Continued from here.
Call to Stop Keystone XL 2
Fri, 2011-09-23 17:55
#1
Call to Stop Keystone XL 2
Fri, 2011-09-23 18:26
#2
[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Keystone+pipeline+killer+will+pump+... XL pipeline a 'job killer', will pump jobs into U.S. says labour leader[/url]
The Alberta Federation of Labour president called the pipeline expansion a "job killer," suggesting its completion will ruin the chances of thousands of jobs being created in Alberta. Pulling from a cross-section of reports that show the pipeline could provide 99,000 jobs to the U.S. economy by 2020 and as many as 270,000 jobs by 2030. McGowan said the Keystone XL project will create few new jobs in Canada."It's clear to us that the majority of Albertans and the majority of Canadians would like to see us move up the value ladder with our oilsands resources, rather than sell our resources south of the border in their raw form," he said.
Feds not only want to export more oil south, they want Canadians to pay for the pipeline conduit used to pump thousands of jobs to the U.S. along with it. It's what they do. Welcome to Pipeline-istan the Northern Puerto Rican version. DAY O!
Fri, 2011-09-23 18:59
#3
Boom Boom
If you're in Ottawa next Monday, don't forget the protest on Parliament Hill! 
Fri, 2011-09-23 23:05
#4
6079_Smith_W rabble-rouser-supreme Member: 20704 Joined: Jun 10 2010September 23, 2011 - 3:59pm #107 (permalink)
The NEB approval - that issue.
And Roscoe, your take on public vs. private ownership aside, when it comes to using "the product" you buy less fertilizer, your crops don't grow, you have less to sell.
So the bullshit argument that you have to keep prices low, business taxes low, wages low, costs low, everything low except for the return for investors and management or else everything will fall apart is just that - fertilizer.
Don't be coy. You know potash is a gold mine or you probably wouldn't have bought stock in the first place. It's your belief that you investors had anyting to do with building this industry that is completely screwed up. And I'm sure you are also being coy about why it is that our governments are being taken over by those intent on selling public resources off to the lowest bidder.
And your comment about keeping your hand in my pocket - it's not something I would be proud of if I were you.
Sorry, but I voted in the Manitoba election when the Tories promised up and down they were not going to sell MTS, and then did it anyway.
(edit)
"Oh yeah. Boardroom deals where the insiders try to take control of an entity that has a large upside is one of the most insidious schemes haunting small private investors."
...again, upside for you. Downside for the workers who are going to be out of work, taxpayers and residents who are going to have to pay for lost revenue, cleanup, environmental damage and everything else involved in this bad business deal. And I suspect you know it too.
Continuity from Stop the Eeevil Keystone Pipeline. I
I don't know where to begin except to compliment you ,Smith, if I may call you that, on your dedication to socialist ideals. My dear wife is tapping her fingernails at this moment and I must adher to a higher callingbut, when time allows, I hope we can continue this conversation with a view to providing a solution that lesser mortals can only aspire toward. Coy?.... Coy? It resounds sooo much better than ignorant or redneck.
Sat, 2011-09-24 01:01
#5
Well I don't think you are ignorant; I think coy is the word. You may be a small investor, but we both know how much it costs to buy and sell shares. There is a world of difference between our "mom and pop" business world and people who are living on credit and food banks, or people who don't even have schools, proper medical care, or clean water to drink.
As for your talk about upgraders and production, who says we can't build more upgraders, and who says we have to scoop it out of the ground as fast as the Americans can suck it out the other end of the pipe? It seems to me that is their problem, not ours.
Frankly, I am a bit more concerned about burning up all our natural gas processing that tar and no longer being able to afford to heat my home than I am about keeping American business fat and happy, and keeping their upgraders running.
And I'm a bit more worried about the people who have to live with the environmental fallout, and the social problems in those boom towns.
This actually has very little to do with socialist ideals. It is bad business. I think it is a short-sighted, destructive, and it makes no economic sense.
Of course management and investors who want nothing but to make a quick buck are going to love it. So I am not surprised by your sales pitch at #92 and #99 in the last thread - that Canada has nothing going for it but resources, that we have no high tech industry, and that no one with a PhD would want to live here, that Big oil is the only bright spot in our economy, and that we should be happy to take their money for the next few decades until the tar is all gone, without any thought to what happens afterwards.
