HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Keystone XL pipeline deci...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:38 PM

Keystone XL pipeline decision coming soon, Kerry says

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/07/p

TransCanada CEO discussed federal review process with U.S. State Department on Thursday

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline, trade, energy security, the environment, Iran, Syria and Mali, even hockey — were among the topics discussed when Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird met with newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry Friday afternoon in Washington, D.C.

With the fate of the controversial $7-billion proposed pipeline in his hands, Kerry said the federal review by the U.S. State Department would be "fair, transparent, and accountable."

While Kerry refused to get into the merits of the proposed TransCanada pipeline which, would run almost 2,000 miles from Alberta to Texas, he said a decision would be made in the "near term."



Read more: CBC News



34 replies, 3279 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Keystone XL pipeline decision coming soon, Kerry says (Original post)
CHIMO Feb 2013 OP
Trascoli Feb 2013 #1
snappyturtle Feb 2013 #3
CHIMO Feb 2013 #6
snappyturtle Feb 2013 #8
CHIMO Feb 2013 #10
snappyturtle Feb 2013 #13
CHIMO Feb 2013 #14
snappyturtle Feb 2013 #15
RC Feb 2013 #12
Berlum Feb 2013 #17
Berlum Feb 2013 #18
NickB79 Feb 2013 #27
blm Feb 2013 #2
joshcryer Feb 2013 #16
zeemike Feb 2013 #4
blm Feb 2013 #7
zeemike Feb 2013 #9
blm Feb 2013 #20
zeemike Feb 2013 #22
MBS Feb 2013 #24
MBS Feb 2013 #23
blm Feb 2013 #25
FreeBC Feb 2013 #5
jerseyjack Feb 2013 #11
Berlum Feb 2013 #19
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #21
JI7 Feb 2013 #26
MBS Feb 2013 #30
blm Feb 2013 #31
NickB79 Feb 2013 #28
MBS Feb 2013 #29
blm Feb 2013 #32
JI7 Feb 2013 #33
blm Feb 2013 #34

Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:49 PM

1. China would gobble up this offer right away

 

I'm not sure why we don't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trascoli (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:53 PM

3. There's been a battle in Texas about this pipeline. I can't see ANY reason

how it's to our advantage. Western Canadians turned it down....wonder why??????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:03 PM

6. The Surplus

Of oil keeps the price down. Once it gets to the Gulf it can be exported to the world. Right now Alberta oil is $50 cheaper than Brent and $30 cheaper than WTI.

Western Canadians haven't turned anything down. They haven't been given the opportunity to own it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:10 PM

8. This doesn't make sense. I don't think I'm nuts...yet. I know I've read

that the western Canadians did in fact refuse the pipeline. i will go look for a link to back this up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:18 PM

10. Alberta

Is in western Canada. BC is further west. The BC government wants more money to allow the pipeline to reach the west coast.

So you are correct. Some western Canadians have objected to the pipeline. Not to mention the original owners of the land.

But the pipeline to the gulf would allow the surplus oil in the US midwest to disappear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:41 PM

13. How would the 'surplus' (didn't know there is one) oil in Midwest disappear?

Sorry but I'm totally confused....you caught me with a much needed cocktail and maybe I'm a bit foggy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:43 PM

14. Would

Disappear into the Gulf of Mexico.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 10:43 PM

15. Thank you for your explanation. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:36 PM

12. I was told it was cheaper to run the pipeline down to Texas than to

 

poke holes through the Canadian mountains to the Pacific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trascoli (Reply #1)


Response to Trascoli (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:38 AM

18. There's this thing called climate change, see...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trascoli (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:07 AM

27. Because it will destroy the planet's ecosystems for millenia

James Hansen, head of NASA, had this to say: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/05/236978/james-hansen-keystone-pipeline-tar-sands-climate/

Basically, global warming will become unstoppable in our lifetimes, and we'll see global temperatures rise 3-4C by the end of the century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:51 PM

2. Sorry, but, pretty sure that deal and decision was made at State long ago, JK, and you're stuck

signing the deal so there would be no pictures or headlines of Hillary signing it.

