Keystone Pipeline

[American Patriot]

Thought I'd start a thread. In my dreams this becomes a big thing, we drop gas prices back down to below a dollar. Currently, today, gas is dropping quickly.

I don't believe that Keystone will really become a big thing - but I sure as hell HOPE it does.

Since the election was won by "my side" (I really don't have a side any more, but rooting for the underdog I guess) they are saying it will come up again. We'll see.

GOP in Charge, Eager to Move on Keystone XL, Taxes

WASHINGTON — Nov 6, 2014, 8:53 AM ET
By DONNA CASSATA Associated Press





File - In this Oct. 4, 2012 file photo, large sections of pipe are shown in Sumner, Texas. Republicans are counting on a swift vote in early 2015 on building the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast now that Republicans clearly have the numbers in the Senate. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez, File)
The Associated Press






Republicans' resounding victory gives them an opportunity to push legislation that's been bottled up in the Democratic Senate, from targeting elements of President Barack Obama's health care law to constructing the Keystone XL oil pipeline to rolling back environmental regulations.
Democrats suffered an electoral drubbing in Tuesday's midterms, and Republicans regained control of the Senate and widely expanded their majority in the House. In command in both chambers in January, Republicans maintained that they have to show they can govern or else voters will show them the door.
"We now have the votes and we have the ability to call the agenda, so stop name-calling and let's actually produce some legislation that helps jobs and the economy and moves our country forward," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said in an interview. "I think the country has figured that out, and they've given us the mandate to do it, and we better produce, or they'll kick us out too."
House Republicans are counting on Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in line to be the next Senate majority leader, to move ahead on the dozens of jobs bills that have been passed by the House but remained stalled in the Senate.
"It's jobs, jobs, jobs," said Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, who also wants to lift the ban on crude oil exports.
Republicans also are counting on a swift vote early next year on building the Keystone XL pipeline to carry oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast now that Republicans clearly have the numbers in the Senate. The GOP could have as many as 54 Senate seats if Republican Dan Sullivan prevails in Alaska and the party wins a Dec. 6 runoff in Louisiana. The House majority could reach historic levels of 250 out of 435 seats.
"It's in our best interest to show we can function and that we can lead responsibly, and that would involve getting bills that have already passed the House with bipartisan support and get Democrats to join us in the Senate and get those to the president, even something like trade," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.
McConnell signaled Wednesday that he could work with Obama on trade agreements and a tax overhaul as both sides look toward governing rather than gridlock.
It won't be easy. Many of the moderate Democrats who would be willing to compromise were defeated in Tuesday's elections, reducing the number of lawmakers in the middle. In the next Congress, independent Sen. Angus King of Maine and moderate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Jon Tester of Montana will hold considerable leverage.
Republicans will be under pressure from many in their ranks and outside conservatives to scrap the health care law, but McConnell and the more pragmatic GOP lawmakers acknowledge that is next to impossible because of Obama's veto power.
"If I had the ability, obviously, I'd get rid of it," McConnell said of the Affordable Care Act as he spoke to reporters at a news conference in Kentucky. "Obviously, it's also true he's still there."
McConnell indicated the GOP would push for a repeal of the tax on medical devices, which has some Democratic support, and target the requirement that individuals sign up for health insurance or face a penalty.
Obama told reporters that ending the individual mandate was a nonstarter, calling it a "line I can't cross" because it would unravel the law.


Further complicating the relationship between Obama and the newly empowered Republicans is the president's vow to act unilaterally before year's end to reduce the number of deportations and grant work permits to millions of immigrants illegally in the United States.
"What I'm not going to do is just wait," the president said as bipartisan, comprehensive immigration legislation that the Senate passed in June 2013 remained stalled in the House.
McConnell and other Republicans said such a step would be an in-your-face affront to the new majority GOP — "like waving a red flag in front of a bull," McConnell said — and Republicans would use spending bills to restrict or stop such executive action.
Several Republicans hold the deep-seated view that Obama already has been abusing his constitutional authority. "He doesn't get the line-item veto to unilaterally change different tenets of the law after he signs the law," Weber said of Obama's moves to delay provisions of the health care law.
On energy, McConnell was already exploring ways to derail Obama's plans to reduce the pollution blamed for global warming from coal-fired power plants, a maneuver that some Democrats from coal states are likely to support but that the president would likely veto.
Pro-energy Republican Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is expected to chair the Senate Energy Committee, and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, who rejects the scientific consensus that global warming is being caused by fossil fuels, will likely lead the environment panel.
On the Keystone Pipeline, White House spokesman Josh Earnest reiterated Thursday that the administration will wait on the Nebraska Supreme Court to rule on a dispute about the pipeline's route through the state before completing an evaluation of the pipeline. "Once some of those things are resolved, then the State Department can do their work evaluating whether or not this pipeline is in the national interest of Americans," he said on CNN.
The Senate turnover from Democrats to Republicans could also complicate efforts by the U.S. to broker a new international deal to curb global warming that is legally enforceable, because a Republican-controlled Senate would be unlikely to ratify it.
"There is no way to dance around the issue that in too many races we lost good allies," said Michael Brune, head of the Sierra Club. "And we will see them replaced by people who oppose our values."

[American Patriot]

And this is why there is a problem. Asshole "environmentalists" who have their heads so far up their asses all they can smell is shit.

