U.S. to re-route Keystone XL due to environmental concerns

mikemac

Nominee Member
Oct 13, 2008
82
2
8
Canada
Obama set to reject Keystone oil pipeline: sources

By Jeff Mason | Reuters – 12 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration was poised on Wednesday to reject the Keystone crude oil pipeline, according to sources, a decision that would be welcomed by environmental groups but inflame the domestic energy industry.

Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the administration could announce its rejection of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline late on Wednesday. But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said later that it has not made a decision on the proposed pipeline.

TransCanada Corp. shares slid more than 3 percent after reports that rejection was imminent.

"We're expecting the pipeline to be rejected," the source said.

Rejection of the pipeline had been expected in Washington after Obama tried to delay the decision until 2013 but Congress forced his hand as part of a popular tax cut measure. Republican lawmakers have already begun work on a plan to let Congress circumvent the administration and give the project the go-ahead.

State Department officials said TransCanada will be allowed to apply again for a permit if it identifies a new route for the pipeline through Nebraska. Critics of the pipeline have said a spill along this route could contaminate the aquifer. But a new route would mean substantial delays.

TransCanada's planned 1,700-mile pipeline has become a potent symbol in the battle over of the future of U.S. energy policy.

With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration in November delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.

But lawmakers that support the project attached a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that set a February deadline for a decision.

The administration has said it needs more time to consider alternative routes for the pipeline, which originally was planned to traverse sensitive habitats and a crucial water source in Nebraska.

CAUGHT IN MIDDLE

The pipeline has placed the Obama administration in the middle of a dispute between two key parts of its voting block: green groups who oppose the pipeline over concerns about climate change and some unions who back the project because of the jobs they believe it would create.

Supporters say the pipeline that would transport 830,000 barrel per day of crude to U.S. Gulf coast refineries would create thousands of jobs and is integral to U.S. energy security.

Environmentalists say the job-creation claims are inflated and warn that the pipeline would lock the nation into the use of carbon-intensive oil sands crude for years. They said their support for Obama's reelection campaign this year depended on his rejection of the pipeline.

The company in November agreed to find a new route away from the Sandhills and Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska.

TransCanada shares tumbled as word circulated of a rejection for the project the company has developed and promoted for more than three years. The stock was down more than 3 percent at C$40.91 on the Toronto Stock Exchange at midday.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week that Iran's threat to block shipping in the Strait of Hormuz pointed to why Washington should approve the project.

(Additional reporting By Roberta Rampton, Jeff Jones; Writing by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by David Gregorio and Russell Blinch)

Keystone XL rejection to be announced Wednesday - Yahoo! News
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Keystone XL pipeline proposal rejected
TransCanada can reapply with new route

The U.S. government has denied an application by TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline, the State Department announced Wednesday.

A statement released by the department says it doesn't preclude TransCanada applying again with a different route.

The Canadian government wanted to see the pipeline go ahead.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Twitter that he spoke to U.S. President Barack Obama earlier Wednesday afternoon.

A statement released by U.S. President Barack Obama put the blame on Congressional Republicans, who inserted a 60-day deadline for a decision on the pipeline in a December 2011 bill to continue U.S. payroll tax cuts.

"The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said in the statement.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people."

A spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Twitter that Harper spoke to Obama earlier Wednesday afternoon.

More to come

Keystone XL pipeline proposal rejected - Politics - CBC News
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Well Obama just killed it. Wonder how that decision will play out in the coming election.

Looks like he's actually shifted the blame to the Republicans. An environmental assessment would have delayed it to 2013. Now, because of the 60 day provision, TransCanada will actually have to reapply with a new route and a new assessment will have to be put in place.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Looks like he's actually shifted the blame to the Republicans. An environmental assessment would have delayed it to 2013. Now, because of the 60 day provision, TransCanada will actually have to reapply with a new route and a new assessment will have to be put in place.

Regardless, Obama will be the one taking the heat for it. Romney will be painting Obama with it during the election campaign.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Looks like he's actually shifted the blame to the Republicans. An environmental assessment would have delayed it to 2013. Now, because of the 60 day provision, TransCanada will actually have to reapply with a new route and a new assessment will have to be put in place.

Funny that he would do that as John Boehner was just addressing the media, along with a cadre of other Republicans, who all stated the decision was a job killer.
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
This book should be required reading by the greenies........



Interesting video by the same man...

Patrick Moore on GMO, Sustainable Energy & Pop Environmentalism - YouTube
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Regardless, Obama will be the one taking the heat for it. Romney will be painting Obama with it during the election campaign.

I'm sure he will.

This will be an interesting election.

People might actually start to care about politics again.

All in all, the tears are deeeeeelicious. :D
(so much for 'no brainer')
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
On the one hand he is saying that he is concerned about the economy and jobs and on the other he kills a project that would create them.