Anyone with a memory and an interest in the issue knows both Clintons have been for that Keystone deal since before Hillary became Sec of State and she was ready to sign the deal 4 years ago.

Just like Clintons to look out for their own asses politically by leaving an already done deal in place needing someone else's signature.

Sorry, JK, but some of us know how it all works. You play like the decision was yours and we're supposed to pretend that Hillary was 'studying' the issue for 4 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:32 AM

16. Obama on Keystone, "make this project a priority... go ahead and get it done."

Keystone XL pipeline: President Obama vows to cut through red tape
On his energy tour across America, President Barack Obama can’t seem to win for losing.

During a stop Thursday in Oklahoma, Obama announced the administration would “cut through the red tape” for the southern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline — disappointing environmentalists who had counted it a victory when the president denied a permit for the project’s full, Canada-to-Texas version.

At the same time, Obama incited the ire of some political opponents who called his late embrace of TransCanada’s oil pipeline disingenuous.

Obama issued an executive order creating a steering committee that is supposed to devise improvements in permitting decisions but not to get involved in any particular project. He also signed a memo that directs federal agencies to “coordinate and expedite their reviews, consultations and other processes” to speed up decisions on domestic oil pipeline projects — such as Keystone XL’s southern, Oklahoma-to-Texas segment.


John Kerry had to have known that when he accepted the Secretrary of State Job that he'd be approving the pipeline as per Obama's wishes. The SoS does not act unilaterally. If he canceled Keystone he'd be handing in his resignation soon thereafter, and I highly doubt he'd do that.

There was no need for a "deal" with Clinton with the knowledge that if we didn't build the pipeline China would. It's really simple politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 07:54 PM

4. Two to one odds says he approves it.

Too much money involved...and when money speaks they all listen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:05 PM

7. Two to one says the deal was made, and Kerry went into office knowing he'd have no say in it.

But, someone needed to take the political backlash from Dems, as usual.
It's a dog and pony show and has been. Clinton was ready to sign the deal 4 years ago.

Any claim that the 'decision' hasn't been made is pure political CYA - it was always a State Dept. decision and there is no way Hillary spent the last 4 years studying the review process and could not reach a decision. She and Bill were always for it and they'll remind Obama how much the WH is perceived to owe them.

>>>
But the rumor is that Clinton’s State Department is nonetheless about to recommend approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the top climate scientists in the nation have unanimously called a terrible idea. As far as I know, though, Clinton’s subordinates haven’t reached out to ask them why. For more than a year now, it’s been one of Washington’s worst-kept secrets that Clinton wants the pipeline approved. And why not? Its builder, TransCanada, hired her old deputy campaign manager as its chief lobbyist and gave lobbying contracts to several of her big bundlers. Leaked emails show embassy officials rooting on the project; it’s classic D.C. insiderism. (And, weirdly, her rumored successor is just as involved—Susan Rice has millions in stock in TransCanada and other Canadian energy companies.)

And in one sense it doesn’t make much difference. Everyone in the capital’s also known that the Keystone decision, in the end, will come down to President Obama, who will weigh State’s findings and then rule whether the pipeline is in the national interest. When that happens, we’ll find out if he’s a more modern politician than Hillary, or if he’s still fighting yesterday’s wars too.
>>>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/09/hilary-clinton-and-obama-s-dismal-record-on-the-environment.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/09/hillary-clinton-keystone_n_2268536.html

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/bill-clinton-we-should-embrace-keystone-pipeline-video/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:17 PM

9. I would not take that bet.

And I am sure you are right...that is how things work.
The investor class is heavily invested in tar sand oil...it was sold to them years ago as a big investment that would make them big bucks...and they WILL get that oil out and sell it...no matter what the cost to the future of the planet...(most of them are old enough they will not live to pay the price they think)

And besides, JK is already disposed of when he quickly conceded to Bush so he is a throwaway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:34 AM

20. It was the slowest concession in history.

Remember, Gore conceded quickly with less math against him, and then UNconceded when he heard the math was changing. The math for Kerry, using OHIO's recount rules, could not change enough. He did wait until the next morning to concede, just in case.