These are comments about Keystone associated with the article above.

• 
  
  Pesobill • 15 minutes ago
  Ugh , the dreaded Keystone XL , how utterly stupid to support such an environmentally dangerous ,archaic project .. Those Republicans are very short sighted and under informed ,like wealthy hillbillies ..
  
  
  
  
  
• 4
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    oldman66 Pesobill • 12 minutes ago
    There are already thousands of miles of pipeline in the area.
    
    
    
    
    
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    
    
  • 
    
    
    
    • 
      
      
      
      Jilly oldman66 • 9 minutes ago
      Then they don't need it. The Jobs are already there, and enough risk as well. Thanks old man -- that was perfect.
      
      
      
      
      
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      
      
    • 
      
      
    
    
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  Bruce Wayne • 20 minutes ago
  Science? We don' need no steenkin' science!
  
  
  
  
  
• 2
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  Chip • an hour ago
  "It's jobs, jobs, jobs," said Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas" - hope they're not $9, $10, $11 an hour jobs with no benes Randy, those aren't the jobs needed.
  
  
  
  
  
• 2
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  fourtyrunner • 13 minutes ago
  obama is either a socialist or a communist, without a doubt, the worst ever to sit in that office.
  
  
  
  
  
• 2
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  jgh59 • 12 minutes ago
  Google Kalamazoo River oil spill before you get all wet over getting this pipeline built. This pipeline is going to basically cut the country in half, be an environmental disaster waiting to happen all so the oil companies can sell North American oil to other countries.
  
  
  
  
  
• 1
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  decisivemoment • 12 minutes ago
  "Solutions" in search of a problem. At least that's the Republican fetish with Keystone XL, and with trans-Pacific trade deals that will outsource our jobs and give away our national sovereignty. Pollute our environment and pirate our economy. Great.
  Why can't they make themselves useful and focus on what actually needs doing? Corporate tax overhaul in this country would be a gift. Lower the rates, get rid of the deductions, get the accountants and lawyers out of the way.
  
  
  
  
  
• 1
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  oldman66 • 15 minutes ago
  The Keystone pipeline was finished (phase I, II, and III) and started pumping oil in January of this year. Phase IV is safe, and should be built. It's a short cut through the Bakken fields in Montana. However, the jobs will last until the section is finished; it's not going to provide a career for anyone.
  
  
  
  
  
• 1
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  
  This comment is awaiting moderation. Show comment.
  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    snowdogg Kenny Best • an hour ago
    Does competition bother your?
    
    
    
    
    
  • 5
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    
    
  • 
    
    
    
    • 
      
      
      
      Chip snowdogg • an hour ago
      Are you trying to say that Best is worst?
      
      
      
      
      
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      
      
    • 
      
      
      
      • 
        
        
        
        Jilly Chip • 10 minutes ago
        Whatever it is, does competition bother you?
        
        
        
        
        
      • •
      • Reply
      • •
      • Share ›
        
        
      • 
        
        
      
      
    
    
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  fitzwilliam777 • 10 minutes ago
  The silver lining is that after two years of republican congress control, people will be voting democratic in herds next election. How soon people forget the only priority of the republicans is to make the rich richer.. sad sad sad state of affairs.
  
  
  
  
  
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    Apu Bugolligosh fitzwilliam777 • 6 minutes ago
    Your knowledge of the future astounds me. Which stocks should I invest in?!?
    
    
    
    
    
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    
    
  • 
    
    
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  Kenneth Meyer • 23 minutes ago
  Congress has the power to OVERRIDE a Presidential veto..do It!
  
  
  
  
  
• •
• Reply
• •
• Share ›
  
  
• 
  
  
  
  • 
    
    
    
    jgh59 Kenneth Meyer • 15 minutes ago
    Actually they don't; you need a two thirds majority in the senate, they don't have it.
    
    
    
    
    
  • 3
  • •
  • Reply
  • •
  • Share ›
    
    
  • 
    
    
    
    • 
      
      
      
      oldman66 jgh59 • 15 minutes ago
      Correct.
      
      
      
      
      
    • •
    • Reply
    • •
    • Share ›
      
      
    • 
      
      
      
      • 
        
        
        
        GetAClueOr2 oldman66 • 4 minutes ago
        They have it with a little negotiation with a couple of dems. It'd probably be pretty easy to get those votes.
        
        
        
        
        
        

[American Patriot]

House approves Keystone XL pipeline, Senate up next

Susan Davis and Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY 1:17 p.m. EST November 14, 2014

(Photo: Melinda Deslatte, AP)

WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. House approved legislation, 252-161, for the ninth time to authorize construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline in a legislative push renewed by two lawmakers locked in a Louisiana Senate runoff next month.


"This will create other economic activity. This will ripple out through the economy," said GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy, the sponsor of the House bill. Cassidy is favored to oust incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in a Dec. 6 runoff election necessary because neither surpassed Louisiana's 50% threshold on Election Day.


Landrieu is a co-sponsor of the Senate bill and sparked the renewed push for the pipeline earlier this week with the help of other centrist Democrats from conservative states who also back the pipeline despite opposition from most Democrats.


Cassidy said "of course'' the House vote helps his campaign efforts. There's an ad running in Louisiana now "talking about how passionate I am about creating energy jobs. And so the timing of this could not be better.''