I'm not surprised, but neither am I stupid, and I don't buy a word of it. You only have to look at the nearest dead mill or mining town to see where that ends.
So sorry if I think there might be some options other than throwing the machine into high gear and sending it all south with all the jobs.
The only way to diversify our economy to something other than resources is to keep those jobs and build communties here, rather than just getting the table scraps from companies which are making far more in profits.
Or maybe you're right about my town. Perhaps we should go turn the lights out at the synchrotron, shut down the new germ lab, and put our straw hats and rubber boots back on, cause I guess we ain't fooling no one.
Mon, 2011-09-26 09:58
#6
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/oil-sands-opponents-to-desc... opponents to descend on Parliament Hill[/url]
Hundreds of demonstrators are vowing a day of civil disobedience on Parliament Hill in a bid to counter the Harper government’s vigorous promotion of oil-sands exports to the United States.Protesters are threatening to cross the RCMP’s security perimeter Monday and “sit down in a symbolic way to stand up against the Canadian tar sands,” echoing a series of protests in which 1,200 people were arrested in front of the White House last month.
Mon, 2011-09-26 11:30
#7
M. Spector
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2129385867]Parliament Hill livecam[/url]
[url=http://www.parliamenthill.gc.ca/text/camera-eng.html]HillCam 1[/url] [url=http://www.ottawakiosk.com/hill_cam.html] - HillCam 2[/url] - [url=http://www.tdc.ca/parliamentwebcam.htm]HillCam 3[/url]
Mon, 2011-09-26 12:39
#8
Boom Boom
Good interview with Tantoo Cardinal, but the CBC interviewer was out of her depth.
Mon, 2011-09-26 14:00
#9
Well I don't think you are ignorant; I think coy is the word. You may be a small investor, but we both know how much it costs to buy and sell shares. There is a world of difference between our "mom and pop" business world and people who are living on credit and food banks, or people who don't even have schools, proper medical care, or clean water to drink.
I don't think I'm being coy - although it is a significant improvement on the usual handles the faithful bestow upon me. Circumspect is apt. To avoid attracting the more volatile types and their less than reasoned responses.
The 'world of difference' is a question I've asked many times to no response. How do the anti - eevil tar sands folks plan to address the needs of the vulnerable when the rising costs of energy, especially subsidy-driven renewables, will dictate a 4 fold rise in cost if there is no growth in public revenues? Face it, Canada has a resource-based economy and no amount of navel-gazing about an information technical economy will change that.
The Salvation Army is a regular visitor under my bridge as I appear to be the go-to-guy when crisis appears.
As for your talk about upgraders and production, who says we can't build more upgraders, and who says we have to scoop it out of the ground as fast as the Americans can suck it out the other end of the pipe? It seems to me that is their problem, not ours.
We are building upgraders, just not enough. Upgraders are very capital intensive and exporting bitumen will generate the capital to allow more upgrading when there is a business case to do so. Frankly, Canada doesn't have the capacity to upgrade all the production coming on stream.
Frankly, I am a bit more concerned about burning up all our natural gas processing that tar and no longer being able to afford to heat my home than I am about keeping American business fat and happy, and keeping their upgraders running.
No need to be concerned about NG resources, we have enough for centuries and you won't be able to afford to heat your home in any regard so, don't worry, be happy.
Keeping American business fat and happy is the reason for the funding largess to anti 'tar sands' groups. Funding Canada's 'useful idiots' to defeat Keystone is a prime objective of American interests who wish to keep Canadian oilsands products prices depressed by holding it hostage at Cushing Oklahoma. Without competition, the Americans can extract a 20% discount.
Whaddaya think the public revenue share of that 20% discount could do for social spending?
And I'm a bit more worried about the people who have to live with the environmental fallout, and the social problems in those boom towns.
The environmental fallout needs to be addressed but don't the consumers get to share in the process? Canadians have to suffer from Chinese,Indian, American and other sources of coal-fired pollution. Why don't we get to share ours?
Since the 2008 crisis, most workers are living in camps or on LOA, not moving to the areas. They are flown back and forth every 3-4 weeks and come from all over Canada.
This actually has very little to do with socialist ideals. It is bad business. I think it is a short-sighted, destructive, and it makes no economic sense.
How so? The fact that the eeevil tarsands will contribute $2,5 trillion to Canada's GDP over the next 20 odd years makes a rather compelling case State your case, please.
