President's Keystone Veto Stands

From what I read the Senate couldn't muster enough votes to override the President's veto.

But, he (the Pres.) can still lift the veto should he choose to.

I'm hoping he so chooses.

Views: 2649

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bob Shaw on March 5, 2015 at 1:52pm

I have heard that the Keystone is wonderful and awful. I understand the Construction phase would create about 4,000 jobs, and the long term operation about 35 jobs. If you don't consider the arguments of tar sand oil and the impact of building any pipeline, why is this project so important that it dominates the national dialog?

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 5, 2015 at 3:08pm
My understanding is that once built it would transport diluted Canadian tar sand oil to refineries in Louisiana which would refine it into fuel for use here in the USA.

As I've also read some of the Louisiana production would be sold to overseas markets.

Also, as I understand things, the tar sands oils must be diluted / thinned in order to be transported in the pjpeline and the diluents to thin the tar sands oils would come from wells in the USA.

I've also read that Keystone would open the door to a much more meaningful alliance between the USA and Canada and an important step toward a powerful North American Energy Alliance.

It all seems to me to be a very complicated and seriously important web of rationale.

Just my read on it.
Permalink Reply by Sherre Boyanowski on March 5, 2015 at 3:16pm

Yes and No. Yes, it has to be diluted, but no, it is not for USA use. It is stated in the Keystone Pipeline application, that the oil will be sent from Canada, through the USA, to Texas to be refined, and then shipped overseas. None stays here. It is already contracted to be sold overseas.

Yes, it is complicated. This is the work of one company and they have stirred up a hornets nest.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 5, 2015 at 3:30pm
Elsewhere within these posts earlier I read Louisiana Refineries doing the work and primarly domestic use of the refined production.

You apparently have access to a 'Keystone Pipeline application' document. I've not seen such as of yet.

Can you obtain a copy of it and post it on these pages so we can all give it a read ?

How binding is the application ?

Can it be changed / modified / amended after it's sanctioned / ratified ?

Thank you Sherre B.
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on March 5, 2015 at 3:56pm

State Dept study says as much as half of the oil will be used in the US.  If you look at the map at the Keystone website you will see that one leg to be built runs to Illinois.

Further, this is a heavy crude the kind that Gulf refiners get from Venezuela and Mexico , which are both in serious decline.  This would be a great back supply for the US.

Permalink Reply by Tim Tarr on March 5, 2015 at 5:09pm

Yes and No. Yes, it has to be diluted, but no, it is not for USA use. It is stated in the Keystone Pipeline application, that the oil will be sent from Canada, through the USA, to Texas to be refined, and then shipped overseas. None stays here. It is already contracted to be sold overseas.

Yes, it is complicated. This is the work of one company and they have stirred up a hornets nest.

Even if all refined products are exported, Who works in those refineries? who works on maintenance of those refineries? Who loads those refined products on the ships.Who works on those ships?... Than who works where those people now spend that money.

35 permanent jobs my arse!! Just more lies from a list that is getting as large as the Library of Congress.

Problem is those jobs are just in States that vote "Wrong". Also pay too much so they don't need "assistance". No votes in that.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on March 5, 2015 at 4:00pm

How can 35 people maintain and operate a pipeline that is a couple thousand miles long?  Compressors, pig stations, maintaining the ROW, inspections, and more.

Permalink Reply by Dexter Green on March 5, 2015 at 4:45pm

"If you don't consider the arguments of tar sand oil and the impact of building any pipeline, why is this project so important that it dominates the national dialog?"

Because without the Keystone XL line TransCanada won't build the Bakken Marketlink line, thus condemning crude from the Williston Basin to transport by rail.

Permalink Reply by Bob Shaw on March 5, 2015 at 11:44pm

Dexter, taking transport off the railway seems relevant and positive, given the two recent events (Conspiracy Theorists are probably having fun with that). Jim/Tim: if 35 long term jobs seems low, what is a credible number? Even at double or triple that, still does not seem sufficient for national concern. AT&T is hiring for 120 new Ohio jobs, no national discussion there. Also, given the current over supply, storage capacity approaching full conditions (2/3 full now?) and depressed market, it does not seem those refinery workers are going to run out of product anytime soon. As a land owner under lease, my business interest suggest I only want supply to come from my interests, and I only want pipelines that transport my product to market. Aside from the railway safety issue, I am not hearing a strong case for that, but it is not crossing my state or property, so I defer to those who are more directly affected, such as the IL and WV residents recently inconvenienced. 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 6, 2015 at 12:13am
If Canada needs NGLs / diluent to mix and transport it's tar sands oil / bitumen I'm of the understanding that the NGLs / diluent would originate from wells in the USA.

Don't know where your land lies but mine is in northeast Ohio and in the Utica's so-called 'Rich Condensate / Oil Windows'. On that basis I think development in my geography (and elsewhere in Ohio) would be spurred on by the implementation of Keystone.

Personally I can't see how Keystone would harm any landowners interested in developing their gas and oil resources. In fact it seems to me that it could only assist. How could Keystone harm your interests under lease ? It would seem to me to be a catalyst to expand the market and perhaps your marketability too.

I've read that the Pres. is negative on Keystone (and in general gas and oil development) because of other and preferred special (renewable energy) interests.

Hope it ain't so as IMHO, our economy needs all the help it can get.
Permalink Reply by Bob Shaw on March 6, 2015 at 11:50am

Regarding diluents, it was my understanding if there were co-mingled product from United States, that would make the Canadian oil  not eligible for export. I am in Northeastern Noble County. I was sort of hoping to stay away from who is for it and who is against it, but just discuss the issue on its merits.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 6, 2015 at 12:09pm
Have not heard / read anything about any domestic NGL - Canadian Tar Sand Bitumen co-mingling export disqualifications / prohibitions until your reply Bob.

News to me if fact.

Perhaps it's a negotiated variance and permitted ?

I'm not privy to the terms.

Would like to read the agreement as well.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service