Senate passes Keystone XL pipeline bill (and a veto awaits)

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by LizKat, Jan 29, 2015.

  1. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #1
    Let the for-partisan-consumption legislation begin... anew...

    Keystone XL bill passes Senate, setting up Republican showdown with Obama

    And so on to the threatened veto. First a brief pause to align the House and Senate versions, but then it’s on to the veto, and then on to trying to round up 67 votes to override the thing in the Senate, which is highly unlikely.

    But hey, this is the new GOP legislative branch in action. Getting things done! (sort of)
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    It is unlikely that KXL would be built even if the bill passed. The U.S. and Canada are fracking like gangbusters, resulting in oil & gas so damn cheap there isn’t an economic incentive for a new, expensive pipeline.
     
  3. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #3
    That would be ironic. In a few months, the bills gets passed and they decide to not build it anyway.
     
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #4
    It would be, but despite the fact that most corporations don't look too much past the next earnings statement the oil companies know that the price is likely to rise again so it is worth it. Plus no matter the price of oil as long as the tar sands are profitable that oil has to get to a coast for export somehow. And as much as I don't like the idea of the Keystone pipeline it's still a better option than moving that oil on trains, or the Northern Gateway pipeline.
     
  5. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #5
    I couldn't agree more. The oil is going to be drilled for and moved to the refineries anyway. Are pipelines more dangerous then rails and trucks?
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    I dunno. A truck that spills oil carries only a finite amount. How much can a pipeline spill before it's detected and can be shut down?

    Edit: I checked and here's one example.

    Yeah, I'd say that's a little more than a truck can carry.
     
  7. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #7
    True but are trucks more likely to get into an accident?
    I really don't know but I guess that needs to be considered. Maybe new pipelines are safer and breaks can be detected quicker and shut down quicker, too.
     
  8. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    "Fracking" is such a dirty sounding word. It just sounds like a bad thing.
     
  9. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #9
    Trains can carry more than that like the one in Quebec that derailed and spilled 1.3 million gallons of oil.
     
  10. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #10
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster

    http://explosive-crude-by-rail.org

    http://stories.weather.com/boom
     
  11. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #11
    Scotland just declared a moratorium on fracking. Guardian piece here They want time to try to determine how bad a thing it could be for environment and public health.

    It's not UK wide, Westminster wouldn't go that far. Still, it's a significant spoke in wheels for the would-be frackers.
     
  12. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #12
    I love how the right-wing zealot politicos have taken to referring to it as a "jobs bill". An estimated 2000 temporary jobs would result from it. And the pipeline, if it does get built, would take CANADIAN oil to refineries in Louisiana where it would be refined and then EXPORTED.

    How about a "jobs bill" to fix the crumbling infrastructure?
     
  13. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #13
    Not only that, but it is absolutely asinine that our government is naive to the treaties it has signed.

    I say that, because those who voted for this have completely forgotten whose land this atrocity of a pipeline; in this case it would be the Lakota Sioux, whose land is governed by the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868. That sets up the reservation, and the tribes' sovereignty over that land.

    If this pipeline gets built across that reservation, and without those tribe's permission, the US Government is in violation of that treaty, which they should be rightfully sued for, with the case going directly to SCOTUS.

    While I hope this pipeline never gets built, I kinda hope it does, so that those who voted for this get the Article 6 of the Constitution slapped upside their ignorant heads.

    It has already been noted that for most of the states involved, this pipeline would create zero jobs.

    BL.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    When fracked oil costs at lest $60 a barrel to produce, when OPEC is dropping prices to undermine the fracking boom, fracking is a flash in the pan unless we are going to lose money on it intentionally.
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    Two words about fracking and KXL pipeline: Saudi Arabia. End of story.
     
  16. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #16
    They seem to have exceeded what Harry Reid did last year and this is only January.
     
  17. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    And by contrast, Which is equally as interesting, out of the past 6 years, Obama has only issued 2 vetoes, the fewest of any POTUS going all the way back to James Garfield, who wasn't in office for a year before getting assassinated.

    However, it is also interesting to note that these stats don't include the 138 filibusters the Republicans performed in the Senate as well.

    BL.
     
  18. LizKat thread starter macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #18
    Those are a couple complex words for the US, not just on oil but on durable goods of assorted kinds.

    It's true enough that Saudi Arabia is gonna need some dough from whatever they can continue to pry out of the sand. King Salman just dished out around $30 billion in goodies to cement happiness into the citizenry regarding his acension to the throne and his announced picks for assorted ministry shakeups. Thirty billion should go aways to soothe any ruffled feelings in the clan. Meanwhile no wonder they're not reducing volume on oil they're seling even at rock bottom prices.

    So one imagines the new King whispering to someone in DC, "... and so if you don't mind we might just postpone taking delivery on some of the planes and other gear we signed up to buy from you guys... just for awhile during this little budget crunch."
     
  19. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #19
    That's pretty speculative, and it's likely that it would have been mentioned somewhere if their plans enabled such a thing.

    They're extremely dishonest. Jobs are just a side effect of these things. They shouldn't be the determining factor in what makes something a good or bad idea.
     
  20. ThisIsNotMe macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    #20
    Why is Obama/The Democrats being the party of 'no'?
     
  21. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #21
    Why are the Republicans willing to ignore treaties this country signed? Per Article 6, they are the supreme law of the land.

    BL.
     
  22. senseless macrumors 68000

    senseless

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #22
    Oil spill cleanup is very labor intensive.
     
  23. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #23
    2,000 temporary jobs to build the pipeline and then thousands of full-time jobs to clean up the subsequent oil spills. I guess the Republicans are right on this one...this is a "jobs bill"...:rolleyes:
     
  24. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #24
    It’s disingenuous to claim KXL “will only provide X number of temporary jobs.” Construction jobs are by definition temporary and should be obvious that construction workers move from job to job their entire careers.

    That said, there is no economic rationale for KXL. We are awash in cheap oil & gas thanks for fracking and that isn’t likely to change any time soon.
     

Share This Page