US House overwhelmingly approves bill for oil pipeline

[TheWizardofRnR]

Just more money for Big Oil , not that many jobs , I heard only 200 , this is just the Republicans helping the rich get richer and frack the environment ! Its Canadian oil US gets nothing , and its all going overseas already ....a Usual scam by the Republicans and some Democrats who get oil company donations to their funds by Oil Lobbyist buddies !

[Chicog]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

[anon022]

"We get all the risk," he said, "while the oil companies will reap all the rewards."

Bull pucky.

This will improve the economies of Canada and the USA by creating new wealth and an enormous amount of good jobs. These oil and pipeline jobs pay very well for the people.

The jobs are building and then maintaining the pipeline, working in the oil fields as more oil is sold in Canada, enhancing and running the refineries...

And whoever said it would just be exported doesn't get it that it would be refined and then improve export numbers if not used in the US. There would be value added all along the way, and more shipping jobs. All are very good jobs.

Now we get to see who the real obstructionist is, Obama.

As always it will only benefit Big Oil. Sure, some jobs will be created, but the overall impact on the people will again, just as with fracking, be a negative one, with detrimental effects on health and life style. Moreover, the sand in this oil wears the pipeline thin very quickly, and oil spills from ruptured pipes are bound to happen, as the oil companies prefer to ignore the inevitable by turning off the "pigs" that are required to inspect the pipelines 24/7. Paying a relatively minor fine in case of a spill beats expensive maintenance.

Profits before people as usual, and members of Congress or The House are not insensitive to incentives. Many representatives would financially benefit from voting 'Yes'.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Impossible

[chuckd]

I wonder what the economics of the pipeline look like with oil at current prices.

Regardless, curious why the canuks don't export their oil via their west coast.

Also curious as to why this isn't being approved. It isn't like there are no cross border pipelines already?

There is some speculation that if the pipeline were to be approved now, it might not be built immediately. Nobody knows until it is approved.

The Canadians do move the oil to the West, although they sometimes have problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian runaway oil train disaster blamed on ‘weak safety culture,’ poor oversight

By Ashley Halsey III August 19, 2014

The runaway train that exploded in a small Quebec village last year, killing 47 people, was operated by a small regional railroad that cut corners on safety to save money, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in its final report on the incident.

“This was a company with a weak safety process,” said board chairman Wendy A. Tadros, “a company that did what it took to get the job done.”

But the report released Tuesday in a press conference in Lac-Mégantic, where the disaster occurred, also found fault with Canadian regulators for failure to oversee trains hauling millions of gallons of potentially explosive Bakken crude oil.

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canadian-runaway-train-disaster-blamed-on-weak-safety-culture-poor-oversight/2014/08/19/8ac42280-27b5-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't being approved because of Obama's obligation to the green agenda and the money of politics.

[chuckd]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

Makes you glad to not be an American. Right?

[Chicog]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

Makes you glad to not be an American. Right?

No Chuck, because the last time your Republicans <deleted> up, it screwed the global economy, or have you forgotten.

When I say <deleted> up, of course I mean lied, cheated and stole.

[samran]

I wonder what the economics of the pipeline look like with oil at current prices.

Regardless, curious why the canuks don't export their oil via their west coast.

Also curious as to why this isn't being approved. It isn't like there are no cross border pipelines already?

There is some speculation that if the pipeline were to be approved now, it might not be built immediately. Nobody knows until it is approved.

The Canadians do move the oil to the West, although they sometimes have problems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian runaway oil train disaster blamed on weak safety culture, poor oversight

By Ashley Halsey III August 19, 2014

The runaway train that exploded in a small Quebec village last year, killing 47 people, was operated by a small regional railroad that cut corners on safety to save money, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada said in its final report on the incident.

This was a company with a weak safety process, said board chairman Wendy A. Tadros, a company that did what it took to get the job done.

But the report released Tuesday in a press conference in Lac-Mégantic, where the disaster occurred, also found fault with Canadian regulators for failure to oversee trains hauling millions of gallons of potentially explosive Bakken crude oil.

