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: 2706

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 6, 2015 at 10:40pm
It seems to me that the agreement needs to happen 1st / simultaneously and build whatever it takes / makes sense - no argument.
Permalink Reply by Tim Tarr on March 7, 2015 at 9:03am
Joe,
One reason, TAXES!
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 7, 2015 at 11:07am
I interpret that your saying that the Pres. vetoed the deal because he wants more tax money paid by the Pipeline owners (or the pertinent States ?) to the Federal Government ?
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 7, 2015 at 11:25am
What kind of tax would that be ?

A Federal Sales Tax applied to any sales of Diluent / NGLs to Canadian partners plus another Federal Sales Tax paid by any purchasers of diluted Tar Sands Oils ?
Permalink Reply by Bob Shaw on March 7, 2015 at 1:21pm

Tim, do you have any reference/link to support the 'Taxes' statement, just so I can understand your point?

Permalink Reply by Tim Tarr on March 7, 2015 at 4:16pm

Why not build a refinery here? 

I assumed by "here" Joe was referring to Pa.

Just take the example of the tax incentives to get Shell to consider a Cracker. Even with those "breaks" Shell is still dragging their feet. Just cheaper to pipe that Ethane >1000 miles than pay all those Pa taxes.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 7, 2015 at 4:48pm
Thanks for the clarification Tim.

Trying to stay on the right page here.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 8, 2015 at 2:12am
http://www.cfr.org/oil/case-allowing-us-crude-oil-exports/p31005

Take the above link (2013 article about lifting crude exports ban) for additional insight and presented from gas and oil E & P perspective.

FWIW to interested folks.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 8, 2015 at 3:04am
For info. I started as strongly not in favor / an opponent of any hydrocarbon fuels exporting increases but stagnation on the conversion to natural gas front has turned my head somewhat.

Guess I'm on the 'let's do what it takes to get off of the OPEC controlled energy market bus' and - as always - get on with a meaningful plan to develop our own resources and recover our economy.
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 8, 2015 at 6:35am
If it takes Keystone XL - bring it.
Permalink Reply by Bob Shaw on March 8, 2015 at 3:22pm

Joseph, good reference to my exact opinion on the merits of the U.S. crude oil export ban. It was passed into law for a moment in time, and refineries  turned the situation into an industrial entitlement, no doubt advocating the continuation. I cannot help but wonder if the XL-Keystone is economically viable in a level playing field (relaxation fo U.S. crude export ban).

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 8, 2015 at 7:44pm
......level playing field......

When ever was there one ?

OPEC has tilted it in their favor for decades.

If we can let's tilt it in ours.

Continue or lift the ban - but impose trade barriers / embargos (against OPEC / trade with non-allied Countries / States).

Canada is an ally.

Only as always IMHO.

RSS

© 2025   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service