USA TODAY
La. lawmakers kickstart Keystone pipeline debate




USA TODAY
Obama team hints at Keystone veto



The Senate is expected to vote Tuesday on the bill. If it overcomes a 60-vote threshold it will head to President Obama's desk where he will either sign it into law or veto it. The president has delayed a decision on the pipeline, deferring to an ongoing review at the State Department, but White House spokesman Josh Earnest suggested Thursday that the president could veto it.


The president is under pressure from environmental groups who oppose the pipeline. Republicans counter that the pipeline's construction would produce jobs. The six-year delay has not slowed oil production by TransCanada, but it has made transporting it to refineries on the Gulf Coast more complicated.


"Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn't have an impact on US gas prices," said Obama, who is travelling in Asia. "If my Republican friends really want to focus on what's good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy. I'm happy to have that conversation."



The pipeline has been consistently supported in the GOP House but delayed in a Democratic-controlled Senate because of the 60-vote hurdle. Landrieu is optimistic she can get the votes this time, in part because the party is hoping she can pull off a long-shot victory. Failure to pass Keystone would undermine her argument that she is more effective for her state's oil and gas industry than her GOP opponent.



USA TODAY

Lower crude prices challenge Keystone pipeline



"We're going to make sure that the senator is delivering the votes," said Ryan Berni, Landrieu's campaign manager, noting that Cassidy's bill is mirror legislation to the Senate proposal. "This is really not about what Bill Cassidy has done in the House, but about the senator being able to bring both parties together to get a vote on something that has bipartisan support and is actually popular and really set it up as her ability to deliver both parties to get something done that is fairly common sense."


Landrieu's co-sponsor, Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said that if Democrats fail Tuesday, the pipeline is assured passage when Republicans take control of the chamber next year. "All along, we anticipated that we'll win on this issue, because the American public wants Keystone XL approved," he said, "If we don't get 60 votes on Tuesday, in the new Congress, we will have 60 votes."


Republicans will control at least 53 Senate seats next year. If Cassidy defeats Landrieu, they will have 54 seats. At least six Democrats returning to the Senate next year support the pipeline.

In this Feb. 1, 2012, file photo, miles of pipe ready to become part of the Keystone Pipeline are stacked in a field near Ripley, Okla.(Photo: Sue Ogrocki, AP)

Contributing: David Jackson

[American Patriot]

No Lame Duck Congress. Just a lame-assed President.

Anyone want to bet he "Vetos" any bills passed?

House approves Keystone pipeline proposal

By Craig Broffman and Eric Bradner, CNN
updated 1:12 PM EST, Fri November 14, 2014



Washington (CNN) -- The GOP-led House of Representatives passed legislation Friday, voting 252-161, approving construction of the Keystone pipeline, which would take that decision away from the Obama Administration.
The debate over Keystone has become a central issue in the Louisiana Senate runoff election, which is scheduled for Dec. 6.
Republican U.S. Rep Bill Cassidy is running against Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. The House has already passed similar legislation, but Republicans hope that this latest vote will give Cassidy a boost in next month's election.
Landrieu has also been pushing for approval of the pipeline, and the Senate is expected to vote on the measure Tuesday. The bill will need 60 votes to pass and it's expected to be a close vote.
The long-stalled measure got a jump start when Landrieu -- the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee chairwoman facing an uphill re-election battle -- saw it as one last chance to demonstrate her clout and began pushing for an immediate vote.
Senate Democrats who had previously ignored the bill are now moving toward giving it a vote in the lame duck session, knowing that Republicans are likely to force the issue after their newly-elected majority is sworn into office in January.
Republicans sought to mute Landrieu's chances of getting a political boost in her oil-rich state by promising Cassidy a spot on the energy panel, and also having him sponsor the House's legislation to authorize the pipeline.
The legislation would take the approval of the pipeline, which would run from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, out of the hands of President Barack Obama's administration.
His State Department -- which must approve the pipeline, since it crosses international borders -- is six years into a review of the project. Obama told reporters Friday in Myanmar that his "position hasn't changed."
He said the pipeline is still facing a challenge from Nebraska landowners and said he doesn't think "we should circuit that process."
"My government believes that we should judge this pipeline based on whether or not it accelerates climate change or whether it helps the American people with their energy costs or their gas prices," he said.
Landrieu, meanwhile, has insisted that the Senate has at least 60 votes to approve the pipeline -- and is taking credit for the legislation's sudden movement.
"I am so pleased to have been one of the spark plugs to help to get us moving -- not in the next Congress, but in the lame duck session of this Congress," she said on the Senate floor Thursday.

[American Patriot]

Obama won't budge on Keystone ahead of House vote

Published November 14, 2014FoxNews.com


Sen. Coats on Landrieu's push for Senate vote on Keystone


President Obama would not budge on the Keystone pipeline ahead of a key House vote on Friday, indicating during a press conference that he wants to let a review process run its course even as lawmakers threaten to send a bill fast-tracking the project to his desk.


The president spoke during a joint press conference in Burma with opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. As the House prepares to vote on the pipeline -- and the Senate is set to vote next week -- Obama made clear his position has not changed.


Obama said his administration believes the project should be judged on the basis of whether it accelerates climate change. Obama also insisted the pipeline would not be a “massive jobs bill” and would have no effect on U.S. gas prices.