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/canadian-runaway-train-disaster-blamed-on-weak-safety-culture-poor-oversight/2014/08/19/8ac42280-27b5-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't being approved because of Obama's obligation to the green agenda and the money of politics.

I certainly believe in climate change due to the over use of fossil fuels but I am also aware of the hypocrisy of those who will happily drive their cars to the environment protest instead of walking.

From a geopolitical perspective anything that North America can do to be free of ME oil producers can only be a good thing, and even if this oil is exported I'd certainly rather the U.S. to be a prime exporter rather than a deposits Saudi sheik beholden to whabist nutbags.

Maybe I'm missing a legitimate argument from the left on this but I'd thought a project like this is a no brainer. Conservation areas can be avoided on the route. It isn't as if it's burma and the Chinese are displacing entire communities for it....

It just seems like the wrong issue to be playing partisan politics on...

Edited January 10, 2015 by samran

[quicky]

Those guys that think Obama is the worst pres of all time for the US must be living in some sort of la la land in some foreign country for many years with fox news as their only bed time play fellow. Oh yeah , they live in Thailand. Republcians are daily being drafted and manufactured with the requirements that they they just have no reasoning power, no desire to see and understand facts, and are usually over 60. See any resemblance to yourselves.

To understand the facts you actually need facts, and that has always been a democrat no no. Those guys that think Obama is even slightly a good president were either born underdeveloped or drop a lot as a child, see any resemblance? If not then stop drinking your bong water.

Just another MSNBC parrot and we all can see how that is working out, no matter it is great watching the democrat party go down the toilet where it belongs, once that party is gone so will 95% of racism, threats, lies, thieves, sexual preditors, WOW I can go on and on.

Anyone with even a 4th grade education knows that you need a story from both sides to make an educated decision, you obviously are not one of those people, thus your opinion is just that. LOL he must be studying some of that new common core stuff.

Resoning power? LMMFAO@U yea we have seen the reasoning power of the democrats, if you disagree with them they will try their best to label you with whatever they can just to bully everyone into submission, oh yea that's some great reasoning power.

Fact is the people are tired of the ignorent way people like you think and have yet once again asked the republicans to get them out of the disgracefull mess the democrats have put the world in, and that,s a fact.

[quicky]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

Makes you glad to not be an American. Right?

No Chuck, because the last time your Republicans <deleted> up, it screwed the global economy, or have you forgotten.

When I say <deleted> up, of course I mean lied, cheated and stole.

AHAHAHA and what did the demcorats do? The republicans screwed up the economy? Oh yea Harry reid holding all those bills just made the economy grow, not to mention Polosi with the pass it to see it, Reid and Pelosi destroyed the economy and Obama destroyed the ability to recover i.

Just look at the deficit, the democrats not only screwed up the economy they have screwed it up globally for the next 50 years, nuff said.

Boy pesky facts always get in the democrats way.

[samran]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

Makes you glad to not be an American. Right?

No Chuck, because the last time your Republicans <deleted> up, it screwed the global economy, or have you forgotten.

When I say <deleted> up, of course I mean lied, cheated and stole.

AHAHAHA and what did the demcorats do? The republicans screwed up the economy? Oh yea Harry reid holding all those bills just made the economy grow, not to mention Polosi with the pass it to see it, Reid and Pelosi destroyed the economy and Obama destroyed the ability to recover i.

Just look at the deficit, the democrats not only screwed up the economy they have screwed it up globally for the next 50 years, nuff said.

Boy pesky facts always get in the democrats way.

Save the mind numbing partisan dickheadedry for another thread perhaps?

[Publicus]

Five reasons President Obama should carry out his threat to veto the Keystone XL pipeline.

President Obama vetoed only two bills in his first six years in office. With a new Congress, it looks like that’s about to change. Republican leaders have vowed to make approval of the Keystone XL pipeline the first bill to reach the president’s desk.,White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters: "If this bill passes this Congress, the president won't sign it."