Depends on how many jobs.
Depends on how safe the pipeline is for the environment.

From what we know, the numbers stated by TransCanada were vastly overrated, and Republicans couldn't wait 1 friggin year for an assessment.

Sorry, but they dug their own hole with their pride (once again).

And we are be better off creating our own refineries anyway.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
Depends on how many jobs.
Depends on how safe the pipeline is for the environment.

From what we know, the numbers stated by TransCanada were vastly overrated, and Republicans couldn't wait 1 friggin year for an assessment.

Sorry, but they dug their own hole with their pride (once again).

And we are be better off creating our own refineries anyway.

Well then, John Boehner just lied to the media when he said that the pipeline has been under review for 3 years.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Well then, John Boehner just lied to the media when he said that the pipeline has been under review for 3 years.

You haven't been following.

They needed a re-assessment when they found out that TransCanada decided to **** Nebraska to save a buck. The new proposed route needed an environmental assessment.

Greed and pride cost them the project.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
A definite plus for Northern Gateway. We can not allow our economy to be held ransom to the fickle US government.


Here is what I think is an interesting question for both side to think on.
With claims that we will run out of oil someday and a push for alternate energy sources many opposed to the pipelines claim that selling ever more oil will delay viable alternatives and that oil should be left in the ground. Same with coal. Wouldn't it make more sense to pump as much as we can out while there is still a market since once the market dries up it is worthless?

Depends on how many jobs.
Depends on how safe the pipeline is for the environment.

From what we know, the numbers stated by TransCanada were vastly overrated, and Republicans couldn't wait 1 friggin year for an assessment.

Sorry, but they dug their own hole with their pride (once again).

And we are be better off creating our own refineries anyway.

Creating refineries yes but we still must get the product to market. And good luck getting all the necessary environmental permits in Canada , except possibly in Alberta with all the anti work people here.
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
76
Eagle Creek
You haven't been following.

They needed a re-assessment when they found out that TransCanada decided to **** Nebraska to save a buck. The new proposed route needed an environmental assessment.

Greed and pride cost them the project.

I stand corrected, mentalfloss.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
On the one hand he is saying that he is concerned about the economy and jobs and on the other he kills a project that would create them.

[/FONT]

It sure would The "Greenies" have to hack off they are not running any country. As mentalfloss said, it would depend on how many jobs it would create, and from what I can see not to many jobs in any one place, just workers moving along as the pipeline is being built, and a couple of new refineries and storage facilities. I would like to see another pipeline heading east towards N. Carolina or N. Jersey, that would help relieve dependence upon Mid-Eastern oil.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
71
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
So let the US buy middle east oil or freeze in the dark. Who cares? We are far better off with the Northern Gateway anyway as it gives us better access to world markets rather than bet our future on fickle US governments.
Fine with me.

You would rather take an Ox cart to town? Besides without oil there would be no jets for Susuki and others of his ilk to get to the protest de jour.
Who said I would? I have to deal with reality the same as anyone else. But if oil HAD stayed in the ground, I'd be dealing with those realities just as well or better, and the planet wouldn't have been turned into as much of a garbage pit as it is now.
You're projecting.

Anyway, the sooner the planet runs out of the black crap the better. Mind you, we'll likely have nearly run out of fresh water before that happens.

An estimated 700 million gallons of petroleum ends up in the oceans every year. Out of that, only about 62 million occurs naturally.
Then there's the millions of tons of particulates that end up in the air.
On top of that, there's the millions of tons of plastic that ends up in the oceans and landfills.

Yeah, oil has sure been a big boon ........ to a relative few making big profits off it.

I might add the generally speaking, cleanliness is next to healthiness.
 
Last edited:

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I am not one of those wonderful environmentalists who believes in the pristine world let me
make that clear. WE need to mine, we need to find oil, we need to manufacture and we
need jobs. Today I will be extremely pleased if we kill the Keystone pipeline, not because of
water concerns or the trees or the ... well you get the picture. I am pleased because we won't
be sending Canadian Jobs south to an American refinery. WE need to produce the stuff here
and sell it to others at a much higher price. Why is it that our oil should provide the American
economy with the best jobs and most of them for that matter.
Same holds true for the West Coast deal on Alberta natural gas I hope that fails too. We have
to stop being every one's friend and giving them access to our resources that we will need for
ourselves or provide high paying jobs and providing exports of vital resourses with strings
attached. If you look real hard behind the writing on the oil company sign in America,
much of Standard by shares is owned by the Saudis anyway so Americans will be buying oil
from those conniving little bugg**s no matter where it comes from. That is what we have to
stop is allowing countries that could potentially be of harm from buying or owning vital parts
of our national interest or economy.