Obama poised to reject Keystone XL

[mystery-ak]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/259383-obama-poised-to-reject-keystone-xl

 By Timothy Cama - 11/06/15 11:09 AM EST

President Obama on Friday will announce that he is rejecting a permit for the Keystone XL oil pipeline, sources familiar with the decision said, delivering a huge win to environmentalists and a rebuff to pipeline supporters in Congress.

Obama will speak at 11:45 a.m., just after meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry has overseen the years-long review of the Canada-to-Texas pipeline.

TransCanada Corp. this week asked the administration to pause the review of the pipeline, but the State Department refused.

Granting the delay likely would have left the final decision on Keystone — a project that would carry oil sands from Canada to the Gulf Coast — in the hands of the next president.

Canada recently elected Justin Trudeau, a liberal, to be its prime minister. Trudeau and his party support Keystone, but have pledged to put far less emphasis on pressuring Obama to approve it.

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, the three Democrats vying for the White House next year, oppose Keystone.

[mountaineer]

I cannot say what I'd like.  :nometalk:

[ABX]

China will be calling a press conference later thanking Maobama and looking forward to refining Canada's oil for them.

[Scottftlc]

Yeah, Obama was touting that America was leading the world on climate change.  Which is something like leading the world in toe fungus.

[sinkspur]

Trans-Canada withdrew their permit last week, so the peevish Obama decides to rush out and turn down a pipeline which was not going to be built for the time being anyway.

He looks stupid doing this at this point.

[rangerrebew]

News Obama Rejects Keystone, Jobs and the Economy
Obama Rejects Keystone, Jobs and the Economy
Rlgrimes 11/06/2015

 

BREAKING NEWS – After years of dragging his feet so that one of his richest supporters could make even more money off of transporting Canadian crude by rail, President Obama announced Friday that he has rejected Canadian energy giant TransCanada’s application to build the Keystone XL pipeline, saying that the pipeline was not in the U.S. national interest. Really? Just how does he figure that providing the U.S. with a ready supply of crude oil is not in our interest, especially in the event of a war in the Middle East?

Today Obama made it official that he would never approve the Keystone Pipeline justifying his decision by saying that the agency ran by his Sock Puppet, John “the Socialist” Kerry, did not deem the pipeline in our best interest. “The State Department has decided the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the interests of the United States. I agree with that decision,” Obama said at a White House press conference.

The announcement really surprises no one, because he has spent the last 7-years fighting and dragging his heels on the subject. The Pipeline Saga has become one of the biggest environmental flashpoints of Obama’s presidency and was completely opposite of his attempts to suppress fossil fuel development in not only this country but anywhere in the world. His decision comes just days after the State Department refused to agree to

Killing the pipeline allows Obama to claim aggressive action on the environment. A move that could strengthen his hand as world leaders prepare to finalize a major global climate pact next month in Paris that Obama hopes will be a crowning jewel for his legacy and drive the final nail into the energy and manufacturing sectors of our economy.
Related:  [Watch] Warning to Whistle Blowers � You Have No First Amendment Rights
Powered by Inline Related Posts

Alberta-based TransCanada first applied for Keystone permits in September 2008 — shortly before Obama was elected. As envisioned, Keystone would snake from Canada’s tar sands through Montana, South Dakota and Nebraska, then connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to specialized refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.

The pipeline has from the start, been a symbol of tree huggers versus realists. Democrats and environmental groups latched onto Keystone as emblematic of the type of dirty fossil fuels that must be phased out. Environmentalists chained themselves to construction equipment and the White House fence in protest.

But Republicans, Canadian politicians and the energy industry touted what they said were profound economic benefits — thousands of U.S. construction jobs and billions injected into the economy. They argued transporting crude by pipeline would be safer than alternatives like rail, and charged Obama with hypocrisy for complaining about the lack of investment in U.S. infrastructure while obstructing an $8 billion project.

Obama dismissed the claims that Keystone would be a major job creator saying “If Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this is not the way to do it.” Then called for a bipartisan infrastructure plan that he says would make a more significant impact on job creation. Of course the Obama plan would have been another way that he could have spent vast amounts of taxpayer dollars that we don’t have, and would not have shown any payback to the American people like the Pipeline would have.

Republicans today called the decision “disappointing.” “President Obama’s denial of the Keystone XL pipeline project today following the company’s request to suspend its application is not surprising, but it is disappointing,” Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D. said in a statement.
Related:  You Mean The EPA Is Lying? - Congresswoman Discovers Truth About Climate Change In CO2 Hearings
Powered by Inline Related Posts

“It [is] ironic that after delaying construction for more than seven years – postponing the jobs, revenues and other benefits that would result from the project – the president now finds it pressing to make a decision just as the company is asking for a pause to resolve any concerns,” Hoeven said.

Meanwhile, liberal democrats, such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., praised the decision as a positive step in protecting the environment. “I want to thank the Obama Administration for protecting the health of the American people and the health of the planet by rejecting the ill-advised Keystone tar sands pipeline, which would have brought the filthiest oil known to humankind into our country in large amounts,” Boxer said.

The project is one of only a handful in the last 200 years that has split the country, keeping a majority of the citizens at odds with the president over something that would have effectively produced jobs, income for the government and provided an additional source of energy in the event of international hostilities. None of which has ever been on the President’s agenda.

Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/obama-rejects-keystone-jobs-and-the-economy/

[Relic]

Trans-Canada withdrew their permit last week, so the peevish Obama decides to rush out and turn down a pipeline which was not going to be built for the time being anyway.

