Nebraska Governor Approves Keystone XL Route

[Buster]

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...tone-xl-route/


IMHO, there is room for a deal here. This oil is getting to market one way or t'other.

Maybe, the oil pumped thru this pipeline can pay for increased wind and solar growth. Or this could be we give you the pipline you give us the...

Nebraska Governor Approves Keystone XL Route

Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska approved on Tuesday a revised route for the Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska, brushing aside vocal opposition from some citizen groups and putting final approval of the pipeline project squarely in the hands of the Obama administration.

The decision came a day after President Obama made an assertive pledge in his inaugural address to tackle climate change in his second term. Opponents of the pipeline, which would bring heavy crude oil from tar sands formations in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast, say that its extraction and consumption will significantly worsen global warming and that Mr. Obama’s decision will be a test of his intentions.

Governor Heineman, a Republican, said in a letter to Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that his state’s review found that the new route avoided sensitive lands and aquifers. Mr. Obama had rejected the previous route last January on the grounds that construction of the pipeline threatened Nebraska’s Sand Hills region and that a spill could contaminate the critical Ogallala Aquifer.

Mr. Heineman said that the pipeline’s operator, TransCanada, had assured him and state environmental officials that the chances of a spill would be minimized and that the company would assume all responsibility for a cleanup in case of an accident.

The State Department, which must review the 1,700-mile pipeline because it crosses an international border, is in the final stages of preparing an environmental-impact statement on the project. An earlier version found that the project would have minimal adverse effects along its route.

The American Petroleum Institute, a strong advocate of the project, applauded Nebraska’s action, saying that it removed a critical hurdle to completion of the pipeline.

“With the approval from Nebraska in hand, the president can be confident that the remaining environmental concerns have been addressed,” said Marty Durbin, the oil lobby’s executive vice president. “We hope President Obama will finally greenlight KXL as soon as possible and get more Americans back to work.”

Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska, a citizens’ advocacy group that is staunchly opposed to the pipeline, assailed Mr. Heineman’s move. “On the one hand, it’s shocking the governor would turn his back so clearly on the Ogallala Aquifer and property rights in our state,” she said. “However, given what the president said yesterday about climate change, what’s clear is that the governor has made a very big political decision.”

Ms. Kleeb said that if the president was indeed serious about addressing climate change, he had no choice but to reject Keystone XL.

Last week, a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and 350.org, called on President Obama to kill the project, saying it would bring a rapid expansion of tar sands mining and greatly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

“From our perspective, this has always been about the climate, and it has always been about the president,” said Daniel Kessler, a spokesman for 350.org, said on Tuesday. “It’s unfortunate that the governor decided to do what he did. But ultimately this will come down to President Obama.”

Mr. Kessler said that the group was intent on holding Mr. Obama to his vow to address climate change in his inaugural speech. His group is planning a large rally in front of the White House on Feb. 17 to urge the president to reject the pipeline, he said.

“The Keystone XL pipeline isn’t dead yet,” 350.org and the Sierra Club said in a statement. “If President Obama is serious about tackling climate change, he needs to reject KXL once and for all. And we’re not going away until that happens.”

Dan Frosch contributed reporting.

[AlbanyJet]

The decision came a day after President Obama made an assertive pledge in his inaugural address to tackle climate change in his second term.

Other peoples words that Barack Obama reads off of a teleprompter mean nothing. When Obama's Wall Street handlers find it financially worthwhile to approve the route they will put some new words on Barack Obama's teleprompter and Obama will read those words approving the new Keystone XL pipeline route.

Oil companies and possibly Dick Cheney will profit big time and make major contributions to the Democratic National Party. And the idiots who voted for Obama will once again shrug their shoulders in disbelief.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by AlbanyJet

Other peoples words that Barack Obama reads off of a teleprompter mean nothing. When Obama's Wall Street handlers find it financially worthwhile to approve the route they will put some new words on Barack Obama's teleprompter and Obama will read those words approving the new Keystone XL pipeline route.

Oil companies and possibly Dick Cheney will profit big time and make major contributions to the Democratic National Party. And the idiots who voted for Obama will once again shrug their shoulders in disbelief.

Underestimating their opponent’s intelligence was the number one reason the GOP did not win the Presidential election.

Just sayin'

[detjetsfan]

I'm actually fine with it. The current world oil supply is running out in about 50 years and from some studies I've seen Canada actually has more oil than Saudi Arabia it's just harder to get to. As far as global warming goes we're screwed anyway because China and India are both industrializing rapidly and will be outproducing us in carbon emissions in a couple of decades.

[Buster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/bu...er-way.html?hp

Obama Faces Risks in Pipeline Decision

President Obama faces a knotty decision in whether to approve the much-delayed Keystone oil pipeline: a choice between alienating environmental advocates who overwhelmingly supported his candidacy or causing a deep and perhaps lasting rift with Canada.

