Why are Obama and the democrats so opposed to the Keystone Pipeline?

The debate on this I find particularly interesting.

On the left side, environmental concerns and general anti-oil drive the passion against the project. On the right, free market and economic benefits are the reasoning. In large the arguments each side are making are being overstated, drastically. Keystone is a perfect tool for a general idioloical debate, funded on both sides by big money.

I don't doubt the transport of tar sands can be done successfully and "clean", but I can't refute burning more hydrocarbons as environmentally positive.

I consider myself pretty strongly democrat, but I say just build the thing. The tar sands are extremely low quality, but there is a massive amount in the reserves. Personally, I see this as only marginally profitable because of the massive reserves...and with the price of oil now I doubt it is even worth it, except in the very long term.

So in my mind to sum it up, the economic benefit and environmental harm are both being VERY VERY overstated.

 

I think the whole thing is silly. There's not much reason to build it, and not much reason to oppose it.

 

Environmentally we face so many concerns with various issues and everyone in North America is stuck on Keystone like it is the holy grail of solving the environmental issues of this planet. If the time and money was spent trying to battle climate change as a whole everyone would be better off. Even if Keystone is rejected, Canada will find a pipeline going East or West, the oil sands will be built whether you like it or not. You can delay it but you can't stop it.

Oil prices are going to rise, they are not going to stay down forever, 50% of the global output will cease to exist from current production by 2030. New plays require billions of dollars in investment, this current downturn is delaying these investments. Do people want $200 oil, it'll happen if you don't invest? There are no other conventional reserves we don't know about. The oil sands require you to work with them to stabilize prices going forward. Build the pipeline.

 

Pipelines have ruptured before, pipeline projects have been rejected before, pipelines have been abandoned due to disuse and miscalculated demand, and we still manage to get our oil, ethylenes and gasoline. Obviously there's some kind of precedent the Administration and regulators want to set, bankers, PMOs and Public Affairs managers have probably made the same choices before internally.

 

Opposing it is an anti - science position.

Studies have shown it won't have a negative environmental impact

 

A foreign company using eminent domain to force people to sell their land to build a pipeline is crap.

 

The oil is going to India. The China bubble is over. So I guess this is leverage in any negotiations for the US with India, but I doubt it.

 

The Environmental Left is making a stand of it because of what it means symbolically. On the other side, there is a small concentrated business interest that really want the pipeline built because it benefits them greatly. However, because the pipeline doesn't really offer anything to average American either way, the fight has been able to go on for quite a long time. If the average American really cared either way, we wouldn't still be having this conversation.

 

For one it represents a huge commitment to a technology we are trying phase out.

Two, it will require the government forcibly taking over private properties and handing it over to big business.

Three, it doesn't really benefit anyone except big oil.

Four, the republicans frankly need to understand that acting like dick heads with this stupid obstructionist none sense has consequences.

 

Seems like it, but the economic impact would be the same to American landowners, consumers and workers for a domestic company. Also considering the extent of overseas operations for American firms, you don't necessarily want to set a precedent or retaliatory wave of restricting operations in that manner.

 

I'm going to ask this again How does it help America

 

Using eminent domain primarily to benefit a private domestic company is just as silly. Eminent domain should be reserved for things that benefit the common good, in which case, this is still the relevant question:

On the eminent domain question, let's also remember is was Nebraska landowners - likely generally conservative - that were fighting on that front.

 

Oil is a global commodity, this isn't a critical infrastructure project that benefits those communities in any meaningful way. It's a horrible precedent to set in any country but particularly in the United States where private property rights are essential to our concept of freedom.

 

Interesting that the liberals have given up the environmental and economic arguments and shifted to eminent domain arguments. (Nevermind where they were on Kelo).

I still don't buy it. Still an anti-science position. The eminent domain concerns can be addressed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nt-domain-papers-against-nebraska-landowners/

Keystone XL company files eminent domain papers against Nebraska landowners

The Canadian oil company seeking permission to build the nearly 1,200-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline filed papers Tuesday to secure rights to build on private land in Nebraska, setting off the latest round of legal battles that have stalled the project.

TransCanada Corp. said Tuesday that it had filed papers in local courts in nine counties to acquire easements it will need to build the pipeline. The company filed those court papers two days before a two-year window closed.

TransCanada seeks a 50-foot-wide strip of land on which to build the pipeline. Landowners would continue to own the property; the pipeline would be constructed and operated below ground.

In a statement, company official Andrew Craig said TransCanada will continue negotiating settlement agreements with landowners during the court proceedings. The company estimates that it will need to acquire easements on 12 percent of the land the pipeline would eventually cross.