There’s no shortage of reasons for the president to waive his red pen menacingly in the direction of the Capitol building,but here are five of the most compelling.

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/obama-keystone-veto

Very telling is that the 2010 TransCanada Corp study by the Perryman Group that claimed the pipeline would create almost 120,000 construction jobs has become extremely hard to find at either website.

For one thing, in 2011 a Cornell University report called the Perryman calculations “deeply flawed” and instead concluded that, in all, KXL would create between 2,500 and 4,650 direct construction jobs for a two-year period

Worse, TransCanada CEO Russ Girling admitted under severe grilling by the Canadian parliament that the pipeline would produce only 50 long term jobs....the US Department of State report says 35 long term jobs.

Since 1986, pipeline accidents have killed more than 500 people, injured over 4,000, and cost nearly seven billion dollars in property damages.

http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/335725/slide_335725_3381939_free.jpg

FIVE WAYS THE GOP-LED CONGRESS PLANS TO ATTACK THE ENVIRONMENT

Here are five key environmental issues that advocates expect to become even more heated with the GOP in charge of both the House and Senate:

http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/five-ways-gop-led-congress-plans-attack-environment

Edited January 10, 2015 by Publicus

[Anthony5]

They took all the trees

Put 'em in a tree museum

And they charged the people

A dollar and a half just to see 'em

--- J Mitchell

"The jobs are building and then maintaining the pipeline, working in the oil fields as more oil is sold in Canada,

enhancing and running the refineries"...neversure

One day neversure , you may have to revise your belief that making a $ is good for America --no matter what the other cost are.

........ Oh yes lots & lots of permanent jobs....35 of them at best guess.

The State Department environmental review

--temporary jobs over its two-year construction period — about 3,900 of them in construction,

the rest in indirect support jobs, such as food service. It estimated that it would create about 35 permanent jobs.

The company that is touting a better tomorrow for all with jobs etc.."Keystone pipeline" have been actively cutting, not creating, jobs: Despite generating $546 billion in profits between 2005 and 2010, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP reduced their U.S. workforce by 11,200 employees over that period. In 2010 alone, the top five oil companies slashed their global workforce by 4,400 employees “” the same year executives paid themselves nearly $220 million. But at least those working in the industry as a whole get paid high wages, right? Turns out that 40 percent of U.S oil-industry jobs consist of minimum wage work at gas stations.----http://www.labor4sustainability.org/articles/5-reasons-why-the-keystone-pipeline-is-bad-for-the-economy/

Tinfoil hat link. All about climate and gas station jobs.

I have news for them. The 40% of jobs in gas stations will neither increase nor decrease due to the pipeline. It won't change people's driving habits. And it never mentions jobs at the refineries or shipping jobs if it's exported, or an improvement in balance of trade if it's exported.

It won't cause the US to use more oil. It will help free the US from dependence on other oil.

It's written by an oil hater who probably drives a big SUV, has a tinfoil hat franchise, and wants the world to go back to the stone age. Except for him of course.

The way I understand is that if the pipeline is build someone will get richer, while if it isn't build someone else will get richer.

But at the end of the day, the pipeline may create 35 permanent jobs, while a lot more people will lose their jobs because the oil isn't transported the usual way anymore.

So who's the loser?

[chuckd]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

Makes you glad to not be an American. Right?

No Chuck, because the last time your Republicans <deleted> up, it screwed the global economy, or have you forgotten.

When I say <deleted> up, of course I mean lied, cheated and stole.

Which so called Republican recession are you referring to?

The one declared in March 2001 because the last two quarters of the Clinton administration had negative GDP growth?

Or could it have been the one declared in 2008 based on the sub-prime mortgage bank failures which began during Carter's Democratic reign and went on steroids under Clinton?

Just curious which recession you are choosing to use such colorful language on.

PS: Bush warned Congress about the sub-prime problem in 2003. The Democrats said...

nay, nay, go away. There is nothing here to see today.

[Chicog]

It's a pointless debate anyway.