Of course management and investors who want nothing but to make a quick buck are going to love it. So I am not surprised by your sales pitch at #92 and #99 in the last thread - that Canada has nothing going for it but resources, that we have no high tech industry, and that no one with a PhD would want to live here, that Big oil is the only bright spot in our economy, and that we should be happy to take their money for the next few decades until the tar is all gone, without any thought to what happens afterwards.
Hmph, this Ottawa protest is doing nothing for making a quick buck. Rather than politely lining up to be helped over the fence, arrested and having their photo taken, these protesters should make a ruckus. Riot and mayhem may depress the price to book ratio for oilsands cos enough for cashed up vultures to day-trade a quick buck but this oh,so Canadian protest does nothing.
I'm not pleased that Canada does nothing to attract excellence and innovation in order to create an information technology focussed economy but the facts are that our GDP (and by extension, our ability to fund social programs) is dependent on resources. Australia does have the requisite beaches for PhDs and they are not doing too good diversifying away from resources either.
I'm not surprised, but neither am I stupid, and I don't buy a word of it. You only have to look at the nearest dead mill or mining town to see where that ends.
Historically, it ends with the mining entity leaving the mess behind after they have spirited the profits elsewhere. The only difference between projects is how much profit they are FORCED to leave behind. Paying off politicians and apparatchiks is cheaper than paying for public infrastructure and the cleanup.
I'm not stupid either - you are no doubt aware that it is the peoples' representatives, not me and my ilk who allow the corporations such leeway.
So sorry if I think there might be some options other than throwing the machine into high gear and sending it all south with all the jobs.
Right. The first option is to get the politicians' hands out of the cookie jar and force them to act in the best interests of their constituents.
The only way to diversify our economy to something other than resources is to keep those jobs and build communties here, rather than just getting the table scraps from companies which are making far more in profits.
Yeah, well, simplistic populist-driven solutions to complicated issues offer no lasting benefit. Most of this eevil tarsands opposition is emotion-driven cutting off the nose to spite the face stuff. What Canada needs is a comprehensive environmental strategy AND an energy policy that will allow Canadians to enefit from both Good luck with that, though.
Energy communities are being built and expanded with the emigrants of functioning communities that are in economic decline. What is better - workers living in their towns and travelling to work or moving out of their hometowns altogether?
Or maybe you're right about my town. Perhaps we should go turn the lights out at the synchrotron, shut down the new germ lab, and put our straw hats and rubber boots back on, cause I guess we ain't fooling no one.
Or, hitch up your britches, get an oilfield job that pays lots and fly out for 3 weeks on, 3 weeks home.
Mon, 2011-09-26 14:40
#10
I already run my own business Roscoe, so please stop talking to me like the rube you imagine everyone who disagrees with your argument to be.
Though frankly there are plenty of people who aren't that stupid regardless of how they sustain themselves, I have more respect for the gentleman who lives up the street in the park because he is actually making more of a contribution to cleaning up this neighbourhood and making this a better place.
You insult us personally, and you insult our country, and then you propose something that is just a ripoff. What do you expect?
And my case is pretty simple, and one you don't seem to have read the numerous times it was posted already - increasing income through value added. And if we aren't sucking it up fast enough, I have to ask - fast enough for whom? Would natural gas prices be as volatile as they are if they weren't in such high demand for the highly inefficient process of rendering down tar into oil?
But then again, if your motive is pushing the maximum profit for investors, why would you want to acknowledge that we can make far more money over a far longer stretch of time by processing and keeping the jobs here in Canada, that a high GDP does not necessarily translate into a higher standard of living, that our goal should be a more diversified economy, and that we might want to protect our own future sources of energy?
Since this is a tentative project, it seems to me it is your place to make the case, and all I see is the offer of a quick buck to sell the farm.
Mon, 2011-09-26 14:59
#11
And you know what Roscoe, I don't want you to think I am getting all socialist on you, because this has nothing to do with your economic beliefs.
But some of your slurs about handouts, and telling me to get a job are frankly pissing me off. And I have no idea what you mean about being the Salvation Army's go-to guy. But it all sounds like a pretty discriminatory attitude about poor people, as well as a slur by using that imagery against people who happen to see things differently than you.
I'm reporting this to the mods. Again, please don't use this as an excuse that people don't want to listen to your politics. I just think you are being really insulting
Mon, 2011-09-26 15:40
#12
I already run my own business Roscoe, so please stop talking to me like the rube you imagine everyone who disagrees with your argument to be.