The looming vote will mark the ninth time it has been voted on in the House as lawmakers look to finally secure approval of the delayed proposal after numerous environmental reviews, legal challenges to its route and politics.


But the pipeline was only put on the lame-duck Congress agenda because Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu pushed it on the Senate side -- in an apparent effort to not only boost the energy industry, but boost her own re-election bid in a tough runoff next month. Landrieu’s race for re-election goes to a runoff next month against GOP-hopeful Bill Cassidy. Landrieu is considered an underdog in that election.


White House spokesman Josh Earnest, traveling with Obama in Myanmar, told reporters that the president takes a "dim view" of legislative efforts to force action on the project. Earnest stopped short of threatening a veto, but reiterated Obama's preference for evaluating the pipeline through a long-stalled State Department review.


Obama has repeatedly ordered such reviews under pressure from environmental groups, who say the project would contribute to climate change.


Senate Republicans and several moderate Democrats have pushed for the project to be approved for years, and backers of the project got a major win after Republicans took control of the Senate. Supporters say the construction of the pipeline would create tens of thousands of jobs.


But the project divides Democrats, with environmentalists in opposition while some unions as well as energy-state and business-minded lawmakers support it.


The Sierra Cub issued a statement opposing the measure, as did Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who urged Obama to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.


Supporters of the measure appeared to have at least 58 of the 60 votes they would need for approval next week. That included all 45 Republicans as well as 13 Democrats, among them Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, whose office confirmed his support during the day.


Another obstacle in the pipeline is getting approval for it to go through Nebraska.


The administration has put off announcing any decision pending a Supreme Court ruling in Nebraska on a challenge to the law that allowed the route of the pipeline to be set.


The Nebraska Supreme Court's decision is expected before the end of the year.


That case involves a lawsuit filed by landowners and activists opposed to the project who are seeking to overturn a 2012 state law that allowed Republican Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the pipeline's route through the state.

[American Patriot]

Obama blasts Keystone as U.S. House votes in favour of approving it

Cecilia Jamasmie | November 14, 2014
Tweet
0 Comments
Comments

Your email address

As expected, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted in favour of approving TransCanada Corp.'s (TSX, NYSE:TRP) controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, hours after President Obama harshly criticized the project, saying it will not impact on U.S. gas prices nor will create as many jobs as its supporters claim.
The House voted Friday 252-161 on a bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, which is aimed at circumventing the need for Presidential approval.

Obama, who has repeatedly delayed deciding about the US$8 billion project, made clear he sees little value for the country he leads, adding he will veto any effort by Congress to take control of the approval process.
Bloomberg reports:
“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else,” the president said today during a visit to Yangon, Myanmar. “It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices.”
ABC News adds:
“If my Republican friends really want to focus on what's good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more.”
Keystone XL Pipeline — Overall route map. (Courtesy of TransCanada)

No one knows for certain what Obama will do, but the signs point to his rejection of the bill.
“The administration, as you know, has taken a dim view of these kind of legislative proposals in the past,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. “I think it’s fair to say that our dim view of these kinds of proposals has not changed.”
The House of Representatives, where Republicans have a crushing majority, is expected to vote today on a bill put forward by Democratic Louisiana senator, Mary Landrieu, to approve the controversial pipeline, which would transport crude oil from Canada to the Gulf coast in Texas.
The looming vote marks the ninth time the controversial project has been voted on in the House following several environmental reviews and legal challenges to its route and politics.
The Senate is schedule to vote on the same bill next week.
Image via WikiMedia Commons.

[American Patriot]

Coupled with all of this, we have a drastic drop in gasoline prices in the US recently. (I paid 2.89 a week ago, and it's gone down since then). I just checked and locally it is ranging from 2.71-2.99.



Just got this too:

Statement on Passage of House Keystone Pipeline Legislation
11/14/14
Today, following passage of H.R. 5682, Congressman Doug Lamborn released the following statement:
“Today, I voted in support of H.R. 5682 to approve the Keystone Pipeline. It is long past time to begin this project. Tens of thousands of American jobs and the secure transportation of hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil will be a significant boost to our economy. I sincerely hope that Senate Democrats will finally drop their arbitrary objections and allow the Congress to put strong, bipartisan legislation on President Obama’s desk. The President will be making a major mistake if he does not sign legislation reflecting the will of the American people.”
- Congressman Doug Lamborn (CO-05)

[American Patriot]

The idiots in the pictures below with the signs against the pipeline are the most clueless, stupid Americans there are - and voted for Obamacare too.

Keystone Supporters Hustle for 60 Yes Votes in Senate

Work Under Way to Sway Democrats, as All 45 GOP Senators Expected to Vote in Favor of Pipeline

ENLARGE
Climate advocates and representatives from the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota protest against the Keystone XL pipeline in front of the home, center, of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D., La.) in Washington on Monday. Reuters



By Amy Harder

Updated Nov. 17, 2014 7:17 p.m. ET 48 COMMENTS

Supporters of a measure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline were scrambling on Monday to secure the 60 votes necessary to overcome a procedural hurdle in a Senate vote planned for Tuesday.
People working on the vote-getting effort say the tally of yes votes stood at 59 late Monday, but they weren’t giving up on finding a last supporter. Even if it does pass, the White House has signaled President Barack Obama is likely to veto the bill.

