Obama has vetoed Keystone XL

knothead wrote:Even though the United States now produces 10 million barrels of oil-equivalents per day, it still imports another 8 million barrels per day from outside its borders. If we did not get it from Canada (a friendly country), we would be getting more of it from unstable countries, where our soldiers tend to be stationed (i.e., the volatile Middle East).

I have never advocated not accepting Canadian tar sands oil as I agree with you that it will continue to flow if the veto stands.  Approval of the pipeline, however, would result in a net loss of permanent long term jobs in both trucking and railroads.  We get to keep these jobs and continue to get the oil into our economy . . . . . the jobs argument was, in my mind, absent a long term strategy that was not friendly to American workers or to say it in contemporary parlance GOP bullshit! . . . . . . . . and to think that this was at the top of their agenda . . . .

Sal wrote:It's pretty clear that if this current Congress of assclowns manages to pass a bill, it should be vetoed.

bizguy wrote:The maximum number of jobs to be created that I heard was a whopping 50. Again...all the risk and not much gain for the USA.


Try 9000 to 13000 direct jobs in America during the construction.  The state department projects 42000 direct and indirect jobs.  Sounds like a pretty good gain to me.

Markle wrote:Semi-retired President Obama has VETOED the much needed Keystone Pipeline.

There is NO LOGICAL reason other than his massive ego and narcissism.  THOUSANDS of jobs and safer transportation of oil is irrelevant, immaterial and unimportant to him.  He does NOT CARE.

His goal, as we all know, is to reduce the strength and excellence of America to that of a second or third rate country.

A pipeline from one country to another and across several states is a HUGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT.  Wasn't one of President Obama's goals to increase the building of infrastructure?  Didn't he say that construction of infrastructure created jobs?

Or is that a lie too?

gatorfan wrote:"Obama said, Keystone XL allows "Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else."

knothead wrote:"Most, if not all, of the crude oil that would be transported via the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to the US Gulf Coast would not be exported, and the vast majority of refined product—about 70%—derived from it would be consumed in the US, according to a recent report by IHS."

Zman, the very first paragraph does not support your position.  If there is to be long term benefits to the American economy there should be an formal agreement between our governments codifying the same.  This is a long term relationship and presently the risks are evident and the benefits are not etched in granite . . . . also, they should not have been granted an exemption from contributing to the oil spill remediation fund.

***********************************

"In fact, the amount of oil sands flowing into the US would still increase regardless of whether Keystone XL is built, according to the report, which analyzed the outlook for oil sands and other heavy crudes in North America."

Secondly, this statement supports my own argument from day 1 . . . . . we will get the oil whether it is built or not.  Maintaining the status quo secures those thousands of truck and rail jobs.  This has no benefits for us but huge benefits for Trans Canada . . . . .