Sorry, Smith, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the guy in the straw hat and gumboots.
Though frankly there are plenty of people who aren't that stupid regardless of how they sustain themselves, I have more respect for the gentleman who lives up the street in the park because he is actually making more of a contribution to cleaning up this neighbourhood and making this a better place.
Yeah, so is the guy under the bridge.
You insult us personally, and you insult our country, and then you propose something that is just a ripoff. What do you expect?
Awfully thin-skinned,what? I don't mean any insults personally or specifically. Insult our country? How so? What ripoff?
And my case is pretty simple, and one you don't seem to have read the numerous times it was posted already - increasing income through value added. And if we aren't sucking it up fast enough, I have to ask - fast enough for whom? Would natural gas prices be as volatile as they are if they weren't in such high demand for the highly inefficient process of rendering down tar into oil?
The oilsands is already increasing income through value-added. As I've previously mentioned, capital-intensive projects require capital - who is going to pony up the hundreds of billions of $ required to build all this value-added? Obviously, not the anti-eevil tarsands crowd although the irony is that they quite likely are through their pension plans.
But then again, if your motive is pushing the maximum profit for investors, why would you want to acknowledge that we can make far more money over a far longer stretch of time by processing and keeping the jobs here in Canada, that a high GDP does not necessarily translate into a higher standard of living, that our goal should be a more diversified economy, and that we might want to protect our own future sources of energy?
My motive, as previously stated, is to increase both the public and private wealth in Canada in order to invest in the social programs and public resources required to maintain our standard of living.
Since this is a tentative project, it seems to me it is your place to make the case, and all I see is the offer of a quick buck to sell the farm.
I have been making my case but you don't respond to it
Mon, 2011-09-26 15:54
#13
And you know what Roscoe, I don't want you to think I am getting all socialist on you, because this has nothing to do with your economic beliefs.
But some of your slurs about handouts, and telling me to get a job are frankly pissing me off. And I have no idea what you mean about being the Salvation Army's go-to guy. But it all sounds like a pretty discriminatory attitude about poor people, as well as a slur by using that imagery against people who happen to see things differently than you.
I'm reporting this to the mods. Again, please don't use this as an excuse that people don't want to listen to your politics. I just think you are being really insulting
Perhaps I speak in an idiom that doesn't translate well. You are correct that you have no idea what I mean. Far from having a discriminatory attitude toward 'poor people', my concerns with killing off industry for emotional, ideological reasons relate directly to the need for public revenues to support social programs. I donate a lot of resources to social causes precisely because I know very well what poverty is like.
You spend more time complaining than addressing the issue. I guess trying to demonise me just shows you can't refute my position.
Mon, 2011-09-26 17:02
#14
The tarsands and civil disobedience
On Monday I will be joining hundreds of fellow Canadians on Parliament Hill to demonstrate growing public opposition to the relentless expansion of the tarsands megaproject in northern Alberta. Some will participate in a protest rally while others will engage in acts of peaceful civil disobedience....
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1059109--the-tar...
Mon, 2011-09-26 17:05
#15
Catchfire
Hi Roscoe, you're right. We can't refute your "position." But this site isn't here for you to pump gas for the tar sands. If you don't have any better advice than applying for a job with Imperial Oil, you'll be on our way out. And this mocking of babblers stops right now too. I hope that's clear. If you want to post defences of the tar sands, go elsewhere. Here, it ain't welcome.
Tue, 2011-09-27 12:07
#16
Hi Catchfire. As I understand it, this issue has only one side and any expression of support for a position other than opposition to the 'tarsands' is verboten.
I come by my idealism and altruism honestly and agree with most of the progressive positions on issues but reality is much different than the fey aspirations of the faithful. I try to cultivate my socialist side but the deluded aspirations of the faithful have nothing to do with the advancement of progressive policy.
You rush to join the chorus This chorus sees my position as "pump gas for the tar sands" without any attempt to either acknowledge the concerns I raise about the industry or the impact on public revenues. No response to pointed questions, just evasions via outraged denunciations of myself as ignorant, troll, paid industry shill etc.
It is disappointing that those who seize the moral high ground cannot also have the courage to look at oth sides of the issue. To me, it is very heartening to see single moms, natives, high risk youth and other vulnerable individuals as well as the underemployed from all areas of Canada enjoying high paying jobs that are not available elsewhere.