After months of political fighting, the Keystone XL pipeline is up for an authorization vote in the Senate. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains the significance of the legislation. Photo: AP


More

• White House Plays Coy on Possible Keystone Veto

The vote, scheduled last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), was seen as an effort to help Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu win re-election in Louisiana, where the pipeline has become a measure of clout.
The GOP-controlled House approved an identical measure allowing the proposed oil pipeline, which has been delayed as the Obama administration conducts a review. That bill is sponsored by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R., La.), who currently leads Ms. Landrieu in most polling ahead of their Dec. 6 Senate runoff race in Louisiana.
While Ms. Landrieu and other senators hailing from states with oil and natural-gas resources have asked Mr. Reid to schedule a vote on the pipeline, it took Louisiana’s runoff race—and the prospect of one more Democratic-held seat going to the GOP—for Mr. Reid to allow the vote.
Ms. Landrieu expressed confidence Monday evening in the Capitol that she has at least 60 votes. “I feel very comfortable,” she said, smiling. “It could be more” than 60. Without saying anything else, she winked at reporters as an elevator door closed.
Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.) echoed Ms. Landrieu’s comments, saying, “I think we’ll get a couple more.” He said that currently “some are maybes.” He wouldn’t identify the maybes.
All 45 Republican senators are expected to support the bill, and 14 Democratic senators also have committed to voting yes, according to public statements and previous votes in support. The vote counting was complicated by the unpredictable nature of the lame-duck session, where members who were defeated or retiring might be persuaded to change positions.
“Anyone who tells you that they know what’s going to happen until after a vote is taken hasn’t been around here long enough,” said Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.).
“Anyone who wears the number 60 jersey has a lot of power on the field,” said Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners, a nonpartisan political-analysis firm based in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Landrieu and Mr. Hoeven had been courting several members who recently said they are planning to vote against the bill, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bill Nelson of Florida and Christopher Coons of Delaware.
ENLARGE




Retiring Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.), who had fueled speculation he might vote yes since he wasn’t initially saying how he would vote, told reporters in the Capitol on Monday that he plans to vote no.

Mr. Coons “has always said he believes it’s the administration’s decision to make and that it’s not Congress’s job to issue construction permits,” said Ian Koski, spokesman for Mr. Coons. “He’s incredibly frustrated by how long it’s taking the administration to make this decision, but he plans to vote against the straight authorization the Senate will consider on Tuesday.”
Sen. Tom Udall (D., N.M.), who has voted against the pipeline in the past, said Monday he is probably voting no but wanted to look over the legislation. “It doesn’t help the U.S. very much,” said Mr. Udall, who won re-election earlier this month.
The pipeline, which would deliver up to 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast, has faced delays and has become a political flash point in the debate about climate change and economic growth. Pipeline owner TransCanada Corp. of Calgary, Alberta, first submitted its application more than six years ago to the State Department, which has jurisdiction over cross-border pipelines.
During the past few days, various White House officials, including Mr. Obama himself, have said Congress shouldn’t circumvent the approval process in the State Department, which has been delayed pending the outcome of a lawsuit in Nebraska over the pipeline’s route through the state. A ruling there is expected in the coming weeks.
On an unrelated conference call Monday, White House counselor John Podesta reiterated this general position.
“We ought to take the time to let the process play out, the analysis come in and that, as you know, is not finished as a result of the litigation that’s going on in Nebraska about the pipeline citing,” said Mr. Podesta, who prefaced his comments by noting he has recused himself from the pipeline’s review since he made his opposition to the project known before joining the White House late last year. “I think until that occurs, as he [Mr. Obama] noted, no decision should be made.”
The White House hasn’t issued an official statement of administration policy to threaten a veto of the bill, though, which it has done for past iterations of measures the House has passed. The GOP-controlled House has passed nine bills approving the Keystone XL pipeline. The Senate has approved just one, but it was a nonbinding budget resolution that was never going to become law.

[American Patriot]

Keystone XL chances dim in Senate as King says 'no'

By Timothy Gardner and Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON Tue Nov 18, 2014 12:59pm EST







1 of 2. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) listen to Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) speak during a press conference calling for for U.S. President Barack Obama not to veto the Keystone XL pipeline on Capitol Hill in Washington November 18, 2014.
Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts








(Reuters) - Keystone XL supporters in the U.S. Senate faced tough odds for passing a bill to approve the oil pipeline from Canada on Tuesday after one lawmaker they hoped might be a "yes" said he would vote against the project.


"Congress is not – nor should it be – in the business of legislating the approval or disapproval of a construction project," Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, said in a news release.


With the 100-member Senate one vote short of the needed 60 to pass a version of a bill that sailed through the House of Representatives last week, supporters including Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu lobbied for more support.


Construction of TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline has broad support in Louisiana, an oil-producing state, where Landrieu faces an uphill battle to win a new six-year term in a December run-off election.


Republican Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, who introduced the bill with Landrieu, was asked by reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday if there were enough votes to pass it. "I think so," he said.


Hoeven told MSNBC the same thing earlier on Tuesday, adding: "We're at 59 votes confirmed. We've got a couple of maybes. I think there's one or two more that may join. So I think we have a good shot to get it."


