Obama can't see the (Keystone) benefits for the election.

[Guest Peeves]

Certainly there's a down side for many if it isn't approved, but the actions of Iran alone of late should prove the need for a secure oil supply,and if not from more off shore drilling then Canada offers the alternative. From what I see of a secure supply of oil, I think the US should move in both directions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/05/keystone-xl-pipeline-oil-chief-obama

Excerpt:

The head of the US's biggest oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups.

Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would definitely play a role in this year's national elections.

"This issue is very simple and straightforward, it's about jobs and national security," Gerard told reporters after giving a speech on the state of US energy.

"Anything less than approval or acquiescence in allowing the pipeline to go forward would be inconsistent with the vast majority of Americans," Gerard said.

[waldo]

bogus man! The GOP thought they had Obama 'cornered' by tacking on the KXL pipeline decision to the completely unrelated payroll tax bill... a must decide in 60 days ultimatum.

of course, at this stage, the new route alternatives are being explored, subject to the required/accompanying U.S. State Department controlled/sanctioned environmental impact analysis & study. The State Department has quite matter of factly, stated that it requires a full year to undertake the required impact assessments... and it will not approve/sanction the pipeline without the required environmental impact assessment.

the GOP has handed Obama an easy out, deferring to the required State Department process - meaning an outright NO decision. Or... Obama can simply make a decision, one based on conditional approval once the State Department process completes - next year. In any case, supposed strategic review has the Dems believing they have already taken whatever 'hit' that associates with KXL. And, of course, at that stated estimated point of the completion of the impact assessment, Obama will be well into his 2nd term and then, "bob's your uncle"!

of course, your linked article's reference to the largest BigOil lobbying group spokesman has him repeating the false mantra about jobs, jobs, jobs. In another MLW KXL related thread, the fallacy of significant jobs related to KXL has been quashed. Secure oil source? What about Venezuela!!!

[Guest Peeves]

bogus man! The GOP thought they had Obama 'cornered' by tacking on the KXL pipeline decision to the completely unrelated payroll tax bill... a must decide in 60 days ultimatum.

of course, at this stage, the new route alternatives are being explored, subject to the required/accompanying U.S. State Department controlled/sanctioned environmental impact analysis & study. The State Department has quite matter of factly, stated that it requires a full year to undertake the required impact assessments... and it will not approve/sanction the pipeline without the required environmental impact assessment.

the GOP has handed Obama an easy out, deferring to the required State Department process - meaning an outright NO decision. Or... Obama can simply make a decision, one based on conditional approval once the State Department process completes - next year. In any case, supposed strategic review has the Dems believing they have already taken whatever 'hit' that associates with KXL. And, of course, at that stated estimated point of the completion of the impact assessment, Obama will be well into his 2nd term and then, "bob's your uncle"!

of course, your linked article's reference to the largest BigOil lobbying group spokesman has him repeating the false mantra about jobs, jobs, jobs. In another MLW KXL related thread, the fallacy of significant jobs related to KXL has been quashed. Secure oil source? What about Venezuela!!!

Venezuela threatens to interrupt US oil supply

The threat came in response to new US sanctions on Venezuela's state oil company, which currently provides about 10 percent of American oil imports.

By Ariel Zirulnick, Correspondent / May 25, 2011

Venezuela's Foreign Minister Nico

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0525/Venezuela-threatens-to-interrupt-US-oil-supply

[Shady]

Even former Obama administration officials think Keystone should be approved. It's only the job destroyer himself that's holding it up. He's probably too busy killing the coal industry to worry about the pipeline project at the moment.

[kal-el]

I read the global mail article about the keystone xl and was wondering those aprox 20,000 jobs created will they be a 50/50 split inbetween usa and canada?

What kind of environmental impact will extracting more oil from the sands have on the environment? Also what kind of reaction will the environment have from building such an extensive pipeline?

[waldo]

Even former Obama administration officials think Keystone should be approved. It's only the job destroyer himself that's holding it up. He's probably too busy killing the coal industry to worry about the pipeline project at the moment.

what should be approved, hey Shady? When TransCanada advises it won't have it's own preferred selection route made/presented until the 'fall of 2012', just what are you calling for approval of... a phantom unknown route? When the U.S. State Department advises it won't have the required environmental impact assessments completed until early 2013... to allow it to issue the required permit (presuming on the assessments supporting approval), just what are you calling for approval of... a phantom unknown route, one that doesn't have any environmental impact assessment and permit sanction from the U.S. State Department? Just what are you asking for approval of, hey?