Obama will veto it, and the Republicans will bang it in with some other legislation and resort to blackmail as usual.

Horrible system.

Makes you glad to not be an American. Right?

No Chuck, because the last time your Republicans <deleted> up, it screwed the global economy, or have you forgotten.

When I say <deleted> up, of course I mean lied, cheated and stole.

Which so called Republican recession are you referring to?

The one declared in March 2001 because the last two quarters of the Clinton administration had negative GDP growth?

Or could it have been the one declared in 2008 based on the sub-prime mortgage bank failures which began during Carter's Democratic reign and went on steroids under Clinton?

Just curious which recession you are choosing to use such colorful language on.

PS: Bush warned Congress about the sub-prime problem in 2003. The Democrats said...

nay, nay, go away. There is nothing here to see today.

Nice try Chuck, really. But I did say "the last time". That's two posts in which you seem to have missed important words. Perhaps a visit to Top Charoen would be in order?

However, I don't recall Clinton screwing up the global economy.

I do remember Bush being a magnet for crooks eager to get rid of those pesky regulations, so that subprime mortgages could go through the roof - from 8% in 2004 to 20% in 2006 (along with the accompanying CDOs and MBSs that were sold, often fraudulently).

Not surprising, considering that his ascent to the presidency was bankrolled by one Ken Lay.

But that's the Republican way.

Their mantra is "These regulations are stopping America doing business!" when what they really mean is "These regulations are stopping us stealing money!".

[Chicog]

Just in case you think my accusation that the Republicans are rewarding the Kock Brothers et al, it's not like they haven't done it before:

Among the Republican Party’s top 10 donors in 2004 was Roland Arnall. He founded Ameriquest, then the nation’s largest lender in the subprime market, which focuses on less creditworthy borrowers. In July 2005, the company agreed to set aside $325 million to settle allegations in 30 states that it had preyed on borrowers with hidden fees and ballooning payments. It was an early signal that deceptive lending practices, which would later set off a wave of foreclosures, were widespread.

Andrew H. Card Jr., Mr. Bush’s former chief of staff, said White House aides discussed Ameriquest’s troubles, though not what they might portend for the economy. Mr. Bush had just nominated Mr. Arnall as his ambassador to the Netherlands, and the White House was primarily concerned with making sure he would be confirmed.

“Maybe I was asleep at the switch,” Mr. Card said in an interview.

Brian Montgomery, the Federal Housing Administration commissioner, understood the significance. His agency insures home loans, traditionally for the same low-income minority borrowers Mr. Bush wanted to help. When he arrived in June 2005, he was shocked to find those customers had been lured away by the “fool’s gold” of subprime loans. The Ameriquest settlement, he said, reinforced his concern that the industry was exploiting borrowers.

By the way, don't let that convince you that I think only the Republicans have their snouts in the trough; I just think they are better at it.

[Chicog]

A bit more on your earlier assumption Chuck, where you said:

You must have never heard of that ancient concept of leasing land rights to put a pipeline on. The original land owner keeps ownership of the land and leases a portion of it to provide access to, and the building of, a pipeline on his/her land. It's a rather lucrative income for the impacted land owner. The pipeline pays handsomely for the rights to the land.

In actual fact it would seem that you couldn't be more wrong:

Meanwhile, the landowners in the case just want to keep the pipeline out of their backyard.
“It is just a ridiculous idea that a foreign corporation can have the power of eminent domain to start with—but then the idea that our legislature would grant them [that power]…to me that’s totally outrageous,” Randy Thompson, a landowner and lead plaintiff in the Nebraska case, said Friday. “I think that anyone who owns property in the United States should be outraged by that proposition. We need to address this, not only in Nebraska, but as a nation.”
“It’s time for our president to put an end to this damn thing, and let us get back to our lives and get back to raising food for America.”
The Nebraska law in question, LB 1161, had granted eminent domain powers to Transcanada, and gave Nebraska’s governor the authority to approve the route. In February, a district court sided with three landowners whose property would be used to make way for the pipeline, calling the law unconstitutional. Friday’s Supreme Court decision, however, overturned that ruling.
Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts was quick to praise the decision, saying it clears the way for the “safest pipeline ever built,” reports Fred Knapp of Nebraska Public Radio.
But the Supreme Court’s decision [PDF here] was not based on the merits of the case at all, but rather on procedural technicalities: Four out of the seven Nebraska Supreme Court judges concluded that the law was unconstitutional, but the Nebraska Constitution requires a supermajority of five judges to sway the opinion of the court. Some of the seven-judge panel chose not to participate in the vote, leaving the court deadlocked