King, who often votes with Democrats, had been seen as a possible swing vote despite his support of climate activism. He said he was "frustrated" by President Barack Obama's failure to make a decision on the pipeline that has been pending for six years.
The Senate is expected to vote as early as 6:15 p.m. EST on Tuesday.
Republicans generally support Keystone, which would transport more than 800,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta to Nebraska, en route to the Gulf of Mexico.
But many environmentalists oppose the project, saying development of the oil sands would spike carbon emissions linked to climate change and that the oil could be sold abroad. Construction workers, unions, and energy companies say it would create thousands of jobs.
If Keystone does not pass on Tuesday, Hoeven plans to reintroduce the bill in January or February, when it has a better chance of a obtaining 60 votes in a Republican-led Senate. Next year Hoeven could also attach Keystone language to a wider bill that Obama would find hard to veto.
Obama raised new questions about the project during a trip to Asia late last week, saying it would not lower fuel prices for U.S. drivers but would allow Canada to "pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else."
Republicans and energy analysts said those comments likely mean Obama is leaning toward vetoing any Keystone bill.
TransCanada shares were down 20 Canadian cents at C$56.37 on the Toronto Stock Exchange on Tuesday.

[MinutemanCO]

Even though I live in the heart of one of the major oil production regions in America, I confess I don't know that much about the Keystone XL pipeline. Can someone explain to me, if there exists a pipeline already transporting oil from point A to point B as shown in the graphic in post #8, why we need another one essentially moving it from the same point A to the same point B? Does the alignment traveling along the hypotenuse really allow the transport of oil that much more efficiently by cutting off a couple hundred miles?

I'm all for oil production and sending the prices of oil products lower. I guess I just don't understand exactly what the heck is being proposed and why. I think a bit of self education is in order.

I'll be honest with you, though. I'm in the middle of one of the largest oil producing counties in the country (Weld County, CO at #11) and have yet to see how the oil companies and their massive profits benefit the communities in which they operate. Through observation, it appears they pocket the profits while giving very little in the way of benevolence. I know this isn't a requirement of capitalist big business, but giving something back to the community is what good people do. Tyrants take and do not give.

It reminds me of this guy? Remember him?



Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, on retiring in December, got a retirement package estimated at $398 million in total. Raymond has been compensated more than $686 million from 1993 to 2005; that's $144,573 per day. Exxon had record-breaking annual profits last year of $36 billion. 1st quarter 2006 profits were up 7% to a further record of $8.4 billion.

I do believe in capitalism; but really, how many friggin homes and yachts does one man need?

[American Patriot]

I can explain how it benefits communities. Especially areas that are under-employed.

People get hired.

Now, that said, I know that in the Utah, Wyoming areas and in places in Texas, MANY people come to work the oil fields (shale/fracking etc) from OUTSIDE; because frankly there aren't enough people in some of those areas (population wise) and many just DO NOT WANT TO WORK.

In other words, how companies benefit communities is by providing jobs for locals who then spend their money in the local areas.

That companies make a profit is, I'm afraid the way it works. This ain't Star Trek, we don't all get free food when we need/want it, or have "materializers" that create stuff out of thin air.

Companies are in the business of making money.
People are in the business of eating, consuming and need services.

Seems to me that's a marriage made in Heaven....

[American Patriot]

By the way, the other thing that is or would have been affected is gasoline prices.

I bought gas yesterday on the way home. 2.87/ gallon.

Doing this pipeline would bring prices down to around a buck a gallon, probably on an almost permanent basis.

Every penny saved at the gas pump by consumers is somewhere around a billion a year in money that Americans and Canadians have to spend on other things. (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...cheap-consumer).

Airline prices would necessarily have to drop.

Food would be cheaper to transport, thus be cheaper at the market.

Gas prices overall, world wide would drop as well. The Saudis who seem to have a lock on the market would have to start dropping their prices to compete. Competition causes less expensive product, higher demand, and forces the market to balance where it SHOULD be rather than at an enormously inflated level like it is now.

[MinutemanCO]

I understand the economic principles associated with oil and gas exploration. I work in the development business. Clearly when a major industry is doing well and production is at high levels of efficiency, the relative economy sees a boost. This idea is different from what I'm referring to. If you look to the turn of the century Industrial Revolution, there were major figures who built entire empires from oil, lumber, steel, coal, railroads, etc. As these industrialist amassed their fortunes, by and large, they started to give back to their respective communities, from the heart, because they wanted to. These were the philanthropists.

One example of this concept can be found in the life of Andrew Carnegie. He was born in Scotland in the mid 19th Century. He had nothing when he set out, but as he made advancements, he invested his money. Eventually he expanded the steel industry in the US and became immensely wealthy on the order of $75 billion in today's dollars. As Carnegie aged his heart turned to giving. History shows that he gave 90% of his wealth to philanthropic causes. He built Carnegie Hall, and founded the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland, Carnegie Hero Fund, Carnegie Mellon University and the Carnegie Museums of Pittsburgh, among others.

This is what I'm talking about.

What I'm observing is that the major oil companies operating in Colorado, other than providing jobs and inherently building the economy, are doing nothing to advance the cause of philanthropy. Life is about giving to others in need. When a person's heart is right, they actually care about others, not out of some forced social compulsion or socialistic mandate, but because they care. A rotten heart takes and takes, without giving. Plain and simple.

[American Patriot]

Minuteman.... I'll say this. If I were a big business owner, I'd donate money to charities. (I do that now).

But my "bottom line" is my profit and getting there. Not giving away my money to people who honesty could go out and work for a living.