[waldo]

I read the global mail article about the keystone xl and was wondering those aprox 20,000 jobs created will they be a 50/50 split inbetween usa and canada?

the 20K figure bandied about has always been from a U.S. perspective (of course, that's where the majority of the proposed pipeline would run)... but it's a bogus BigOil number that has no credibility. In an earlier MLW thread, that figure was quite easily dispatched - even Shady finally accepted the number is bogus!

What kind of environmental impact will extracting more oil from the sands have on the environment? Also what kind of reaction will the environment have from building such an extensive pipeline?

you can quite easily find a copy of the initial impact assessment done on the first proposed route... it will give you a framework for 'traditional' areas of possible impact consideration. Of course, recognize that the initial assessment has no/little credibility since it was actually authored by a consulting company that TransCanada itself recommended... and that the U.S. State Department deferred to, outright. There's quite a tangled web of presumed collusion running throughout that initial assessment process, right on through and up to Clinton. That assessment collusion aspect, in itself, factored 'somewhat' into the direct challenges to the pipeline that came forward from ranchers/farmers in Nebraska. Much has been written about this failed/suspect initial proposed route assessment process; an easy search will bring reams of info forward... of course, caveat emptor! And then, beyond the traditional impact criteria, there are the considerations of what it means to develop non-traditional fossil-fuel sources, like bitumen, like shale-oil, like liquid coal...

[Guest Peeves]

There are environmental factors to be considered in any energy source as I have often posted.

Nuke ...see 3 mile Island- Chernobyl, Fukushima nuke disaster in Japan, storing spent fuel rods.

Coal..open pit, slides, sludge, acid rain, resultant gases and is worse than burning oil or natural gas.

World coal consumption was about 6.75 billion short tons in 2006[25] and is expected to increase 48% to 9.98 billion short tons by 2030.

Fracking for energy can contaminate water tables ?

http://www.canadians.org/water/issues/fracking/index.html

With oil there are scenarios that are worse than the pipeline in my opinion.

Off shore as the recent SEVERAL disastrous oil platform explosion(S) fires and sunken,

An estimated 4.9-million barrels of oil gushed out of a deepwater well that ruptured after the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded on April 20 off the coast of Louisiana.

The explosion killed 11 workers and it took nearly three months to stem the flow of oil gushing out of the well some 5,000 feet (1,500 meters) below the surface.

The Mariner Energy platform which caught fire Thursday was operating in relatively shallow water, about 340 feet (103 meters), and was not drilling at the time of the explosion, the Texas-based company said.

It had been producing approximately 1,400 barrels of oil and condensate and 9.2 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.

The super tanker spill, the Exxon Valdez spilled approximately 10.9 million gallons of its 53 million gallon cargo of Prudhoe Bay.

Even wind farms kill thousands of birds.

Using corn drives up prices and effects the poor.

Every energy source has a trade off.

[sharkman]

Obama won't get a chance to allow Keystone. He doesn't have the cajones to reject it or pass it outright and he won't be around past the election.

[waldo]

Obama won't get a chance to allow Keystone. He doesn't have the cajones to reject it or pass it outright and he won't be around past the election.

your is a simplistic misunderstanding - one of the principal reasons environmental review assessments are done is to provide a ruling foundation that supports subsequent certifications and approvals made. Equally, of course, the assessment provides an avenue for the assessment process to work to mitigate legitimate concerns raised within the assessment. In relation to the GOP House led idiocy to tack a 60 day KXL decision rider to the recent and totally unrelated payroll-tax bill, the U.S. State Department offered formal notice that it would not be in position to certify the KXL pipeline in the limited '2 month' restricted period.

[sharkman]

Yours is a simplistic trust of Obama administration, we've been through this before.

[waldo]

Yours is a simplistic trust of Obama administration, we've been through this before.

I don't have an inherent trust in the Obama administration; after all, it was under his admin that the initial failed environmental assessment was allowed to complete... the assessment process where the U.S. State Department completely deferred to the consulting company that TransCanada recommended, that TransCanada has worked with several times. You know, apparently, some took exception to having the same company seeking approval, seen to be involved significantly in the assessment undertaking -go figure! ... notwithstanding the influence of tar sands industry lobbyists connected to Hillary Clinton. This is all well documented out there...

[sharkman]

Through several conversations we had concerning Keystone, Obama and the election, I'm afraid you do have a simplistic trust.