The resource industry, not merely the oilsands, floats all boats and it is disappointing that progressives who love to speak their support for the vulnerable are so willing to throw them under a bus without any regard for their welfare when an opportunity to showcase their moral superiority with a photo-op presents itself.
Amongst all the hand wringing and hysterical denunciations of the eeevil tarsands, not one word is ever spoken about Venezuela or California's heavy oil issues; Saudi Arabia's increasing dependence on heavy,sour oil or especially, the increasing use of lignite coal for power generation.
The direction and impetus of this site to censor and stifle open debate in favour of cheerleading your pet causes is only one more indication of why you causes gain no traction with the general population. It isn't the MSM or the lack of funding or the inability to get the word out. The simple fact is the majority of Canadians have no interest in your causes because you only accept one side as gospel and incessantly preach to the choir rather than having the courage to openly debate the issues.
I really appreciate the even handed, thoughtful posts of some babblers but many show the same sort of closedminded witchhunting that pervades this site.
Good luck with lost causes and thank you for your admirable restraint. Good bye.
Tue, 2011-09-27 12:19
#17
Northern Shoveler
Bye Roscoe!! I for one will not miss your pro-industry diatribes against all who disagree with your tar sands boosterism.
"simplistic populist-driven solutions to complicated issues offer no lasting benefit. "
Increasing our carbon footprint for its social benefit is about as simplistic a solution to a complicated issue as any I can imagine.
Mon, 2011-10-10 15:29
#18
Boom Boom
Tue, 2011-11-01 14:24
#19
M. Spector
[url=http://www.tarsandsaction.org/industry-sources-admit-keystone-xl-key-to-... Sources Admit Keystone XL Key to Tar Sands Development[/url]
October 31, 2011
Yesterday we got some of the strongest confirmation yet that efforts to stop the Keystone XL pipeline are having a long-term impact on the tar sands industry. [b]It's clearer than ever that President Obama's decision on the pipeline will have a critical impact on the development of the tar sands in Alberta - potentially leading to "stranded oil sands" long term.[/b]Canada's [i]Financial Post[/i] - the premier business magazine of Canada - published an article detailing how the [b]escalating pressure to stop Keystone XL is causing investors in the tar sands to reconsider their long term plans for exploiting the world's second largest pool of carbon.[/b] Organizing by environmental justice advocates across the country has put the Keystone XL pipeline in question, which in turn has revealed just how important the pipeline would be to the development of the tar sands industry.
Here is the key conclusion from the Financial Post - read the whole thing [url=http://business.financialpost.com/2011/10/29/the-stranded-oil-sands-a-wo....
The signs are there: the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline has festered into an uncomfortable election issue for the U.S. president, Barack Obama.The upshot for Canada: a decision on whether to grant a Presidential permit, promised by year end, could once again be delayed.
The reality is that anything short of a go-ahead in December for Keystone XL would plunge the oil sands sector into disarray until new solutions move forward. The worst-case scenario? Stranded oil sands - for years.
....
[b]All signs point to the President's decision on Keystone XL as being a turning point for the Alberta tar sands.[/b] The entire industry and all future US regulatory decisions have been deeply impacted by concerted organizing from the environmental movement, suggesting a hard road ahead for further exploitation of this deadly resource.
Thu, 2011-11-03 16:33
#20
Reeling from months of protests, President Barack Obama's advisers are worried that administration approval for a planned oil pipeline from Canada could cost him political support from Democrats in 2012.
Geniuses!
[url=http://www.canada.com/technology/Obama+advisers+fret+over+Keystone+pipel...
Thu, 2011-11-03 23:54
#21
Yep, we can see it all now. Capitalists and their dogs are standing around the snooker table, smoking cigars and sipping port wine at the Peninsula Club and muttering to one another: Who were the fools who designed an economic system based on energy and byproducts from dead plant matter? By gum!
Wed, 2011-11-09 18:53
#22
Boom Boom
Tim Fernholz - a former Democratic strategist, was just on P&P saying the American unions are pressing Obama to approve XL because of the jobs they believe it will produce, and that concern about jobs in the US far outweigh any environmental concerns they have about this pipeline. He believes Obama will give his approval to the project. 