Now, that's not to say I wouldn't, say give away millions to cancer research or something like that. But I sure wouldn't just "give it away".

I don't think anyone would.

I don't think that this is about a "rotten heart" at all, it's about accomplishing a task, in this case a HUGE task to put in a pipe line across thousands of miles of terrain and not necessarily about feeding the poor.

I've been watching a project here for many months, putting in a water pipeline - a few miles (about 5 miles are being covered). I drive it every day, there are hundreds of workers out there. It's been MONTHS.

Those guys live here, work here, spend money here, and are making a pretty penny it appears to me. The company is a contractor hired by the state or county to accomplish the water way.

This is about getting water to the people.

Keystone is about getting oil to refineries to drop the price of gas eventually.

[American Patriot]

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-env...dem-objections

Senate panel cancels Keystone hearing after Dem objections

By Laura Barron-Lopez - 01/06/15 02:29 PM EST


Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) objected on Tuesday to a Senate hearing on the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The hearing, originally scheduled for Wednesday by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was canceled after the objection by Durbin on behalf of fellow Democratic senators.Robert Dillon, spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the chairwoman of the energy committee, said the canceled hearing "does not slow down the Keystone XL floor process."


"Sen. Murkowski was committed to moving legislation through regular committee order and having a robust hearing process. Working with the incoming ranking member, we had lined up witnesses from a labor union and the Center for American Progress (CAP) to testify on the Keystone XL," Dillon said.

"Democrats will no longer have an opportunity to hear that testimony or make statements. We think that’s unfortunate. Meanwhile the floor process on Keystone XL advances," he added.

The move by Durbin signals the deep divide between Republicans and the majority of Democrats who oppose the pipeline.

Hours after Sens. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) introduced legislation to approve the $8 billion oil sands project, the White House threatened to veto it.

Hoeven said as of Tuesday morning, nine Democrats have thrown their support behind the Keystone bill, including Manchin. Of those nine, six are co-sponsors.

It remains unclear whether the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will still be able to hold its scheduled Thursday markup on the bill.

[Avvakum]

Fact is, all of this mess about Keystone Pipeline being opposed by Obama and the ongoing punishment of Russia for resisting Obama in Syria and the Ukraine hides what the Saudis get out of all this; the destruction of the US shale oil industry. What fools we have in the US! From Zero Hedge;

Saudi War On Shale Goes Nuclear - "No Chance OPEC Will Cut Output" Even With Brent Under $50


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/08/2015 10:54 -0500

• Bond
• Crude
• High Yield
• Iran
• Kazakhstan
• Mexico
• OPEC
• Reuters
• Saudi Arabia

inShare24

For those hoping that the recent brief dip in Brent crude below $50 - most notably Venezuela's intrepid socialist leader Nicolas Maduro whose numbered days get shorter with every day Brent closes red, and countless bondholders of junk- debt capitalized shale companies - would mean that Saudi Arabia's vendetta against OPEC would finally be put on hiatus, we have bad news: the vendetta just wen nuclear because as Reuters reports, there is "no chance of OPEC output cut."
As Reuters further adds, Saudi Arabia and its Gulf OPEC allies are showing no sign of considering cutting output to boost oil prices, despite Brent's dip below $50 a barrel this week, where it is surely headed once again in the coming days. More:

Those misgivings have grown with a slide in oil prices to below half their level in June, hurting the economies of OPEC's smaller producers. Benchmark Brent dipped to $49.66 on Wednesday, its lowest since April 2009, before rising to $51 on Thursday.

OPEC has forecast an increasing surplus in 2015, citing rising supplies outside the group and lacklustre growth in global demand. But the Gulf members, who account for more than half of OPEC output, are not wavering, arguing lower prices will slow competing supplies, spur economic growth and revive demand.

One delegate from a Gulf OPEC member said there was "no chance" of a rethink while another referred to the view that non-OPEC producers were to blame for the glut. "Naimi made it clear: OPEC will not cut alone," the second delegate said.
So as the rest of the non-OPEC crude exporting world blames OPEC, and specifically Saudi Arabia, OPEC, and specifically its oil minister Ali al-Naimi, has said: OPEC will not cut alone, or in other words, as long as shale companies are out there pumping, kept alive thanks to the Fed's ZIRP policy forcing investors to keep them well capitalized even though bankruptcy may be breathing down everyone's neck in short order, expect the Saudis to keep pumping at the same feverish pace.

OPEC ministers and delegates have blamed non-OPEC producers such as Russia, Mexico and Kazakhstan, as well as U.S. shale and tight oil production, for the oversupply in the market.

U.S. oil production has surged from around 5 million barrels per day to reach a near 30-year record of more than 9 million bpd over the past six years, propelled by the sudden emergence of shale oil output from North Dakota to Texas.

Ironically, it may well end up as a showdown between the Fed and Saudi Arabia, the former doing everything in its power to keep otherwise insolvent companies well-capitalized, and on the other Saudi Arabia doing everything in its power to keep the cash flow drain as high as possible for High Yield debt-funded shale companies, and daring either the Fed, or rather junk bond investors who are scrambling for any source of yield, to back out.
Considering Charlie Evans' comments from last night, it will be a long wait on both sides.
How does Reuters know all this? "The OPEC delegates - government officials representing their countries who attend OPEC's meetings - spoke to Reuters after oil's brief fall below $50 on condition of anonymity as they are not authorised to speak publicly on the issue."
The question is which OPEC, considering the cartel is now officially split in two, with high-cost producers forming one camp, and very vocally opposed to their low-cost cartel-member peers. As a reminder, Venezuela, Algeria and Iran need oil above $100 to balance their budgets, according to estimates from the IMF and other analysts, higher than the Gulf members who can tolerate lower oil revenues for years.

