US Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline

[webfact]

Senate passes bill approving Keystone XL oil pipeline
By DINA CAPPIELLO

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday approved a bipartisan bill to construct the Keystone XL oil pipeline, defying a presidential veto threat and setting up the first of many battles with the White House over energy and the environment.

The 62-36 vote advanced a top priority of the newly empowered GOP, and marked the first time the Senate passed a bill authorizing the pipeline, despite numerous attempts to force President Barack Obama's hand on the issue. Nine Democrats joined with 53 Republicans to back the measure.

This bill "is an important accomplishment for the country," said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "We are hoping the president upon reflection will agree to sign on to a bill that the State Department said could create up to 42,000 jobs and the State Department said creates little to no impact on the environment."

Still the vote was short of the threshold needed to override a veto, and the legislation still must be reconciled with the version the House passed.

"We hope President Obama will now drop his threat to veto this common-sense bill that would strengthen our energy security and create thousands and thousands of new, good-paying American jobs," said House Speaker John Boehner.

Most Democrats framed the bill as gift to a foreign oil company that would have little benefit for the American people, because much of the oil would be exported. They tried and failed to get amendments on the bill to construct the pipeline with U.S. steel, ban exports of the oil and the products refined from it, and protect water resources.

The Senate agreed to add an energy efficiency measure, and went on the record saying climate change was not a hoax and the oil sands should be subject to a tax that helps pay for oil spill cleanups. Oil sands are currently exempt.

"This bill is a disgrace," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Senate environment committee. "We tried on our side to make this a better bill and they turned us away."

TransCanada Corp., the pipeline's developer, disputed the export argument Thursday, saying it didn't make sense.

"Those who argue this pipeline is for export are not being factual," said Russ Girling, president and chief executive officer of TransCanada. "It's time to approve Keystone XL so we can transport Canadian and American oil to fuel the everyday lives of the American people."

In Philadelphia, anti-pipeline protesters chanted outside a hotel where Obama was addressing a retreat of Democratic lawmakers: "Hey, Obama, we don't want no Keystone drama."

First proposed in 2008, the $8 billion pipeline project has been beset by delays in Nebraska over its route and at the White House, where the president has resisted prior efforts by Congress to force him to make a decision. In 2012, Obama rejected the project after Congress attached a measure to a payroll tax cut extension that gave him a deadline to make a decision. The pipeline's developer, TransCanada Corp., then reapplied.

The 1,179-mile pipeline is proposed to go from Canada through Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf coast.

Obama has said he will not be forced to make a decision on the pipeline, which requires presidential approval because it crosses an international border, until the review process concludes. Federal agencies' comments on whether the project is in the national interest are due Monday.

Environmental groups have called on Obama to reject the project outright, saying it would make it easier to tap a dirty source of energy that would exacerbate global warming. The State Department's analysis, assuming higher oil prices, found that shipping it by pipelines to rail or tankers would be worse for the planet. It also concluded that the project, after construction, would create only 35 permanent jobs, a figure Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., compared to a fried chicken franchise.

"The facts are clear: the Keystone XL pipeline will only create 35 permanent jobs while dumping millions of tons of carbon pollution into the air and threatening waterways and communities across the Midwest," said Tom Steyer, the investor and philanthropist who founded the NextGen Climate political action committee.

Supporters say the pipeline is a critical piece of infrastructure that will create thousands of jobs during construction and boost energy security by importing oil from a friendly neighbor.

"We urge the president to make the right decision and approve KXL because it is in this nation's best interest," said Jack Gerard, the president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. "The fact is that if all other infrastructure projects are delayed like Keystone XL, we are years away from approving anything that could create jobs and enhance our energy security."

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., a consistent supporter of the pipeline, and one of 9 Democrats to back the bill, said the pipeline had a "distorted position in the energy debate."

"Keystone is first and foremost is an energy infrastructure project," Heitkamp said in a call with reporters Thursday. "It has become something bigger than what it is."

Associated Press Writer Josh Lederman in Philadelphia contributed to this article.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-30

[BeforeTigers]

Considering the entire spectrum of political philosophy; there really aren't too may things that the to major US parties disagree on.
This just happens to be one of them.

[rickirs]

Once the State of Nebraska approved the pipeline through its sensitve agricultural watershed areas, the only remaining rationale argument against the pipeline is that it will exacerbate global warming. That is a tenious position lacking factual support. The oil will be processed into fossil fuels such as gasoline, primarily for export (US crude oil cannot be exported by law). Regardless of where these fuels are delivered and consumed, it is the responsibility of the respective nations to assure proper use of those fuels as relates to global warming.

The USA nor any other nation has not stopped consumption of processed fossil fuels for the sake of global warming. But the US like many developed nations has implimented regulations to minimize or reduce the impact of processed fuels on global warming such as higher efficiency engines, catalytic converters, development of nonfossil fuel or pollution-free transportation options, blended fuels, carbon taxes and credits, etc.

Time is on the side of the Senate to eventually gain enough Democrat votes to overturn a presidential veto. Obama should negotiate a little leverage for some of his legislative objectives, sign the bill, and show he can work with a Republican-controlled Congress while sticking to his principles. This bill is supported by primarily moderate Republican Congressional members. Its passage with Democratic presidential support will strengthen their political influence against the more radical rightwing Rebublicans who insist on direct hostage-type confrontation with the President.

[IAMHERE]

No longer needed. Too much oil now. Why take the chance if you don't need to. We have enough oil without this pipeline.

[hawker9000]

No longer needed. Too much oil now. Why take the chance if you don't need to. We have enough oil without this pipeline.

That's incredibly shortsighted.

[Chicog]

No longer needed. Too much oil now. Why take the chance if you don't need to. We have enough oil without this pipeline.

That's incredibly shortsighted.

Why?

America barely benefits from this pipeline, it's just the Republicans repaying Big Oil for their largesse.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

No longer needed. Too much oil now. Why take the chance if you don't need to. We have enough oil without this pipeline.

That's incredibly shortsighted.

Why?

America barely benefits from this pipeline, it's just the Republicans repaying Big Oil for their largesse.

You mean besides the estimated 40,000 jobs and the small businesses that will spring up in support of the pipeline?

The oil is being transported now. It's just coming via railroads owned by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

[Ulysses G.]

Time is on the side of the Senate to eventually gain enough Democrat votes to overturn a presidential veto. Obama should negotiate a little leverage for some of his legislative objectives, sign the bill, and show he can work with a Republican-controlled Congress while sticking to his principles.

It is pretty obvious that Obama should compromise on this as it is so popular with the public, but he has no intention of working with a Republican-controlled Congress or doing anything this important in a non-partisan manner.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

No longer needed. Too much oil now. Why take the chance if you don't need to. We have enough oil without this pipeline.

That's incredibly shortsighted.

Why?

America barely benefits from this pipeline, it's just the Republicans repaying Big Oil for their largesse.

You mean besides the estimated 40,000 jobs and the small businesses that will spring up in support of the pipeline?

The oil is being transported now. It's just coming via railroads owned by Warren Buffet and Bill Gates.

Not that old chestnut.

40,000 temporary jobs building a pipeline that no-one needs that feeds Canadian oil to global markets.

And what's going to happen to all those jobs supported by the current rail transport?

Most of the southern refineries are already working near capacity because there's already a glut of production in the US.

This is a moneymaking venture for the oil companies, and is simply of no worthwhile benefit to all but a few Americans.

[Chicog]

Time is on the side of the Senate to eventually gain enough Democrat votes to overturn a presidential veto. Obama should negotiate a little leverage for some of his legislative objectives, sign the bill, and show he can work with a Republican-controlled Congress while sticking to his principles.

It is pretty obvious that Obama should compromise on this as it is so popular with the public, but he has no intention of working with a Republican-controlled Congress or doing anything this important in a non-partisan manner.

Talking of "popular with the public" ....

Anti-tar sands campaigns have cost the industry a staggering $17bn (£11bn) in lost revenues, and helped to push it onto the backfoot, according to a study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), and Oil Change International.

Another $13.8bn has been lost to transportation bottlenecks and the flood of cheap crude coming from shale oil fields, says the Material Risks report, which presents the first quantification of the impact that environmental campaigners have had on the unconventional energy business.

“Industry officials never anticipated the level and intensity of public opposition to their massive build-out plans,” said Steve Kretzmann, Oil Change International’s executive director. “Legal and other challenges are raising new issues related to environmental protection, indigenous rights and the disruptive impact of new pipeline proposals. Business as usual for Big Oil – particularly in the tar sands – is over.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/03/protests-tar-sands-industry-17bn-report

My heart bleeds for these poor, starving oil companies.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Chicog

[connda]

Now Canada dodged the bullet and will not have future concerns about potential environmental headaches from pipeline leaks and pissing off their voter base by declaring eminanant domain and seizing Canadian real estate.

Canada: "Thanks fer lettin' us take a dump in yur back yard. 'ehhh!!!"

Edited January 31, 2015 by connda

[connda]

Not that old chestnut.

40,000 temporary jobs building a pipeline that no-one needs that feeds Canadian oil to global markets.

And what's going to happen to all those jobs supported by the current rail transport?

Most of the southern refineries are already working near capacity because there's already a glut of production in the US.

This is a moneymaking venture for the oil companies, and is simply of no worthwhile benefit to all but a few Americans.

The sheep don't 'get it'. Never will. They'll just jump and and down excitely, parrot the MSM, and tell you to 'put your tinfoil hat on'. They just keep going down the chute to get sheared. baaaaa