Obama officially rejects Keystone XL

[Barrister]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597

I mean it was pretty much expected at this point.  But it's frustrating as an Albertan.  Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out).  But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating.  I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.

[Berkut]

This is the kind of thing that gives the nutbar right the ammunition they need to reject environmental concerns as being motivated by a bunch of crazy people who don't care about anything but theoretical ideology.

[Barrister]

From the article:

The pipeline "would not make a meaningful contribution to our economy," Obama said, dismissing claims that the pipeline would boost job creation. If Congress is serious about creating jobs, lawmakers should pass a bipartisan infrastructure plan "that in the short term could create more than 30 times as many jobs per year as the pipeline would," Obama said.
Story Continued Below

Obama also said Keystone would not lower gas prices for American consumers, since the average price of gas has fallen about 77 cents over a year ago, or ensure future energy supplies.

What kind of ridiculous standard is that?  Of course it will not make a meaningful contribution to the economy.  You have a $17 trillion dollar economy.  No single project is going to budge that.  And of course it will not impact gas prices.  The US uses almost 7 billion barrels of oil in a year.

By those standards you won't allow any pipeline, ever.

[Valmy]

Regrettable. I never understood the widespread opposition to this project.

[KRonn]

Agreed, so frustrating. IMO a big mistake. The oil is now being transported by truck and rail which have a much bigger carbon footprint than a pipeline and more likely for leakage from accidents. There are thousands of miles of pipelines across the country and for this one to become the cause celeb for the enviro crowd is foolish. Many environmental studies have been done and show no problem from this. And from what I hear most Canadians including politicians want it and Canada is more left wing than they US.  This oil will be sold somewhere, probably to China so it's not going to be kept from being used; it'll just give an economic opponent the benefits. This seems like such a good idea to further ease transporting large amount of oil to US refineries and to help wean the West off of Mid East oil. And if some of it is used in the US then North America becomes all the more energy self-sufficient.

I do have to wonder also, aside from the enviro lobby who else has the muscle to thwart this pipeline? Has to be some big figures pushing against it. I figure lobbyists in Washington including the large Saudi lobby are pushing hard against this, and what are they promising in return?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Eh, as a Republican I find myself often defending Obama against the lunatic right, but this is one where it's hard to defend him, or the Democrats. I'm all for a major investment away from carbon-emitting power generation, my favorite is nuclear but I definitely believe in investment in wind and solar as well. But we need oil now, and that's reality. I am pretty positive about how we've been ramping up alternatives but again, we have a reality right now in which this oil is needed. Further, this oil will be drilled and refined regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.

So what it really comes down to is a billionaire environmentalist poured a ton of money into politics and chose to make this his biggest issue. I think that's regrettable--I laud a billionaire trying to move the needle on our national debate about how to move away from fossil fuels (especially since large swathes of the country remain skeptical that we need to at all.) But to focus on a project that truly has no environmental impact is ludicrous. What makes it more ludicrous is over ten times as much pipeline has been laid since the review of Keystone XL started--including multiple pipelines that cross the Canadian/American border. The fact that they were not given such scrutiny to me makes it quite obvious that the administration didn't make a decision based on environmental principles at all on Keystone XL--instead they made a decision based on what was in the public eye and what big donors had pushed for--essentially a craven political act.

On top of the fact that tons of pipeline has been built during the Keystone XL review process with nary a negative word by the administration (including projects crossing the international border that also would've required State Department review), there's also the fact that this oil is just being transported anyway by less energy efficient modes of transportation. Every barrel that goes across Warren Buffet's rail network instead of a pipeline actually is worse for the environment, because you're spending needless energy to move it above what is required to move it via pipeline. So rejecting Keystone XL is actually worse for the environment than approving it.

[crazy canuck]

there's also the fact that this oil is just being transported anyway by less energy efficient modes of transportation. Every barrel that goes across Warren Buffet's rail network instead of a pipeline actually is worse for the environment, because you're spending needless energy to move it above what is required to move it via pipeline. So rejecting Keystone XL is actually worse for the environment than approving it.

I think this is the main point. 

[Valmy]

Ah ok now I understand the opposition to the project.

Cowardice and corruption are what the Democratic Party is all about. Yet I have to vote them. Sigh.

[The Brain]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597

I mean it was pretty much expected at this point.  But it's frustrating as an Albertan.  Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out).  But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating.  I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.

You would love the nuclear sector.

[Barrister]

Eh, as a Republican I find myself often defending Obama against the lunatic right, but this is one where it's hard to defend him, or the Democrats. I'm all for a major investment away from carbon-emitting power generation, my favorite is nuclear but I definitely believe in investment in wind and solar as well. But we need oil now, and that's reality. I am pretty positive about how we've been ramping up alternatives but again, we have a reality right now in which this oil is needed. Further, this oil will be drilled and refined regardless of whether Keystone XL is built.

So what it really comes down to is a billionaire environmentalist poured a ton of money into politics and chose to make this his biggest issue. I think that's regrettable--I laud a billionaire trying to move the needle on our national debate about how to move away from fossil fuels (especially since large swathes of the country remain skeptical that we need to at all.) But to focus on a project that truly has no environmental impact is ludicrous. What makes it more ludicrous is over ten times as much pipeline has been laid since the review of Keystone XL started--including multiple pipelines that cross the Canadian/American border. The fact that they were not given such scrutiny to me makes it quite obvious that the administration didn't make a decision based on environmental principles at all on Keystone XL--instead they made a decision based on what was in the public eye and what big donors had pushed for--essentially a craven political act.

On top of the fact that tons of pipeline has been built during the Keystone XL review process with nary a negative word by the administration (including projects crossing the international border that also would've required State Department review), there's also the fact that this oil is just being transported anyway by less energy efficient modes of transportation. Every barrel that goes across Warren Buffet's rail network instead of a pipeline actually is worse for the environment, because you're spending needless energy to move it above what is required to move it via pipeline. So rejecting Keystone XL is actually worse for the environment than approving it.

Who is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?

[Valmy]

Who is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?

Buffet

[celedhring]

Ah ok now I understand the opposition to the project.

Cowardice and corruption are what the Democratic Party is all about. Yet I have to vote them. Sigh.

Have fun!

[Barrister]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597

I mean it was pretty much expected at this point.  But it's frustrating as an Albertan.  Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out).  But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating.  I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.

You would love the nuclear sector.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (eh, sweatshirt actually).

I worked for AECL for six months helping to prepare the environmental impact assessment of their permanent storage facility.

Despite a resoundingly positive finding, 20 years later it's still unbuilt. 

[The Brain]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-administration-expected-to-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline-215597

I mean it was pretty much expected at this point.  But it's frustrating as an Albertan.  Being able to sell our oil at a better rate (currently it sells at a discount due to transportation issues) would definitely help our very much hurting economy (my brother's EI is about to run out).  But to see Keystone XL become some kind of magnet for environmental groups is frustrating.  I'm all for tackling climate change, but it has to be done in a comprehensive fashion - not trying to pick off a couple of high-profile projects that won't actually impact global warming in the least.

You would love the nuclear sector.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (eh, sweatshirt actually).

I worked for AECL for six months helping to prepare the environmental impact assessment of their permanent storage facility.

Despite a resoundingly positive finding, 20 years later it's still unbuilt. 

Go environment!

[Barrister]

Who is this billionaire environmentalist you speak of?

Buffet

I hadn't heard that before.  And quick googling shows me quotes from Buffett supporting the pipeline.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/warren-buffett-says-keystone-xl-pipeline-delay-amounts-to-u-s-thumbing-nose-at-canada