Wed, 2011-11-09 19:42
#23
This will probably get me into trouble, but, since northern Alberta represents 0.1 percent of global greenhouse emissions wouldn't we be left with 99.9 percent of the problem if they were shut down tomorrow?
Wed, 2011-11-09 19:57
#24
Boom Boom
Few people in Canada are calling for the tar sands to be shut down completely as far as I know, but do want this project heavilly regulated and prevented from expanding. NDP candidate Mulcair himself said something along the lines of it's dumb to think of shutting the tar sands down, but he wants the federal government to stop subsidizing the project. I think many Europeans, on the other hand, want the tar sands shut down completely, and cleaned up.
Why the f*ck does the Canadian government subsidize profit making corporations anyway??? They don't need the subsidies or tax breaks.
Fri, 2011-11-11 09:39
#25
I think what Albertans might want to ask themselves is why thier buddy Stephen Harper is stabbing them in the back by exporting refinery jobs to Texans at the expense to Albertans.
I mean, I'm against the pipeline for environmental reasons, but if that doesn't float your boat, then maybe Harper's treachery does.
Fri, 2011-11-11 10:55
#26
M. Spector
The State Department has now called on TransCanada to do an environmental assessment of alternative routes for the pipeline. This will take at least a year.
Thus Obomba ensures that he won't have to announce approval of the pipeline until [b]after the 2012 election[/b].
Fri, 2011-11-11 11:06
#27
Boom Boom
Yes, that's all over the news. Premier Redford of Alberta is flying down to Washington to try to speed it up, citing what she says is Alberta's current green washing of the project, and the need of the USA for "ethical" oil from Canada. I guess Redford hasn't been doing any reading recently - when Alberta tar sands crude is refined in Texas, it will be sold overseas and other places. Very little of it will remain in the US.
Fri, 2011-12-16 17:40
#28
Boom Boom
I'm watching CNN. The Dems and GOP are making a deal to get the payroll tax break and unemployment insurance extended, and in return Keystone XL will be approved - by New Year's Eve. 2012 is going to be a bad year for environmentalists.
ETA: Link
Fri, 2011-12-16 19:35
#29
M. Spector
The Obamaniacs have been telling us for the last three years that their man's hands are tied because of Republican intransigence and obstruction, and offering that up as an excuse for his right-wing agenda.
If suddenly the two mirror-image capitalist parties in the U.S. ever got together and agreed on something, it would pretty much have to be something along the lines of Keystone XL - a plan to make piles of money while destroying the environment in the process.
Hail the spirit of bipartisanship!
Fri, 2011-12-16 20:06
#30
Boom Boom
I wonder how much money Obama gets when he gives his approval to the deal that includes Keystone? CNN was predicting it could be as early as New Year's Eve, unless Obama grows some cojones in the meantime.
Sat, 2011-12-17 08:17
#31
Green Groups Outraged at Accelerated Pipeline Plan
quote:
The State Department, which has authority in this cross-border project, suggested then that looking at new routes for the pipeline would take until early 2013 at the earliest. The department had previously said it hoped to make a final decision this year.
As opponents of the deal marshaled their forces, a policy analyst said that even if the president does approve this deal to force a decision on the pipeline in two months, the State Department would be unable to conduct an analysis of the proposed new route by then.
"There's almost no way the State Department can meet the requirements of the law in that brief time," said Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress.
"The president will have little choice than to not approve the permit. If he were to approve the permit anyway it would not survive a court challenge."
Sat, 2011-12-17 10:14
#32
Boom Boom
So, what reason is there to support Obama now in 2012? Just because the Republican alternative is worse? 
Sat, 2011-12-17 10:41
#33
knownothing
Obama found a way what a surprise? I hope nobobdy believes a word out of that liar's mouth from here on out.
Sat, 2011-12-17 10:56
#34
Boom Boom
Actually, Obama is being forced to swallow a 'poison pill' according to what I heard on CNN.
Sat, 2011-12-17 11:15
#35
I wouldn't assume from that story that that is what is going to happen. And from what I understand it is not a deal, but a deadline on the decision.
This is something the Republicans are pushing; Obama has not indicated that he would accept it, and according to the last sentence in epaulo's quote it would make no sense for him to do so.
The only thing in this story is that the spokesperson "left open the possibility". What that really means (according to this story) is that he just did not mention the pipeline:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20111217/NEWS/712179890
The senate vote is this morning. I guess we will find out very soon if the president will agree to make his final decision in the next three months (which may be yes, or no), or veto the bill.