Thank Terry McAuliffe for failing to secure the election process at every level in Ohio with the Ohio Dem party in the four years BEFORE the Nov2004 election.

I wonder how so many left bloggers with so much access to the facts of history still rely on myths so easily disproved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:48 PM

22. Well I am sorry, but I don't trust anyone that belongs to the Skull and Bones

secret society that GWB and GHWB And Prescott Bush belonged to.
I voted for Kerry because there was little choice...I was for Dean myself, but someone convinced a bunch of Democrats that we needed a military man to stand up against the phony military man that was Bush...(and then went sailboarding for the press while the right wingers swift boated him...those are facts too.
And that election was stolen once again IMHO...and it is one thing to concede right away if it is not close or questionable, but quite another to do it when it was and came down to one state.
And those things are available on the Internet too...but can and will be called a conspiracy theory and dismissed.

I don't deny being cynical...and I think I have reason to be...even now, after feeling sure that Obama was with us, I know that what we wanted and needed from his is things like Single payer health care, election reform, and end to the wars and the torture and killing of innocent people with drones and to bring to justice the criminals in our government and in the financial sector...and we got none of that...it was all taken off the table and we have just accepted it and say nothing about it for fear of being called a conspiracy theorist.
And so progressives have to just suck it up and accept it all, but they will through us a bone or two...like gay marriage which is no skin off of their back and does nothing to interrupt the chain of power in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #20)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:45 PM

24. +1

I'll never forgive McAuliffe for his incompetence in 2004. (Don't get me started on his quest for the Dem nomination for VA governor)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 01:44 PM

23. Depressing, but (sadly) accurate analysis..


If the pipeline (sadly and potentially tragically) comes to pass, at least one could trust that Sec. Kerry would do everything in his power to minimize the environmental impact. The operative phrase here is "in his power." As the article says, in the end it's up to Obama, the Obama-Clinton (and Rice) political dynamic, and the worrisome fact that the environment is not really Obama's strong suit. (He's 1000X better than the Repubs, and thank goodness for that; but, still, environmental issues are not in his gut the way they are for, say, Kerry and Gore).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MBS (Reply #23)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:25 PM

25. Exactly - I'd say the Clinton-Obama-Rice dynamic already sealed the deal and JK's stuck

using HIS credibility, once again. Our best hope, imo, is that he will fix, at least, the most onerous aspects of the deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:01 PM

5. Is there any reason to think democrats won't support this?

 

Let's face it, sometimes they talk a good game, but when it comes down to it most of our representatives back down.

That's the US system of government: republicans go full speed wearing a blindfold and democrats ride shotgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 08:22 PM

11. Gee. I wonder how the vote will turn out.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 05:41 AM

19. Batten down the hatches for...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:35 AM

21. All this money and broohaha for dirty oil and nothing for sustainable, nonpolluting alternatives.

 

WTF? Exceptional, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:33 PM

26. maybe the decision is already made, but it wouldn't hurt to contact officials to

express your opposition to it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:59 AM

30. YES!

Thanks. Much better to put our energy into DOING something rather than stewing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #26)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:41 PM

31. Exacty - maybe the most onerous aspects of the deal can be curbed.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CHIMO (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:11 AM

28. Hillary kicked the can for political purposes

I'm now almost 100% convinced that Hillary intentionally delayed issuing a ruling on Keystone so that it wouldn't be a weight around her neck with the environmental movement when she runs for office again.

Sorry for the pessimism, but it's the only thing that makes sense anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:58 AM

29. I agree, alas. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:44 PM

32. Absolutely NO DOUBT about that - she was ready to sign it 4yrs ago.

Kerry will have to use credibility with the environmental community to spare Clinton. In the hopes of doing good later on, he'll have complied already. Sad - but, let's hope he at least fixes the worst aspects of the deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:41 PM

33. the pro side is blaming Kerry for the delay

so he may be trying to do what he can. if you look at the pro side and i don't mean the idiot freeper types but the ones who are actually lobbying politicians and waiting to make a profit for themselves they view Kerry as the problem.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #33)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:49 PM

34. I know, but, it's just part of the dog and pony show they've grown accustomed

to performing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread