Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill

[webfact]

Defying GOP, Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill
By JOSH LEDERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defying the Republican-run Congress, President Barack Obama rejected a bill Tuesday to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, wielding his veto power for only the third time in his presidency.

Obama offered no indication of whether he'll eventually issue a permit for the pipeline, whose construction has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate about environmental policy and climate change. Instead, Obama sought to reassert his authority to make the decision himself, rebuffing GOP lawmakers who will control both the House and Senate for the remainder of the president's term.

"The presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously," Obama said in a brief notice delivered to the Senate. "But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people."

Obama vetoed the bill in private with no fanfare, in contrast to the televised ceremony Republican leaders staged earlier this month when they signed the bill and sent it to the president. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Republicans were "not even close" to giving up the fight and derided the veto as a "national embarrassment."

The move sends the politically charged issue back to Congress, where Republicans haven't shown they can muster the two-thirds majority in both chambers needed to override Obama's veto. North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, the bill's chief GOP sponsor, said Republicans are about four votes short in the Senate and need about 11 more in the House.

Although the veto is Obama's first since Republicans took control on Capitol Hill, it was not likely to be the last. GOP lawmakers are lining up legislation rolling back Obama's actions on health care, immigration and financial regulation that Obama has promised to similarly reject.

"He's looking at this as showing he still can be king of the hill, because we don't have the votes to override," Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, a vocal opponent of Obama's climate change agenda, said in an interview. "If he vetoed this, he's going to veto many others that are out there."

First proposed more than six years ago, the Keystone XL pipeline project has sat in limbo ever since, awaiting a permit required by the federal government because it would cross an international boundary. The pipeline would connect Canada's tar sands with refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast that specialize in processing heavy crude oil.

Republicans and the energy industry say the $8 billion project would create jobs, spur growth and increase America's independence from Mideast energy sources. Democrats and environmental groups have sought to make the pipeline a poster child for the type of dirty energy sources they say are exacerbating global warming.

For his part, Obama says his administration is still weighing the pipeline's merits, and he has repeatedly threatened to veto any attempts by lawmakers to make the decision for him.

Environmental groups said they were confident Obama's veto was a prelude to a full rejection of the pipeline. But TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline, said it "remains fully committed" to building. And the Canadian government said it was not a matter of if, but when.

The GOP-controlled House passed the bill earlier in February on a 270-152 vote, following weeks of debate and tweaks in the Senate to insert language stating that climate change is real and not a hoax. Republican leaders in Congress delayed sending the bill to the White House until they returned from a weeklong recess, ensuring they would be on hand to denounce the president when he vetoed the bill.

The veto forced Republicans, still reveling in their dramatic gains in the midterm elections, to confront the limitations of being unable to turn their ideas into law without the president's consent — despite the fact they now control both chambers of Congress.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Senate would start the process to try to override Obama's veto by March 3. Republicans were also considering inserting Keystone into other critical legislation dealing with energy, spending or infrastructure that Obama would be less likely to veto, said Hoeven.

Obama last wielded his veto power in October 2010, nixing a relatively mundane bill dealing with recognition of documents notarized out of state. With the Keystone bill, Obama's veto count stands at just three — far fewer than most of his predecessors. Yet his veto threats have been piling up rapidly since Republicans took full control of Congress, numbering more than a dozen so far this year.

The president has said he won't approve Keystone if it's found to significantly increase U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. A State Department analysis found that the tar sands would be developed one way or another, meaning construction of the pipeline wouldn't necessarily affect emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month called for that analysis to be revisited, arguing that a drop in oil prices may have altered the equation.
___

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-25

[canuckamuck]

It's not going to increase emissions, it simply provides another non mid-east source for the oil they are going to burn regardless.

[cheapcanuck]

The Chinese are looking to pick up where the US have let drop. Two alternate pipelines are in the works: one to the west coast and one to the north sea. Both are on Canadian soil and far from the reach of US politics.

[Ulysses G.]

For his part, Obama says his administration is still weighing the pipeline's merits

This president is not honest with the American people. It has been over SIX YEARS since backers of the Keystone XL pipeline first submitted an application to the U.S. State Department to build this energy infrastructure project which will bring jobs and more energy security to America. The Keystone has been debated, studied, reviewed, analyzed and reanalyzed and never is a conclusion reached. Obama has no intention of bucking the wacky environmental groups that are supported by his base.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

sum num na congress, might have to give some of those donations back to the big corporations that have you in their pockets?

[rotary]

Let Obama veto the pipeline, I veto Obama.

Jimmy Carter is smiling

[Publicus]

The pipeline would transit oil from Canada south thru the US to ports along the Gulf of Mexico to refine then be shipped out to other places. So the oil in the pipeline would pass through the US the same as beer passes through a fahlang.

It is not in dispute a completed XL pipeline would require 35 full time workers, if that many.

I don't think the congress has me in mind in all of this.

[canuckamuck]

The pipeline would transit oil from Canada south thru the US to ports along the Gulf of Mexico to refine then be shipped out to other places. So the oil in the pipeline would pass through the US the same as beer passes through a fahlang.

It is not in dispute a completed XL pipeline would require 35 full time workers, if that many.

I don't think the congress has me in mind in all of this.

And how long would it talk for those 35 guys to lay this pipeline. Oh that's right they will need thousands of guys. Not to mention a number of lucrative contracts for suppliers.

And are you sure America wouldn't be using any of the refined product? I would like to see some evidence of that.

[chuckd]

Oil from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota would use the pipeline, instead of sending it via train through the cities of America as it does now.

Anybody need a refresher course on train wrecks carrying Bakken oil in today's method of transport?

Edited February 25, 2015 by chuckd

[up-country_sinclair]

How long will it be before some of our less politically astute members start calling for abolishing the veto?

[chuckd]

How long will it be before some of our less politically astute members start calling for abolishing the veto?

It would seem you are the only one contemplating such action.

Give us your thoughts

[Publicus]

The pipeline would transit oil from Canada south thru the US to ports along the Gulf of Mexico to refine then be shipped out to other places. So the oil in the pipeline would pass through the US the same as beer passes through a fahlang.

It is not in dispute a completed XL pipeline would require 35 full time workers, if that many. (emphasis added to the quote by Publicus)

I don't think the congress has me in mind in all of this.

And how long would it talk for those 35 guys to lay this pipeline. Oh that's right they will need thousands of guys. Not to mention a number of lucrative contracts for suppliers.

And are you sure America wouldn't be using any of the refined product? I would like to see some evidence of that.

a completed XL pipeline

Refineries in the US are either booked to capacity or don't want to recapitalize to process the messy shale and tar sands oil which is much more difficult to process than plain old crude.

Texas is happy to do it at their refineries located in or near port cities. There will be economic activity for some months to construct the XL and after that there will only be the wind and the tumbleweed across the prairie.

The post does not mention the XL would traverse a huge watershed that includes parts of three states and helps to feed watersheds in several other surrounding states as but one environmental factor. Land taking by eminent domain is the basis of a huge number of disputes between property owners and the government that are far from being resolved.

[canuckamuck]

The pipeline would transit oil from Canada south thru the US to ports along the Gulf of Mexico to refine then be shipped out to other places. So the oil in the pipeline would pass through the US the same as beer passes through a fahlang.

It is not in dispute a completed XL pipeline would require 35 full time workers, if that many. (emphasis added to the quote by Publicus)

I don't think the congress has me in mind in all of this.

And how long would it talk for those 35 guys to lay this pipeline. Oh that's right they will need thousands of guys. Not to mention a number of lucrative contracts for suppliers.

And are you sure America wouldn't be using any of the refined product? I would like to see some evidence of that.

a completed XL pipeline

Refineries in the US are either booked to capacity or don't want to recapitalize to process the messy shale and tar sands oil which is much more difficult to process than plain old crude.

Texas is happy to do it at their refineries located in or near port cities. There will be economic activity for some months to construct the XL and after that there will only be the wind and the tumbleweed across the prairie.

The post does not mention the XL would traverse a huge watershed that includes parts of three states and helps to feed watersheds in several other surrounding states as but one environmental factor. Land taking by eminent domain is the basis of a huge number of disputes between property owners and the government that are far from being resolved.

It doesn't say America wouldn't be using the product. It just says some refinery's are already busy enough and can't handle more. Supply and demand will resolve that problem automatically.

The pipeline going through a watershed will affect it how? where I am from, there are pipelines running through many properties. the farmers are always happy to cash their checks. Don't know how the Mercans do it, though.

[CMNightRider]

It's been reported the Keystone XL pipeline would have created 40,000 jobs in construction over the two years it would take to complete the project. I would suspect many of the people who would have benefited from this project probably voted for Obama, because they thought Obama supported the trade unions. Obama's veto is just another example of this moron being nothing more that a pawn of the radical left.

[Credo]

I am happy it has been vetoed. It reminds me of the Garrison Diversion program which was going to bring water to all kinds of places. The Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa Indian tribes lost much of their land, a large portion of a lucrative oil field was put under water and the promised irrigation waters were never diverted to anywhere useful.

A hazardous pipeline has been averted.

[Srikcir]

For years the USA Republican congress has been the party of "no." Now it has the perfect match with the President of "no." They should be pleased that they taught the POTUS the fine art of negotiations.

[Anthony5]

The pipeline would transit oil from Canada south thru the US to ports along the Gulf of Mexico to refine then be shipped out to other places. So the oil in the pipeline would pass through the US the same as beer passes through a fahlang.

It is not in dispute a completed XL pipeline would require 35 full time workers, if that many. (emphasis added to the quote by Publicus)

I don't think the congress has me in mind in all of this.

And how long would it talk for those 35 guys to lay this pipeline. Oh that's right they will need thousands of guys. Not to mention a number of lucrative contracts for suppliers.

And are you sure America wouldn't be using any of the refined product? I would like to see some evidence of that.

a completed XL pipeline

Refineries in the US are either booked to capacity or don't want to recapitalize to process the messy shale and tar sands oil which is much more difficult to process than plain old crude.

Texas is happy to do it at their refineries located in or near port cities. There will be economic activity for some months to construct the XL and after that there will only be the wind and the tumbleweed across the prairie.

The post does not mention the XL would traverse a huge watershed that includes parts of three states and helps to feed watersheds in several other surrounding states as but one environmental factor. Land taking by eminent domain is the basis of a huge number of disputes between property owners and the government that are far from being resolved.

It doesn't say America wouldn't be using the product. It just says some refinery's are already busy enough and can't handle more. Supply and demand will resolve that problem automatically.

The pipeline going through a watershed will affect it how? where I am from, there are pipelines running through many properties. the farmers are always happy to cash their checks. Don't know how the Mercans do it, though.

The pipeline going through a watershed will affect it how?

The Wyoming company whose pipeline leaked 30,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone River in Montana and its sister company have had multiple pipeline spills and federal fines levied against them in the last decade, according to government records.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/31/montana-oil-spill-company-long-history-leaks

You want a few more?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

[beechguy]

I am happy it has been vetoed. It reminds me of the Garrison Diversion program which was going to bring water to all kinds of places. The Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa Indian tribes lost much of their land, a large portion of a lucrative oil field was put under water and the promised irrigation waters were never diverted to anywhere useful.

A hazardous pipeline has been averted.

So we can put you down, as one who prefers the environment to get polluted by train derailment?

The oil is going to flow one way or the other, and it is going to be used one location, or another.