He looks stupid doing this at this point.

Not to the average LIV. He's an environmental warrior.

[mountaineer]

Heartland Institute

Keystone Decision is About Obama’s Position on the World Stage
    by Marita Noon
    November 6, 2015

Today, in finally denying the Keystone pipeline, President Obama showed his true colors. We now know, as we’ve long believed, that those colors are the green of the anti-fossil fuel crowd, rather than the color of jobs resulting in economic growth in the hard-hit heartland of the United States. For seven years, he has tried to appease both his union supporters who want the good jobs Keystone would have provided and his environmental allies who declared it a “dirty” project that would add to global CO2 emissions. Now, before the United Nations climate conference, he can wave his green credentials and claim to be a world leader in the fight against global warming—which I believe was the whole purpose of the decision and subsequent announcement.

Obama’s statement was less about the Keystone pipeline and more of a brag session on America’s supposed conversion to a clean energy economy. He stated: “Thanks, in part, to the investments we’ve made, there are already parts of America where clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirty conventional power.” Yet, his climate change ally Bill Gates, in the November issue of The Atlantic magazine makes clear that this is a “misleadingly mindless statement.” Addressing the “self-defeating claims of some clean-energy enthusiasts,” Gates says: “What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what?” Additionally Gates calls the growth in wind: “very subsidized” and solar: “highly subsidized.”

During the announcement, Obama said the clean energy economy is “booming.” He’s conveniently ignored Abengoa—the Spanish solar company that received the biggest single award from his 2009 stimulus package, yet today is under investigation from several federal agencies and is teetering on edge of bankruptcy after stock prices plunged more than 30 percent..

The President also made the “misleading” statement that the growth in wind and solar will help America’s “energy security”—when in fact, wind and solar produce electricity, while oil powers America’s transportation fleet. America is already, and has been, electricity secure. Wind and solar do nothing to reduce our need for oil.

His closing comment: “America’s prepared to show the rest of the world the way forward,” proves that his position on the world stage is more important than policy positions that would provide jobs for Americans.

I'm sure it's only a coincidence that this decision benefits Warren Buffett.

[Fishrrman]

Folks, was there ever, EVER a doubt as to what obama's decision would be concerning Keystone?

In one of my earlier posts in this forum, I predicted that Keystone would never go forward during the obama reign.

I have a suggestion to both the American and Canadian interests in Keystone, however.

The only reason that the administration has real traction to stop this is because it crosses an international boundary, is that correct?

Well, do this instead:
- On the Canadian side, build the pipeline within, say, 20-30 miles of the border, near an existing rail line.
- On the southern side of the border, build an American pipeline to within 20-30 miles of the border, again, terminating on an existing rail line.
- Finally, set up a continuous "rail tankcar loop" with tank trains that do nothing but shuttle between the two terminals. Fill from the pipeline on the Canadian side, empty out into the pipeline on the American side.

There is nothing that stops petroleum from crossing the border via tank trains over existing rail lines. This is what is happening RIGHT NOW. There are unit tank trains from Canada running to numerous terminals in America (aside: the runaway train disaster at Lac Megantic in Quebec was one of these trains, destined for Maine). Many of these trains cross the border each day.

Why run those trains great distances?
Build the pipelines within miles of the border, and let the tank trains serve as "the bridge" until (hopefully) the incoming Republican administration will give the OK and the remaining 40 miles of "cross border piping" can be installed.

See?
That was easy!

[mountaineer]

response:

Following President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandohttp://www.freedomworks.org/content/freedomworks%E2%80%99-statement-barack-obama%E2%80%99s-rejection-keystone-xl]n commented:

“Barack Obama’s rejection of Keystone XL shows his blind commitment to radical, destructive environmental policies that hurt the economy. His own State Department’s review of the pipeline shows that it would have little environmental impact. In fact, the alternatives to the pipeline – such as rail or truck – would actually produce higher emissions.”

“From this administration’s war on coal to its subsidies to crony green energy companies to its rejection of Keystone XL, it’s clear that radical environmentalists, who seem to want to take us back to the Stone Age, are driving energy policy in the United States.”

[mountaineer]

Michelle Obama's Mirror comes through again.

Saturday, November 7, 2015
Keystone Pipeline Quiz

Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry walk into a room…



Question: how many degrees does the ambient I.Q. drop?

Yesterday, after 6 years of courting environmentalists, El Presidente finally stuck a fork in the Keystone Pipeline. Because he is the Decider.

And besides, who needs energy independence now that the Decider has stabilized relations with all the oil producing countries in the Middle East?  Indeed, who needs to rely on any of those disgusting fossil fuels when our Decider has paved the way for alternate energy sources like wind, solar, algae and corn.



And don’t pay any attention to the Laborers’ International Union of North America who’s complaining (with their pocketbook) about the Decider throwing them under the bus. They’re just sore losers.

As for BHO, he stated definitively that “The pipeline would not make a meaningful long-term contribution to our economy,”  and he was committed to making that so. I can’t help but wonder though, if that’s going to be the criteria for green-lighting a project, how on earth do you explain Big Guy’s second election?

Related story: the Decider has now decided that the country has achieved “full employment’ with unemployment at 5% – even if it takes 94 million Americans being forced “out of the workforce” in order to do it. You’ve got to break a few eggs to create an anomaly like a jobless recovery.