Sat, 2011-12-17 13:13
#36
So it passed the senate and is on its way to the house.
This has far more to do with the election than it does with Keystone, I'd say.
Sat, 2011-12-17 21:17
#37
Senate Approves Short-Term Extension of Payroll Tax Cut, Gives Obama Two Months to OK Keystone XL Pipeline
Agencies are reporting that the Senate has passed legislation to extend the payroll tax cut and jobless benefits for two months. The legislation also included a provision requiring the White House to make a decision on the Keystone XL project in 60 days.
The measure was overwhelmingly approved with a 89-10 vote during a Saturday session.
Republican Sens. Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jim DeMint (S.C.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (Ala.) and Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.), as well as Independent Bernie Sanders (Vt.) voted against the package.
Mon, 2011-12-19 13:54
#38
I don't have the source in front of me, but apparently a white house spokesperson said this morning the ultimatum could possibly force Obama to cancel the project because there is not enough time for a review.
Whatever his intention was before this bill, this could mean very good news. I was assuming he would just move it past the election, and pass it then. If he is forced to kill it now, he can blame it all on the Republicans trying to force it on him prematurely.
Mon, 2011-12-19 14:25
#39
M. Spector
If you think Obama wants to find a way to kill Keystone, I can offer you a very good deal on a slightly-damaged Washington Monument. It has plenty of parking and a great view.
Mon, 2011-12-19 15:00
#40
Just relaying what the spokesperson said, M. Spector - a possible scenario which echoes that in the piece epaulo posted.
As I said in the post just before yours, I had assumed he would just move it past the election and pass it then.
So sorry, you'll have to find another easy mark.
This might change things (in which case it is probably good news for those of us who would like it killed) and it might not. But as I also said, I think this move on the Republicans' part has far more to do with causing shit for the election than it does with Keystone.
Mon, 2011-12-19 16:18
#41
..my post in #30 #36 speaks to the process. i would not have posted them otherwise as i believe the odds favour the pipeline coming back. forces outside the government have been building for it to resume and the obama admin is all for it. for a second the government blinked feeling pressed by the enviiromental and the occup movement not to mention that the public doesn't like it one dam bit.
Mon, 2011-12-19 16:37
#42
I agree. We should keep the oil and natural gas for ourselves.
Wed, 2012-01-18 12:18
#43
Boom Boom
Obama administration to reject Keystone pipeline
"However the administration will allow TransCanada to reapply after it develops an alternate route through the sensitive habitat of Nebraska's Sandhills".
Wed, 2012-01-18 13:52
#44
The latest report from the US is that there is nothing to report.
Wed, 2012-01-18 14:18
#45
Boom Boom
1. CBC just reported a new pipeline proposal could be approved in place of Keystone.
2. CNN just reported that Romney's position is to 'fast track' all energy projects (including Keystone) if elected Prez.
3. CBC just added that whatever replaces the original Keystone XL can be approved no earlier than 2013.
4. The GOP has just called Obama a "job killer" (on CNN) because of his earlier Keystone comments (the 60-day review).
On CNN now: WH spokesman Jay Carney is saying there are just rumours out there about Obama's response to Keystone so far today - nothing definite, but he hinted there may something later today.
Wed, 2012-01-18 14:22
#46
"CBC just added that whatever replaces the original Keystone XL can be approved no earlier than 2013."
Obama's desperately wants to kick the can down the road until after the election. The problem for him is that prices at the pump are likely to rise in the spring. Which will put him on the political defensive as the Republicans start screaming, "drill baby, drill." Or perhaps this time, "pipe baby, pipe."
Wed, 2012-01-18 14:48
#47
Boom Boom
Yup.
Wed, 2012-01-18 15:07
#48
Boom Boom
CNN repporting State will make decision on XL at 315 eastern - in ten minutes. It will be pushed back until after the election apparently as the rumours are saying.
Wed, 2012-01-18 15:17
#49
Does the Federal NDP have an official position on Keystone or the other pipeline through BC (and tanker traffic on the Pacific Coast)?
Wed, 2012-01-18 15:27
#50
Boom Boom
Keystone is dead for now but the company can submit a new proposal.
Wed, 2012-01-18 15:41
#51
Boom Boom
PMO: "The Prime Minister is extremely disappointed". 