[beechguy]

For years the USA Republican congress has been the party of "no." Now it has the perfect match with the President of "no." They should be pleased that they taught the POTUS the fine art of negotiations.

It is good. Now everyone can vote, and it will be on record that they can't hide from in 2016, Obama won't be on the ballot, but all of those Democrats will be, and they will try to run from him the same way they tried in 2014, it didn't work.

[Srikcir]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

I am happy it has been vetoed. It reminds me of the Garrison Diversion program which was going to bring water to all kinds of places. The Mandan, Arikara and Hidatsa Indian tribes lost much of their land, a large portion of a lucrative oil field was put under water and the promised irrigation waters were never diverted to anywhere useful.

A hazardous pipeline has been averted.

- The Nebraskan Environmental Agency approved the pipeline. Delay for NEA's report was a key reason for Obama not to approve the XL

- Indians will not lose any land and may benefit financially from ROW and construction easements.

- Kerry's draft report approves the pipeline. Delay for State Dept. report was a key reason for Obama not to approve the XL.

- The Federal EPA's sole objection is the pipeline contributes to global warming but admits the oil will be consumed regardless of how it is sent out of Canada.

Obama needs to get some extra political concessions from the Republicans and move on. He's made his point that Republicans cannot override his vetoes and that plays into his negotiations on other key Republican bills such as immigration.

[chuckd]

<snip>

A hazardous pipeline has been averted.

And the equally hazardous cargo has been transferred to threatening anybody living along several thousand miles of railroad tracks.

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

Study: Fuel hauling trains could derail at 10 a year

By Associated Press February 25, 2015 6:48 am

BILLINGS, Mont. -- The federal government predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S.

The projection comes from a previously unreported analysis by the Department of Transportation that reviewed the risks of moving vast quantities of both fuels across the nation and through major cities. The study completed last July took on new relevance this week after a train loaded with crude derailed in West Virginia, sparked a spectacular fire and forced the evacuation of hundreds of families.

Monday's accident was the latest in a spate of fiery derailments, and senior federal officials said it drives home the need for stronger tank cars, more effective braking systems and other safety improvements.

Entire article here: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/02/25/study-fuel-hauling-trains-could-derail-at-10-a-year/?subscriber=1

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

The train derailment mentioned in the above article was carrying 3.1 million gallons of oil and spilled over 36,000 gallons of oil into the Kanawha river of West Virginia, with the anticipated bonfire.

[Amavel]

A foreign nations oil passing through America to sell to yet another foreign nation? Risking fresh water supplies to millions with a technology that produces 6,000 leaks a year with exiting pipelines for a few thousand jobs?

Thank you Mr. Obama

Edited February 25, 2015 by Amavel

[chuckd]

Can anybody pick out the proposed Keystone Pipeline from this map of the existing oil and gas pipelines in the US?

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

Map of major natural gas and oil pipelines in the United States. Hazardous liquid lines in red, gas transmission lines in blue.

Source: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Yeah, I can see why Obama is so set against it. Doesn't want to overload the system.

[snarky66]

There is no good reason for the State Department to be involved in it at all.

[snarky66]

Some of Barry's biggest donors are leftist environmental wackos who Barry is counting on to fund his retirement.

[up-country_sinclair]

There is no good reason for the State Department to be involved in it at all.

Apparently you're unaware the proposed pipeline would cross an international border.

By the way, that's partly why I don't understand why some are so obsessed by this issue. A company in a foreign country wants sell it's product to other foreign countries by transporting their product through our country. Yes, there would be short term employment gains during construction of the pipeline, but not nearly enough to warrant this type of angst and vitriol. I'm all for infrastructure projects, so let's get to work on the nations highways and bridges to make them modern and safe. It will put people back to work for a very long time and improve the economy and state of the nation. All this pipeline is going to do is make some foreign rich guys even richer. There should be little doubt that millions upon millions of lobbying dollars are being splashed around Washington to keep this on the front burner.