House passes Keystone XL construction bill


#1

The House easily passed a measure Friday authorizing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, sending it on to the Senate where the issue is expected to come up for a vote on Tuesday.

Lawmakers voted 252 to 161 to approve the project. Thirty-one Democrats, including a handful who lost reelection last week, joined with all but one Republican who voted for the bill. Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), a renegade Republican who frequently bucks his party and top leaders, voted present.

For six years, the pipeline has been under review by the State Department, which has jurisdiction because the project crosses international borders. Democrats from energy-producing states have joined Republicans in calling for its approval. But the White House has said that President Obama will not formally weigh in until the end of an ongoing State Department review and hinted on Friday that he would veto legislation approving the project if it passes. washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/14/house-passes-keystone-xl-construction-bill/?wpisrc=al_comboPN_p

I sure hope President Obama veto’s this if it makes it through the senate.

Jim


#2

His legacy will be as the President of no. No work ethic, no working with the opposition, no achievements. It will be quite in line with his record.


#3

This one confuses me. Isn’t this just a way to get oil in North America out of North America? It seems like we’d want to keep that oil in North America.


#4

It’s solely for the benefit of the oil company all at the expense of people who will lose their homes, and businesses in it’s path, and the heck with the risk to the largest aquifer in North American should a rupture in the pipe line happen in that area.

Jim


#5

forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/09/27/heartland-weights-in-on-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate/

Yet, it’s worth noting that crude oil and liquids pipelines already safely coexist with the aquifer, with almost 21,000 miles of pipeline crossing Nebraska. Jim Goeke, a hydrologist at the University of Nebraska who has spent more than 40 years studying the Ogallala structure, makes the point:

I’d be comfortable if the pipeline was defeated on the basis of good, sound science and not emotion … A lot of people love and treasure the aquifer, and they’re concerned the entire aquifer is at risk. And that just isn’t factual.


#6

Seeing as how we are addicted to oil we will try to get it at all costs.


#7

The purpose of the Pipeline is to get Oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast-Refineries set up to refine the heavy crude that is extracted from oil sands.


#8

As we are addicted to water and food.


#9

Right. So just continue to get your oil from brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia and coddle them despite their brutality, while you have a friend up north with oil extracted with the highest labour and ethical standards. In the meantime, you have countrymen seeking decent jobs who are left hanging because your spineless President refuses to take action.

We should never have sent our soldiers to fight and die in your war.

But don’t worry. Comrade Obama will indeed veto the bill and your Senate does not have enough votes to override it. We’ll just wait for the next sensible Administration to do it.


#10

No.

It’s a way to keep the oil in North American (mostly from Canada) in N. America instead of being exported to other countries. The US will be able to import from Canada more easily.

It will lessen our dependance on foreign oil.

The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue doesn’t want that to happen.


#11

Your comment reminds of an exchange I had with one of my liberal friends. After the president of Chick-Fil-A was reported to have donated to a group supporting traditional marriage, my friend told me that he was canceling a local Chick-Fil-A’s sponsorship of his son’s youth soccer team in protest, as well as boycott the restaurant. I asked him, “So are you also going to boycott all products produced with Saudi Arabian Oil, since Saudi Arabia also believes in imprisoning, torturing, and executing gay people…or does your indignation stop at chicken?”


#12

One cannot look past the fact that Warren Buffet has interest in a railroad that is currently transporting the same stuff the Keystone Pipeline will transport in a safer way (due to advancements in flow control & leak detection technology). Hmmm…who is a big supporter of Obama?


#13

And then put on the world market and the highest bidder, which won’t be the USA corporations, will get it.

Jim


#14

Not sure if your response is a criticism of my Saudi Arabia reference or in agreement with it, but what I’m referring to is American two-facedness when it comes to turning a blind eye to brutal regimes. Saudi Arabia’s regime is as evil as they come, but, oh no, we can’t anger them because they have lots of oil, which we need.

In the meantime, there is ethically sourced oil, extracted by labourers protected by unions and strict safety laws, and who are very fairly paid, all from a country who is pretty much your best friend in the whole world and is pretty much your only hope for the energy independence you crave so much. And yet, you’d (and I mean the U.S.) would rather coddle Saudi Arabia than buy from us, and spout lame excuses like “it might spring a leak”. Really, are American safety standards so low that you can’t ensure that it won’t?

I mentioned our soldiers because they symbolize what we are to the United States. We lost over a hundred of our soldiers fighting YOUR war. We share your values on human rights and civilized behaviour, but your two-facedness just shows how hypocritical you (I mean the U.S.) are.


#15

More profit by keeping it here. Saves transportation costs.Because of Fracking we are close to being energy independent. This pipeline will help us achieve that goal


#16

Where are you getting your facts? The oil is for you.


#17

Are there any good references that cover this without bias (BAHAHAHAHAHAHA)?

No, really.


#18

Of course. The White House. And Greenpeace.


#19

First off, the oil from Canada which will go through the proposed pipeline will not stay in the USA.

Second, Transcanada estimates that construction will initially create 20,000 jobs but that will be greatly reduced over time to under 4000.

But then you have to count the job loses due to the pipeline going taking away businesses and farmland in it’s path.

The job creation isn’t all that great when added up and compared to the environmental risks.

Also, you might want to think about what happens.

Right now we export more natural gas than use. The result is that electric power companies here in the USA are raising rates as high as 29% and they say it’s because of the cost of natural gas, which they buy to produce electricity. They want to put a natural gas pipeline through my town in order to get the natural gas to ships on the coast, which will go to places like China.

The people who lose their homes and livelihood for the profits of the gas and oil companies don’t matter much to those not impacted and are under the delusion that oil and gas stays here in the USA and cost us less as a result.

Jim


#20

Sometimes my analogies are a bit strained…but I was agreeing with your comment about Saudi Arabia being a brutal regime, and I agree with the point you are making.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.