Keystone XL

Obama Will Veto Bill Approving the Keystone Oil Pipeline

|

conflict oil
Transcanada

The Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House are eager to pass legislation that would authorize the construction of the much-delayed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport more than 800,000 barrels of Canadian oilsands crude per day to Gulf Coast refineries. The Keystone XL Pipeline Act was the first bill introduced in the new session of the Senate and is co-sponsored by 54 Republicans and 6 Democrats.

The Associated Press reports:

"If this bill passes this Congress, the president wouldn't sign" it, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday, saying legislation shouldn't undermine the review process underway at the State Department or circumvent a pending lawsuit in Nebraska over its route.

It's "premature to evaluate the project before something as basic as the route of the pipeline has been determined," he said.

The State Department has twice already issued impact statements approving the construction of the pipeline. Eleven months ago, I predicted that the president would "deviously dither" over the pipeline until after the mid-term elections. As predicted, the State Department was ordered to undertake an additional review in a transparent effort to try keep the environmentalist and labor lobbies from defecting during the mid-term elections.

Since the production of crude from oilsands is costly, the recent steep fall in petroleum prices has to some degree undermined the rationale for the pipeline. In any case, the scientific, safety, and economic review of the pipeline will likely continue to be "premature" until the State Department bureaucrats come to the politically correct conclusion.

Disclosure: Back in 2011, I went on a junket to report on the development of Alberta oil sands. My travel expenses were covered by the American Petroleum Institute. The API did not ask for nor did it have any editorial control over my reporting of this trip or, for that matter, any other reporting that I do. For more background, see my articles, "The Man-Made Miracle of Oil from Sand," and "Conflict Oil or Canadian Oil?"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

96 responses to “Obama Will Veto Bill Approving the Keystone Oil Pipeline

  1. If the Dems have any sense, they will do all they can to override his veto. This will be an albatross on any Dem nominee for 2016, especially it it’s Hillary. If she has any sense she’ll speak out against the veto, resign from the administration (is she still in it?), make a ‘heartfelt’ apology for not doing so earlier.

    1. I wouldn’t be shocked if they did override it. It would only take 11 Dems in the Senate and 38 or so in the House to override it. Keystone is supported by a large majority of the country. Voting to override the veto is an easy way to throw the albatross that is Obama off of their backs a bit. I bet they don’t do it, but that is what they should do.

      1. Their mus be sane Congressional Dems left. I don’t mean like the kind that favor good policy, I mean the kind that are experts at political self-preservation.

        1. You would think so, but I am starting to wonder. You would think they would get tired of losing elections and being the minority to protect his sorry ass.

  2. just tie the appropriations for Air Force One to it and that motherfucker won’t be able to sign it into to law quick enough.

    1. Yeah, forget about passing it separately and open to (awful) amendments. Just pass KXL as an amendment.

  3. But Palin assured us Obama is pro oil and gas because production is up!

    Alas, just like the mirage of corporate profits (which isn’t growth driven but based on basic, old fashioned cost cutting), I reckon the back story on increased production in oil and gas is the same.

    1. Fuck you Canucks up your dirty tar shit pipeline. We don’t need your tar shit taking our refinery capacity and land rights at the behest of our government. This is what “sovereign” means – fuck you.

      Pollute someone else. Or build your own refinery for once.

      1. Looks like someone forgot their meds today and is having a few anger issues. Keep this up and your family might win one of your involuntary confinement hearings. They only want to help you shreek.

      2. We don’t need your tar shit taking our refinery capacity

        Actually, you do. The Gulf refineries are built for heavy oil. And fuck you for thinking you or anyone has the right to decide what America ‘needs’. You’re getting our oil by pipeline or train, like or not.

      3. Free trade: not a pure libertarian position.

      4. Ha, ha.

      5. Aw, the Yank’s having a little temper tantrum over one of the United States’ longest, most loyal allies providing oil instead of Islamic kleptocracies. How very ‘rationalist’ of you.

        1. Good point.

          It’s fricken Canada for fuck sakes.

        2. He’s not a rationalist. He’s a progressive liberal. He just trolls the Reason message board because they don’t ban trolls.

      6. Pollute someone else.

        Physician, heal thyself.