Canada, the United States’ most important trading partner and a close ally on Iran and Afghanistan, is counting on the pipeline to propel more growth in its oil patch, a vital engine for its economy. Its leaders have made it clear that an American rejection would be viewed as an unneighborly act and could bring retaliation.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s first meeting with a foreign leader was with Canada’s foreign minister, John Baird, on Feb. 8. They discussed the Keystone pipeline project, among other subjects, and Mr. Kerry promised a fair, transparent and prompt decision. He did not indicate what recommendation he would make to the president.

But this is also a decisive moment for the United States environmental movement, which backed Mr. Obama strongly in the last two elections. For groups like the Sierra Club, permitting a pipeline carrying more than 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude into the country would be viewed as a betrayal, and as a contradiction of the president’s promises in his second inaugural and State of the Union addresses to make controlling climate change a top priority for his second term.

On Sunday, thousands rallied near the Washington Monument to protest the pipeline and call for firmer steps to fight emissions of climate-changing gases. Groups opposing coal production, nuclear power and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas were prominent; separate groups of Baptists and Catholics, as well as an interfaith coalition, and groups from Colorado, Toronto and Minneapolis joined the throng.

One speaker, the Rev. Lennox Yearwood, compared the rally to Martin Luther King’s 1963 March on Washington for civil rights, but, he said, “while they were fighting for equality, we are fighting for existence.” In front of the stage was a mock-up of a pipeline, looking a bit like the dragon in a Chinese new year parade, with the motto, “separate oil and state.”

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, predicted that Mr. Obama would veto the $7 billion project because of the adverse effects development of the Canadian oil sands would have on the global climate.

“It’s rare that a president has such a singular voice on such a major policy decision,” Mr. Brune said. “Whatever damage approving the pipeline would do to the environmental movement pales in comparison to the damage it could do to his own legacy.”

Mr. Brune was one of about four dozen pipeline protesters arrested at the White House on Wednesday, in an act of civil disobedience that was a first for the 120-year-old Sierra Club.

So far, Mr. Obama has been able to balance his promises to promote both energy independence and environmental protection, by allowing more oil and gas drilling on public lands and offshore while also pushing auto companies to make their vehicles more efficient. But the Keystone decision, which is technically a State Department prerogative but will be decided by the president himself, defies easy compromise.

“This is a tricky political challenge for the president,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The reality is everyone has defined the stakes on Keystone in such absolute terms that it is borderline impossible to see a compromise that will satisfy all the players.”

The proposed northern extension of the nearly 2,000-mile Keystone XL pipeline would connect Canada’s oil sands to refineries around Houston and the Gulf of Mexico, replacing Venezuelan heavy crude with similar Canadian grades.

Proponents say its approval would be an important step toward reducing reliance on the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries for energy. Opponents say that the expansion of oil production in shale fields across the country has already reduced the need for imports. Environmentalists have singled out the pipeline because it would carry oil derived from tar sands, in a process that is dirtier than other forms of oil production and that releases more carbon dioxide.

The State Department appeared poised to approve the pipeline in 2011, but Mr. Obama delayed a decision based on concerns about its route through vulnerable grasslands in Nebraska. The pipeline company, TransCanada, submitted a revised route, and the governor of Nebraska approved the plan last month, sending the final decision to Washington.

The Keystone pipeline is treated mainly as a domestic issue in Washington. But for Canada’s Conservative government, which has its power base in the oil-rich province of Alberta, it represents a crucial moment in Canada’s relationship with its most vital foreign partner even if the oil sands are also a divisive issue within Canada. Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are not close, and the two make a portrait of contrasts in style and substance. While Mr. Obama comes from the liberal wing of his party and is known for stirring speeches, Mr. Harper is conservative even by the standards of his own Conservative Party and can be stiff in public. His political base, the province of Alberta, is the heart of the Canadian oil patch.

Mr. Obama’s recent expressions of concern about climate change contrast starkly with Mr. Harper’s stated priorities. Under Mr. Harper, Canada formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which was agreed to by a previous Liberal government. (The United States never ratified the protocol.)

Still, the amount of Canadian oil that the United States imports daily — 2.4 million barrels, roughly twice what it imports from Saudi Arabia — points up a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s goal to decrease dependence on oil from the unstable Middle East and unreliable sources like Venezuela. The Keystone pipeline would increase Canadian oil imports by more than 700,000 barrels a day, the equivalent of roughly two-thirds of Venezuelan imports.

Canadian leaders are cautious not to threaten the Obama administration directly, but they suggest that if the pipeline is not permitted, the close relationship between the countries will be damaged and Canada forced to look elsewhere, particularly to China, for new energy markets.

“The signal of a rejection of a permit by the president would be a significant change in the Canada-U.S. relationship,” said Greg Stringham, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ vice president for oil sands and markets. “Canada, right now, with our potential growth in energy, is looking for security of demand wherever that might be throughout the world.”

Choosing his words carefully, Gary Doer, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, said the two countries had come to expect each other’s support on critical issues.

“Sometimes the call comes from a U.S. president to a Canadian prime minister, and sometimes it comes the other way,” he said. “So the decision has to be made on merit and not noise. And if people in Canada perceive that the decision is made on noise, there will be extreme disappointment.”

Experts who follow United States-Canada relations say that they do not expect Ottawa to retaliate overtly if the Keystone project is not approved, but that a rejection could influence future decisions on purchases of American F-35 fighter jets and other trade and border matters.

