), occupy it, then ship the oil in individual tanker trucks. If 1 or 2 of them crash and spill, it'll be a localized and (relatively)minor event.

:sarcasm:

[XemaSab]

29. Um, they're REQUIRED to mitigate the impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act

This is the second article today that made it sound like they were going to put the thing right through a ferret burrow while kicking a few prairie chickens out of the way, but after teh environmentalists had their say, they decided to route it around the ferret burrow and gently move the prairie chickens.

What is this shit about "Obama is requiring sponsors to reduce the project’s environmental risks before it can be approved?"

IT'S THE F(&^*& LAW!!!!!11111!!!