Would you still be in favour if, say, Qatar owned TransCanada?

Edited January 10, 2015 by Chicog

[Chicog]

The US is a net oil exporter now. And no-one brown-nosed the Al Saud family like the Bush family.

Try again.

[wwest5829]

"We get all the risk," he said, "while the oil companies will reap all the rewards."

Bull pucky.

This will improve the economies of Canada and the USA by creating new wealth and an enormous amount of good jobs. These oil and pipeline jobs pay very well for the people.

The jobs are building and then maintaining the pipeline, working in the oil fields as more oil is sold in Canada, enhancing and running the refineries...

And whoever said it would just be exported doesn't get it that it would be refined and then improve export numbers if not used in the US. There would be value added all along the way, and more shipping jobs. All are very good jobs.

Now we get to see who the real obstructionist is, Obama.

Agreed 100%

Political games and first Obama and his Democrats ruled with a majority and complained that the Republicans were blocking progress and now the Republicans rule by majority so the Democrats and Obama don't want to play any more and will be blocking progress. The people have voted and spoken so the end is nearing in less than two years for the Democrats and the White House rule.

Well, I will be very interested in seeing if your crystal ball is correct. Mine tells me that the Republicans, now in the majority to pass legislation will self distruct. As to the people voting, yes I abide, but let's be accurate. Republicans were elected by the majority of voters not participating in the off year election. Attack Social Security, attack medical care, attack funding for education, tell me that there is only one religion for the U.S. Yes, indeed, I am sure the electoral turnout will be more substantial for the Presidental Election.

[wwest5829]

"We get all the risk," he said, "while the oil companies will reap all the rewards."

Bull pucky.

This will improve the economies of Canada and the USA by creating new wealth and an enormous amount of good jobs. These oil and pipeline jobs pay very well for the people.

The jobs are building and then maintaining the pipeline, working in the oil fields as more oil is sold in Canada, enhancing and running the refineries...

And whoever said it would just be exported doesn't get it that it would be refined and then improve export numbers if not used in the US. There would be value added all along the way, and more shipping jobs. All are very good jobs.

Now we get to see who the real obstructionist is, Obama.

And yet those obstructionist Canadians voted to block the pipeline going to their west coast? Why was that?

You might want to catch up on what's happening. The Canadian west coast pipeline has hardly been "voted" down.

This from June 2014.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Government Approves Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline To Pacific Coast

AP | By ROB GILLIES

Posted: 06/17/2014 5:36 pm EDT Updated: 08/17/2014 5:59 am EDT

TORONTO (AP) Canada's government on Tuesday approved a controversial pipeline proposal that would bring oil to the Pacific Coast for shipment to Asia, a major step in the country's efforts to diversify its oil exports if it can overcome fierce opposition from environmental and aboriginal groups.

Approval for Enbridge's Northern Gateway project was expected as Canada needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production. The project's importance has only grown since the U.S. delayed a decision on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline that would take oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The northern Alberta region has the world's third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves.

Article from Huffington Post Green: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/canada-approves-northern-gateway_n_5505109.html

Guess I was basing my thoughts on. November 2014 article in the Financial Post. Sounds like to me that the folks in British Columbia and the First Nations might have ideas that there are more important considerations than making money? I do like to look at things from a viewpoint of balancing pros and cons. Don't see the pros outweighing the cons at this point.

[Scott]

Inflammatory posts removed.

[chuckd]

Give us a link to that November 2014 article in the Financial Post.