So what's the deal with the Keystone XL pipeline project?

Oh!? So the world supply of "fuel" goes up. Just what do you think happens to it price? The biggest driver on price is NOT the US market. It is the world market. BTW, I assure you that it will go to the point they will pay the most - USA, China, or even Nauru.

Jobs are exaggerated? Therefore, we should give them to someone else. Just what part of that makes any sense to you? Open your eyes and look at the forest instead of the branches.

 

Yes, I do want the truth. And Obama's decision to delay action on the project certainly has a political aspect to it. But that is one of many aspects to consider while deciding the worthiness of the project itself. While I haven't decided whether to support it or not, I'm still researching it, I have to say I'm leaning towards not... because all the misinformation being spread about it has raised too many alarms for me to ignore. I don't like being lied to, and that's creates a bias towards not approving the project. I say let the facts speak for themselves... why make such an effort to hide the truth? To me, the lies are an indication that they have something to hide, something they don't want me to know. And that tips me to say "no" to the project. That said, I still have research to do before I can make a final decision, but really... it's highly unlikely the project won't be approved, I'm relatively certain the decision has already been made to give it the go-ahead. And my opinion really isn't an influence anyway lol

 

Again... what you mentioned are aspects of the issue, and are worthy to evaluate, but alone are not enough to say one way or another whether or not the project is worthy. A broader knowledge is necessary to form a more accurate opinion. I want to avoid jumping to a conclusion based on my current limited knowledge on the subject, but will research more on the pros and cons of it... what's being said about it is true and what isn't. That's gonna take some time though.

 

You are going to try an educated squirm instead of shooting from the hip this time? Good luck!

 

Since when did facts ever influence your blind faith, David? And yes, RLM batteries are nasty things. And yes, environmentally I trust Obama about as much as I do in any of the Republican candidates out there. But whatever stops it works for me.

 

How retarded. I said I would research it and then make a decision, instead of making a snap-judgement on one piece of information that may or may not be true. You call that squirming? Get bent.

 

You know it is just too bad all you know how to do is copy the talking points from http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/. That reads real nice for your side, but it is just so much BS. Just to pick on their first point;

export pipeline - yep. It exports from Canada to USA
"According to presentations to investors" - Who are they? BTW, dead link
"refiners plan to refine the cheap Canadian crude supplied by the pipeline into diesel and other products for export to Europe" - Some of it, yep, you are correct. That enables them to refine the lower sulfur requirements for the USA market even cheaper.
"Proceeds from these exports are earned tax-free" - I really doubt that. I also believe that if the companies earn more money, they will pay more income taxes.
"Much of the fuel refined from the pipeline’s heavy crude oil will never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks." Identical to "refiners plan...." above.

From the second point;
"Energy Deptartment report on KeystoneXL found that decreasing demand through fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce mid-east oil imports with or without the pipeline." - Therefore, burning coal instead of oil and drilling our own oil will INCREASE our foreign oil requirement? And someone is actually propounding this. You have got to be kidding!

 

Have you compared the estimated cost of the project, length of time to bring viable capacity on line, ROI and etc as a partnership with the US as opposed to a partnership with China or India? As far as construction, a partnership with the US or China is basically going to employ the same companies drawing from the same labor pool. The tar sand product is not intended for the US market anyway. It's affect on oil prices for US consumers is dependent upon this product's forces on the world's oil market. Which in the end will produce the same additional oil capacity whether brought on line as a US partnership or any other form of parnership. At this point I am of the understanding that it doesn't matter who the Canadian partner ends up being as the infrastructure required development now and a few years into the future is the same whether there is a US, Chinese or other form of partnership. As for the environmental issues - well most of the destruction and risk is within Canadian territory and will occur irrespective of who the partner is. In fact from a world environmental aspect less damage will occur if the project goes forward as a US partnership as opposed to China or India or etc.

 

I totally agree with David on this point. Unless more pressure is place on Obama to get the pipeline project going sooner, like the senate republicans put in the recent extended payrol tax cut bill, then he will wait until after the election to show the environmentalists that he has done something for them and get their vote. If he wins, like David has said, he will immediately approve the pipeline. He is doing purely for political reasons and nothing else.

 

....at the expense of the people who need the opportunity the most.

 

I agree with David's statement. But, to be fair to Obama, it certainly IS politics and it's nothing new, but that's the name of the game. Unfortunately, in politics, sometimes innocent people are made to suffer. That's exactly what's happening with Keystone. Unfortunate, but true.

 

If someone could please all the people, all the time, they would be a God. Everyone is not going to be happy no matter what President is in office, but I do think the pipeline should have been approved and yes is only being stalled for political reasons.

 

It appears BO has decided to say "no" to this project.

 

Actually this is not a true statement but I think you know that.

 

Actually, the word used was rejected. Are you trying to play semantics?
Keystone XL pipeline: Obama rejects controversial project

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/18/obama-administration-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline

 

Barack Obama rejected the controversial Keystone tar sands pipeline on Wednesday, making good on a promise not to give in to a Republican ultimatum on the project.
The announcement from the state department – which was expected – was hailed by environmentalists as a victory.
But it sets up an election-year confrontation over the pipeline, which was to carry carbon-heavy crude from the tar sands of Alberta across the American heartland to refineries on the Texas coast.
However, TransCanada, the Canadian company which was seeking to build the pipeline, will be allowed to re-apply for permission to go ahead with the project. State department official Kerri-Anne Jones, in a conference call, said there was a chance officials could use information from the original application, speeding up the permit process.

Maybe the Cons should stop trying to usurp presidential power with congressional ultimatums? Ya Think?

 

You mean that the Democratic controlled Senate did not pass the bill? And then the bill became law without BO signing it? Hmmm? Maybe they passed a new constitution also.

 

Not playing semantics. Obama said no to the Republican ultimatum - not to Keystone. At this point the whole ordeal is nothing but politics.

 

Maybe the WH should try using a little common sense? Just sayin......

 

You need to read that again. He rejected their application to build the pipeline. They must reapply delaying the project for an indeterminant time. Now, granted, it was done for political reasons (whether you blame the left or right), but that does not change the fact that it was rejected.