Canada has powerful allies in the United States labor movement, which is pushing for the pipeline because proponents say it would generate tens of thousands of jobs, and in big oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron that are heavily invested in the oil sands fields.

The rapid expansion of oil sands production has made oil critical to the Canadian economy. Canada has invested more than $100 billion in the oil sands over the last 10 years, shifting economic and political power westward to Alberta. Production is tied to 75,000 jobs nationwide, a number that is expected to multiply over the next 25 years, and nearly all of the country’s oil exports go to the United States.

The shortage of pipeline capacity has produced localized supply gluts, forcing the price of Canadian crude well below American and international benchmarks. If the Keystone pipeline is not completed, energy experts say, weak prices will make the economics of future oil sands projects questionable.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates that the country’s current production of 3.2 million barrels of oil a day will reach 6.2 million barrels a day by 2030, with oil sands representing an overwhelming share of the increase.

The producers and Canadian officials insist that more Canadian oil will reach United States markets one way or another, even if the Keystone project is not approved — most likely through a combination of rail, barges, trucks and pipelines once used to transport natural gas.

“We hope Keystone will go through,” said Lorraine Mitchelmore, president of Shell Canada, “but it’s not the only option.”

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

So you just read the Times and started throwing articles around JI, eh?

That's at least 3 in a few minutes...

[Buster]

Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite

So you just read the Times and started throwing articles around JI, eh?

That's at least 3 in a few minutes...

You missed your calling.

You should be a detective.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by Buster

You missed your calling.

You should be a detective.

You should be an Internet pay to click spam bot...

I guess we both missed out...

[Buster]

Originally Posted by AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite

You should be an Internet pay to click spam bot...

I guess we both missed out...

I read stuff. Some of these articles I read this week. I thought they were interesting and pertained to some discussion on this board. So i posted them.

If you think I'm an "Internet pay to click spam bot" perhaps you should not read my posts.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by Buster

I read stuff. Some of these articles I read this week. I thought they were interesting and pertained to some discussion on this board. So i posted them.

If you think I'm an "Internet pay to click spam bot" perhaps you should not read my posts.

You tried to patronize me with the detective comment... I simply returned the favor... Don't make comments of that nature if you can't handle them being reciprocated...

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Buster

Underestimating their opponent’s penchant and ability to lie was the number one reason the GOP did not win the Presidential election.

Just sayin'

fixeddy fixed!

[PlumberKhan]

It's a good move....and good to see that even though it was delayed last year due to the need for more environmental reviews (not a bad idea).

Any real "environmentalist" would welcome this pipeline. The environmental concerns raised before, when the pipeline was rejected, have been addressed.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

It's a good move....and good to see that even though it was delayed last year due to the need for more environmental reviews (not a bad idea).

Any real "environmentalist" would welcome this pipeline. The environmental concerns raised before, when the pipeline was rejected, have been addressed.

Nebraska was never the hold up. Obama will not allow the project to move forward because the Environmental Lobby is rabidly against it.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Nebraska was never the hold up. Obama will not allow the project to move forward because the Environmental Lobby is rabidly against it.

Sure he will.

A lot of the people against it are the farmers and ranchers who depend on an unpolluted aquifer.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Sure he will.

A lot of the people against it are the farmers and ranchers who depend on an unpolluted aquifer.

We will see then. I think he still rejects it.

[MnJetFan]

The next time gas, food and many other things skyrocket blame the real tyrants. The ECO Nazis. They could careless about you or me. They are the pansies in Hollywood and all other entitled spoiled rich kid areas. Check out Germany, the cost of food, transportation, heating, cooling and electricity and lets not forget the taxes for Green Energy. STUPID!

[quantum]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Nebraska was never the hold up. Obama will not allow the project to move forward because the Environmental Lobby is rabidly against it.

change pipeline to fracking, and Obama to Cuomo, and you've still a true statement.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by quantum

change pipeline to fracking, and Obama to Cuomo, and you've still a true statement.

He just doesn't want it to happen around NYC's water supply. F*ck everyone else's.

It's why I always made a point to take a piss and dump in the Ashokan Reservoir anytime I was by it....

[fltflo]

Again, what is good for the nation and it's people. While we have to be mindful of the ecology concerns and address them. Yet, once that is done it's time to get moving and stop throwing roadblocks up at every turn.
To have an energy source as large as the Alberta fields in a friendly nation and not take advantage of it, is down right insane. Time to show our so called friends in the Middle East that the days of pissing all over us are coming to an end.
At the same time we as a nation along with our true allies must commit to a
Manhattan type project to find the answer to clean fusion energy. This will at last allow us to remain a strong nation long after fossil fuels are exhausted.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

He just doesn't want it to happen around NYC's water supply. F*ck everyone else's.

It's why I always made a point to take a piss and dump in the Ashokan Reservoir anytime I was by it....

fracking is even safe around underground aquifers like Long Island's, and NYC doesn't use aquifers.

but by all means, keep taking those dumps! maybe some NYC dip****s will find a floater....