“Eminent domain is a last resort and our first priority is always to negotiate voluntary agreements with landowners. However, where needed, eminent domain allows necessary commodities like food, oil, natural gas and power to have the safe transportation corridors needed to get to where they are used,” Craig said. “We have made numerous offers to negotiate generous agreements with all landowners.”

But the legal wrangling is far from over. Attorneys representing the landowners who have tried to block construction of the pipeline filed suit last week challenging the constitutionality of a 2012 law that would allow Nebraska’s governor to give the project a green light.

Four of the seven state Supreme Court justices have ruled that law unconstitutional in a previous suit. The Supreme Court rules require five of the seven justices to overturn a law on constitutional grounds. The remaining three justices did not rule on its constitutionality and asked for another case in which landowners proved they had standing.

The new suit, filed Friday, involves landowners who can show proof that the pipeline would cross their land. The landowners said TransCanada’s use of eminent domain gives them standing to show how they would be damaged by the law they are challenging.

“The court will have to decide the issue that wasn’t decided on Jan. 9, which is, is the Nebraksa statute under which TransCanada proceeds unconstitutional?” said David Domina, an attorney for the landowners. “We think we have an enormously strong likelihood [of winning] on the merits.”

TransCanada estimates that about 90 landowners have yet to sign over easement rights. Domina said he didn’t trust the company’s estimates.

If the eminent domain proceedings continue, court hearings in the nine counties where TransCanada filed papers Tuesday will determine the value of the easements the company seeks, and the amount of compensation to which landowners would be entitled.

Construction of the pipeline is the top priority of new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who brought a measure to the floor last week. The Senate continues to debate amendments to the bill Wednesday, with final passage expected next week.

 

I live in Montana where this is almost a daily conversation. Some of the relevant points I've heard follow:

1. Simply taking oil off the rail lines and highways where it is eminently more dangerous AND more expensive to transport (hence more cost to the consumer) seems to be one major benefit.

2. Many landowners WANT to sell right of way because it benefits them financially. Far more want to sell than don't want to sell despite what you've been told. (Here in Montana and it has BIG support here from the population at large and politicians from both sides of the aisle...state and federal).

3. Many small towns and mid sized cities along the pipeline route will receive a HUGE economic boon from the construction of it. Just as one example, I read a piece in our local paper where some folks in a one small town Montana town who were on the verge of shutting down the only restaurant, grocery store, gas stations, were holding out only for hope the thing gets passed,

4. The direct benefit of jobs to build the thing has been discussed here already. Both short term and long term.

5. Tax revenue from the construction of it will help states and the federal govt.

6. Obviously it helps all the oil companies which in turn helps the economy. The "evil" big oil company thing is overstated. There are dozens if not hundreds of smaller companies directly related to the oil industry that will benefit and grow as a result of this. Oil companies. Drilling companies. Oil field maintenance and equipment companies. Any industry that supports these workers along the path of the construction....hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, convenience stores, bars, apartment complexes, clothing stores, and on and on.

See 2 above.

 

Interesting that conservatives have given up their long standing support of private property right to support a 1,500 mile pipeline that the State Department estimates will create all of 35 permanent jobs.

 

I agree on #1.

#2 seems to be irrelevant. If people want to sell, that's their right, of course. And if the Keystone people could get everyone to sell voluntarily, more power to them. But the question is for the people being forced to sell against their wishes. A lot of people wanting to sell doesn't trump the rights of the others.

#3/#4 are both controversial. There would certainly be a short-term economic boost. Whether there's any long-term benefit is much more in doubt. After the initial construction, what jobs exist by having a pipeline run through a town? (I have no idea the answer to this) How many truckers currently moving the oil no longer have work? And what happens to all the towns with restaurants, hotels, etc where the current truckers driver through?

#5: You'd certainly generate more taxes here, but as with #3/#4, this is also replacing other transportation options. So you'd be generating less elsewhere. I have no idea what the net looks like there. I suspect a lot of states/counties benefit while others suffer.

#6: The oil is already being drilled. This just changes how and where the oil is transported and how much it can be sold for. In general, higher oil prices are not a net benefit for the economy as a whole. A lot of people that get cheaper oil in the midwest will have to pay more for it as a result of the pipeline making it easier to ship oil to places where they can get a higher premium.

 

I against it because it it facilitates the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands. At the turning point in climate change policy, this is where we make our first statement, that using the dirtiest, energy inefficient, CO2 intensive oil on Earth is a bad choice for the planet we will leave our children.

It's a good first step we can take right now.

And it's a good first step against oligarchies buying public policy. There is no compelling reason for the US to grant eminent domain to a foreign corporation to transport oil across the US that will not benefit the people. Transcanada is spending billions to buy PR and buy politicians over something that only means billions in non US taxed profits to them.