  4. So,since oil prices have dropped now,there’s no need to build it and plan for the future? Got it.

    1. “Fracking will not lower fuel prices”—- Average Lefty Dumbass circa 2005

      1. Natural gas is green and wonderful—Average Lefty Dumb ass circa 1999 before fracking made gas abundant.

      2. SOME say that it hasn’t and oil is only lower because of a strong dollar. I don’t necessarily agree with this but I want evidence.

        1. That is bullshit. The US is either close to or actually is a net exporter of oil now. It was just a few years ago one of the biggest importers of oil.

          Some of it is the dollar. Some of it is the Saudis producing more. But a lot of it is the US no longer importing much if any oil.

        2. On the surface it seems grossly illogical that a strong dollar has cheapened oil since the dollar is not stronger than it was in years past when fuel prices were much higher.

        3. don’t discount fracking in oil’s declining price, but it appears most, if not all of the price decline can be explained by lower demand combined with higher supply (Where are oil prices headed in the long run? | Frobes).

    2. Back in November, NPR reported:

      It concluded that the pipeline would have “little impact” on the price consumers pay for gasoline in the U.S. It also concluded that blocking the pipeline would reduce income for tar sands developers, “but not enough to curtail most oil sands growth plans or to shut-in existing production.” Reviewers cautioned that blocking the pipeline could have a bigger effect on tar sands development if oil prices drop into the $65- to $75-per-barrel range. Oil prices have fallen recently to around $75 per barrel.

      So it would seem that with lower oil prices, Keystone XL might be more important.

  5. You know, if they’d marketed it as “high speed rail for oil” it would have been approved a long time ago.

    1. Ha! Well maybe if we could convince Obama that the Keystone Pipeline will be a costly boondoggle for tax payers he’d approve it in half a second.

      1. HIGH SPEED LIQUID ASSET RAIL STIMULUS

  6. Does this mean that the China-men are going to get all of Canuckistan’s oil?

    1. Yes. The people who say the pipeline shouldn’t happen because oil is bad are idiots. That oil is going somewhere. And pipelines are by far the safest way to move it.

  7. So here’s a silly question. Why is whether the pipeline is built or not up to the federal government at all? Shouldn’t the private companies who want to build it acquire the rights to the land they need and just build it?

    1. Because it crosses the border with Canada giving the Feds the final say. You could build it, but you couldn’t cross the border without the Feds saying yes.

      1. I guess there is that.

        Now that we’ve nearly caught up with Canada on the socialism front, can’t we at least have open borders with them?

        1. AHEM. We have lower corporate income tax AND our federal government spending is lower as a %GDP.

          1. Still have single payer and the NDP are the Opposition (for now, until someone else convinces Quebec to dump them).

  8. Its got nothing to do with it being a “politically correct” decision, and everything to do with the fact its time we do something about a problem that even you, Ronald, believe exists. Either we begin to double down on limiting damaging carbon and investing in renewables, or we just continue to double down on burning fossil fuels. Period. That is the decision that Keystone now represents.

    The approval of Keystone would simply mean that not only is it still OK to burn all the easily attainable carbon in the world, but further OK to burn the hard to get and most damaging carbon. If you believe that man-made CO2 is a problem, its well past time we start to keep some of that carbon in the ground, particularly tar sands carbon.

    The negation of the pipeline will deter further investment into the tar sands, and would be a first step toward limiting its harmful effects. The Canadians themselves have their own protests underway about a pipeline they want to build. The pipeline is needed to cheaply get that oil to market…road is too expensive. And with falling prices its is even more imperative for the oil industry to get that pipeline or investment could dry up.

    Its economics and science…has nothing to do with a politically correct decision.

    1. Oh yeah, this just in…2014, according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency, is the warmest year on record. Probably will be confirmed by NOAA in a week or two.

      Glad the Keystone veto is coming.

      1. 2014 is not the warmest year ever. Also, the trend is still flat.

        1. JMA says it was.

          And the trend is not flat. Its up, just like it has been for the past 100 years. You all put way too much importance on the spike that occurred in 1998. That spike was caused by the “El Nino of the Century.” And 2014 never had an El Nino develop (it could in 2015), and it STILL had a higher temperature than 1998.

          http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t…..n_wld.html

          Read the graph.

          1. JMA is wrong it is only the hottest according to one controversial database. Another database says otherwise, and all of 2014 has not yet been included btw.

            Nice graph dipshit. You stuck a line through a bunch of data very good. I am not putting too much ’emphasis’ on 1998; the statistics are clear: no net warming since at least 2000. End of story, period. Further, the heat that was ‘hidden’ in the ocean depths is not there. In any other decent science this is the part where you revise your hypothesis instead of just asking for more funding.

            1. Guess you can’t read a graph after all.

              1. I comprehended it. I know what that trend line says and doesn’t say. I know you don’t.

                1. What throws you off? Reading a graph from the start? A line with a slope? Evening out the spikes…up or down? Or is it just statistics in general?

                  1. Extrapolating a straight line over an entire data set and then declaring ‘no pause’. That’s not how works dumbass. Whatever the data did prior to 2000, it doesn’t change that there has been no increase since. None.

                    1. And increased temperature in 2014 from the previous high in 1998 means exactly what to you?

                      Let me help you…no pause.

                    2. Nothing. There is no trend. YOU DON’T WHAT THE FUCK YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.

          2. it has been for the past 100 years

            CO2 levels did not rise enough to warm anything until 50 years ago.

            So 50 years by your standard is natural warming. What caused that again?

            Also there has been no warming for the past 18 years. What caused that?

            If you do not know what caused the warming 100 to 50 years ago and do not know what caused the recent 18 year pause then how do you know the roughly 30 years of warming was caused by man made green house gases?

            1. CO2 started to increase over 100 years ago, and temperatures did as well. And the only answer that makes any sense is man-made carbon emissions. Period.

              There have been even longer periods of temperature stability during the past 100 years. From the early 40’s to the 60’s there was no marked increase. But then temperatures went right back up again.

              Temperatures never rise in a straight line.

              1. Temperatures never rise in a straight line.

                According to man made global warming theory it does. Perhaps you should go read up on the science of it before you start advocating that everyone one on the planet (especially the poor) lower their standard of living.

                1. No it doesn’t. Perhaps you should just look at any historical temperature graph over the last 100 years. Its never gone up in a straight line, and there isn’t one climate scientist who ever said it will.

                2. Tell you what, Corning…be a man of your convictions. Find that statement from one climate scientist, the IPCC, or anyone…that temperatures will rise in a straight line. Go ahead…prove your point. We’re waiting.

              2. CO2 started to increase over 100 years ago, and temperatures did as well.

                This is wrong. Again go back and read up on the science of the theory.

                CO2 did slightly rise but not enough according to any estimate of global warming theory to cause any measurable warming And definitely not by the amounts of warming that were observed between 100 to 50 years go. It was natural warming. To say different you might as well claim magic and a horned god determines the weather.

                1. http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/t…..n_wld.html

                  Take a look at the graph on that page. The significant rise in temperatures started to occur in the 40’s, well into the industrial revolution.

                  Keep trying. At least read the historical data.

              3. CO2 started to increase over 100 years ago, and temperatures did as well. And the only answer that makes any sense is man-made carbon emissions.

                Here we see an example of pseudo-science by dictat.

                Funny this, I don’t dispute that at least some of the warming is due to human CO2 (though it’s possible CFCs actually did it). Thing is, CO2 doesn’t have a hope in hell of producing dangerous warming without a feedback loop from water vapor. There is nothing close to proof this is happening or will happen.

                You see how your tiny mind pigeonholes your opponents into one argument? Note how that directly lead to you getting blindsided & CytoPWND.

                1. Actually, its science by scientists. You just don’t like what science is saying. For you, proof is only when it happens. There can’t be a warning about what will happen. Science is warning you about feedback loops and their potential. When one happens, you will be convinced.

                  Too late.

          3. So … 0.7C/century, means we’ll get that predicted starting-sea-level-rise 2C increase … in the year 2300?

            Did you even bother to look at the scale? We might even have our flying cars and robot butlers by then.

    2. This is a load of crap. That oil is moving one way or another.

      Until people stop being retarded about nuclear, they are going to burn shit for energy.

      1. That oil is moving right now. That’s not the point. The point is, if you believe climate change is a problem, to keep as much of that tar sands oil in the ground as possible. That pipeline would only increase the level brought up and burnt.

        That pipeline is needed by the oil industry if they want to make all the money they can off of the tar sands.

        1. God you are a fucking moron. Basically you are arguing to make people as poor as possibly. Thankfully, you and your ilk are going the way of the Buffalo. Enjoy the death throws of your dying evil ideology.

          1. Thanks, but what I am enjoying is the President’s promise to veto Keystone.

            1. The GOP is too. They are going to hobble the Dems with it.

        2. How do you feel about nuclear?

          Do you care enough about climate change to get over your irrational fear of radiation?

          1. Fear of radiation is irrational? I don’t think so. Here is what is irrational…fear of solar and wind energy. Or fear of science. Hate to tell you this, but if this thread is any example at all, its Libertarians who are irrational.

    3. The Canadians themselves have their own protests underway about a pipeline they want to build.

      You mean the 150-200 people that protested the Kinder Morgan pipeline? Nice mass movement there.

      We have more pipelines for export coming. Get used to them. Get used to the oil sands. They aren’t going anywhere, and we are going to exploit them as hard as we can.

      1. Canadian opinion on Keystone is nearly split down the middle, and support is waning.

        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-says.html

        1. Only a year out of date.

          Next you’ll tell us that 90% of Americans support background checks, making them inevitable.

          1. A trend is a trend, and its still down for favorability of Keystone in Canada.

            1. You don’t know what a trend is, and your data is out of date.

      2. By the way, I might add that the protests in Canada have largely been from Native Canadians, who are using legal remedies to assert their rights to the land a Canadian pipeline would run through.

        And so far they have been largely successful in not only the courts, but also in public opinion.

        1. LOL. Once the money starts flowing to those native Canadians for pipeline support, they will become the pipeline’s best foot soldiers. Ecotards are ever over-confident.

          1. See your comment down below about winning on Bundy ranch…the President vetoing Keystone means we won on that as well.

            You just can’t keep your points straight, cyto.

            1. the President vetoing Keystone means we won on that as well.

              Um. “Winning” is a very final term for a battle that is still ongoing. Keystone will be built. Hubris looks good on assholes like you.

              1. Its not being built so far, is it? Tell you what, let the right wing Wall Street Journal tell you all you need to know about Keystone prospects.

                http://www.wsj.com/articles/ob…..1419381903

                1. It’s still getting built. It still makes sense to ship oil on down to refineries built to process it.

            2. President vetoing Keystone means we won on that as well.

              Among other things you did reconsider is this, as winning would mean no need to veto.

              And in case you may have forgotten, there’s an election soon. How confident are you the next individual with veto power will still be wielding it in your behalf?

              And if they don’t? What new stupid desire will you then have to support to keep that, self-entitled/better than others, smug attitude you use to deceive yourself and judge others as “lessor”?

              And as for this:

              You just can’t keep your points straight, cyto.

              Check your premises – as you are the one throwing random, nonfactual “evidence”, which others have factually questioned – of which you ignored and made more nonfactual… which were refuted… repeat.

              Point being – people are trying to enlighten you. I doubt it will matter as you’ve ignored all of it successfully already. Combine this with your level of emotional investment you have in the answer and its nigh impossible.

              But if you’re strong enough, you might learn something… Assuming you pay attention and fully investigate the information being provided.

              Good luck

              1. That is right…elections matter. And there will be another one in 2016. And how confident are you the GOP will win that one? Maybe just as confident as you were that Obama would lose…not once, but twice.

                I’m all for climate being an issue raised in that election, and I’m all for Keystone getting vetoed before then. The last party to run on “drill here, drill now” (remember that one?) lost.

                And they will do so again.

                No one has refuted anything I said. But I’ll let you try, genius. Have temperatures been rising for the past 100 years? Did we just set a record for another high?

                Go ahead…show us all how much you listen, read, analyze data, and listen to science. We’re waiting.

                1. You really don’t know much about science, do you? I see that you assume that “science” is exact and that once a conclusion is obtained, then all questions are settled. But that is very far from the truth, and history verifies it. I think you read too many popular science outlets and that you lack the mathematical and scientific training to properly evaluate published results.

                  1. Haha. Good one. That’s the Libertarian argument in a nutshell. All of these scientists warning us, every single major science organization the country (there isn’t one who disagrees) saying climate change is a problem that steps need to be taken to solve it, well then, to a Libertarian they just don’t understand science. A Libertarian does.

                    Says it all my friend.

      3. By the way, funny how a small number of protestors was the cat’s meow for you on Bundy ranch.

        1. They won.

          1. Thanks for finally seeing the value of a “small” number of protestors…well done.

            1. They were armed, smart, and had a cause worth fighting for. The assholes protesting at Kinder Morgan are cowardly losers who, if confronted with a police presence like that at Bundy, would piss themselves KM got the core samples they needed. Further, the Bundy protesters had widespread passionate support. The pipeline protesters really don’t. They are a narrow angry part of society. The next recession will turn Canada against them.

              1. Ah, so your comment at first about “small” being the operative word just isn’t true, eh? Its winning support, and fighting for a worthwhile cause.

                Your getting there.

                1. The Bundy movement wasn’t small. The numbers at the ranch were small, but they were supported all over the country. Stop trying to make one like the other.

    4. I just knew there was doubling down involved.

  9. Re: Jackass,

    Either we begin to double down on limiting damaging carbon and investing in renewables, or we just continue to double down on burning fossil fuels.

    You can invest in renewables. I’ll double-down burning fossil fuels. See you in 20 years.

    The approval of Keystone would simply mean that not only is it still OK to burn all the easily attainable carbon in the world, but further OK to burn the hard to get and most damaging carbon.

    The fact that the price of oil has dropped considerably should be enough evidence that most people believe it IS OK to burn fossil fuels and will continue to do so even if you decide to hold your breath until you turn blue in the face.

    1. Not holding my breath…doing all that I can to keep Keystone from being built. So far….so good.

      See you in 20 years…it still won’t be built.

      1. The biggest thing you could do to prevent keystone from being build would be to agitate in favor of a massive build up of nuclear power capacity.

        So-called “renewables” are a long way from meeting our energy needs (if ever) and as long as they don’t humans are going to burn fossil fuels, or nuclear. Pick one.

        The left’s fantasy of converting modern society into a post-industrial low-energy utopia is ludicrous and will never happen. People aren’t going to give up refrigerators and air conditioning.

        1. The left’s fantasy of converting modern society into a post-industrial low-energy utopia is ludicrous and will never happen. People aren’t going to give up refrigerators and air conditioning.

          This is exactly it. The left has made some headway lately, but they won’t succeed in taking away the benefits that Americans have become accustomed to. Not, at least, as long as Americans are armed.

        2. Renewables have had an astonishing amount of growth in the past decade. Solar, wind, etc. No one ever said it will happen overnight, but we are seeing what can be done if an effort is put there.

          Germany is a good example, where nuclear is declining and renewables have had a large amount of growth. Nuclear declined by 74 terra-watt hours since 2001. And renewables have increased by 116 terra-watt hours in that time. Germany is well on pace to have 35% of all its electricity from renewables by 2020.

          http://cleantechnica.com/2014/…..r-decline/

  10. Whatever happened to PEAK OIL!

    1. Wrong topic.

      1. No–right topic. Peak Oil is a Malthusian perspective that died in the same way that Malthus’ original theory did–technology changed everything and he (and you) could not imagine it).

        But why is it applicable?

        Because people with your worldview distrust technology and entrepreneurship–which is why you are so much against the middle class (bourgeoisie) and technological advancement.

        1. I should have said that people with your worldview hate the bourgeoisie and are forever looking to cripple and eliminate them. But–to your horror–it is just these people who create the fantastic society that you enjoy hate and want so desperately to reduce to subsistence.

        2. People with my worldview values what the world’s scientists are telling us, that the earth is warming, the cause is man-made carbon emissions, and that its time to something about it.

          People with your worldview think its political. Its science.

  11. And anybody got an update on the Spotted Owl?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.