Officially, OPEC agreed at its November meeting on keeping its output target of 30 million barrels per day (bpd) - a point the U.A.E oil minister reinforced on Wednesday although African members, as well as Iran and Venezuela, had wanted a reduction.

Iran and Algeria have both since called on OPEC to cut output in the face of the slide in oil prices. A delegate from Libya, one of OPEC's four African OPEC members, agreed.

"Something should be done by OPEC countries to reinstate its role to stabilize the market, ensuring a fair price for both producers and consumers," Samir Kamal, Libya's OPEC governor, told Reuters on Thursday, emphasising he was not speaking on behalf of the Libyan government.

"Or there is no need for it any more, especially if only one country is dictating its strategy while hurting other members."

Bingo. And since OPEC no longer technically exists with the lowest-cost producers calling the shots, the pain will continue until Brent drops to the lowest marginal production price, somewhere in the mid-$20s, just as previously forecast. At that point not even the most desperate yield-chasers will be willing to continue keeping otherwise insolvent shale companies, solvent. Expect that to take place some time in mid- to late-2015, although considering the epic pace of collapse in the front contract, it may well take place in the next month or two.
Average: 4.62069





Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (29 votes)

[American Patriot]

As Congress Sends Keystone XL Bill to White House, Diverse Voices Unite in Opposition

• 24 Feb 2015 10:44
• Written by Press Release
• Category: Environmental
• 
• 

Tweet

Artists, elected officials, landowners, labor unions, progressive organizations, Tribal Nations, and climate activists send “Unity Letter” urging President Obama to veto & reject Keystone XL

WASHINGTON –(ENEWSPF)—February 24, 2015. Just as Congressional Republicans send a misguided bill forcing approval of the Keystone XL pipeline to the White House, a diverse coalition of pipeline opponents sent a “Unity Letter” urging President Obama to veto the legislation, and reject the pipeline permit altogether. Summing up the case against Keystone XL, the letter is signed by more than 100 high-profile artists, elected officials, labor unions, progressive organizations, landowners, and climate activists -- including:

Willie Nelson, Musician
Mark Ruffalo, Actor
Neil Young, Musician
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Julianne Moore, Actress
Robert Redford, Actor
Alec Baldwin, Actor
Naomi Klein, Author
U.S. Congressman Raul Grijalva
Robert Reich, Former U.S. Secretary of Labor
Rev. Jim Wallis, Faith Leader
Tom Goldtooth, Indigenous Environmental Network
Bill McKibben, 350.org
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska
Michael Brune, Sierra Club
Gene Karpinski, League of Conservation Voters
Peter Lehner, Natural Resources Defense Council
Randy Thompson, Nebraska Rancher
Jean Ross, Karen Higgins, Deborah Burger, National Nurses United
Read the full list of Unity Letter signatories at: www.nokxlunity.org.
Citizens are invited to add their name to the letter, with the expectation that thousands will sign on in a matter of days.
Full letter text:
The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,
The long and worthy fight over the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is at an end, and the time for a decision draws near. We appreciate your pending veto of the congressional bill, and we fully support an outright rejection of the permit. We have followed the question of Keystone XL's impact for many years, and those years have clarified a few key points.
First, most of those who care about this project oppose it, and with an intensity matched by few issues in recent time. Beginning with Tribal Nations and with farmers and ranchers, the opposition spread over time to climate scientists, college students, moms, financial experts, many trade unionists, renewable energy proponents, nurses, artists and an ever-growing swath of the general population. A historic number of them were arrested for this cause; millions wrote public comments, or emailed their elected officials; everyone engaged in public dialogue in precisely the fashion you have asked. Everyday people have stood up to the money on the other side, and done so with civility, firmness, creativity and passion.
Second, it’s now clearer than ever that the tar sands pose an incredible risk to the health and safety of our families and a livable planet. As a major study in Nature last month confirmed, a serious effort to control global warming must keep the ‘dirtiest oil in the world’ safely underground. Keystone XL must be evaluated not just as a pipeline but as part of the tar sands industry's plans for rapid and reckless expansion. As you have stated, the climate impacts of major infrastructure projects are a matter of national -- and international -- interest. Rejecting Keystone XL is the kind of principled choice leaders need to make. There is no way to reconcile this pipeline with a serious climate policy.

Third, the arguments for this pipeline—never strong—have disappeared on closer examination. It is not a potent job-creating tool, nor a route to American energy independence; tar sands expansion is not inevitable; and the sheer number of leaks and spills means a tar sands pipeline would pose a clear danger to public health. It is, instead, a classic boondoggle, whose only beneficiaries will be a handful of rich oil companies while our families take on all the risk.
Many of the choices that define a presidency come by accident or chance — some storm or crisis that demands a quick response. But this one is firmly in your control. Climate change will be a defining issue of this century. Rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline will powerfully demonstrate your commitment to stopping the rising of the oceans, set the stage for further climate action and build a legacy worth sharing.
Source: www.sierraclub.org