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: 2642

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hate to even think it but maybe the whole thing is just generated for argument's sake / a political football / a big pee-pee contest designed to waste time.

How sick would that be ?

Here is a quote and a link to a reference: However, the prospect of Canadian tar sands crude exports from the Gulf Coast is very real. The US crude oil export ban would arguably not affect Canadian crudes if the Canadian crude is not blended with any US crudes. The Bureau of Industry and Security’s Export Administration Regulations for crude oilstate that the BIS will approve license applications for: “Exports of foreign origin crude oil where, based on written documentation satisfactory to BIS, the exporter can demonstrate that the oil is not of U.S. origin and has not been commingled with oil of U.S. origin.” http://priceofoil.org/2013/03/01/industry-experts-expect-keystone-x...

Perhaps diluents / NGLs aren't considered / defined as 'Crude' ?

Joe, that occurred to me, but devil is in the details. From a common sense perspective, and that never serves in these matters, liquid product that comes out of the oil well is oil.

Bob: Do not recall the exact length of the Keystone Pipeline somewhere around 1000 miles, that would take closer to 350 permanent employees than the 35. True at this time the country has a glut of oil, A year or two down the road that will not be the case. Gasoline will go back to $4.00/gal. consumers will complain and the federal government will answer any solution is 5 to 10 years down the road, while the Tar Sand Oil is being shipped to China. BUILD THE KEYSTONE. I'm also a land owner under lease an would like to see production from my acreage. 40 years in the natural gas industry (midstream retired )

Ok, 350 jobs is better than 35, for sure, and I have to agree that transporting all production to market in the most efficient and safe manner is good for all concerned, but still not understanding why this particular pipeline is at the top of the national agenda, unless it is because it being opposed by some. I guess I don't have to understand. Thanks to all who commented.

It is an international endeavor / agreement after all.

Shouldn't be trivialized IMHO.

Good point that it is different because it is International. I work for a company that has locations in U.S. and 6 Canadian provinces, and I don't distinguish them, except when I have to ship hardware across the border. I am not thinking to trivialize this, but there are so many International trade agreements that have never risen to this level of notoriety. 

Canada is and has always been a staunch ally.

We have common interests as neighboring residents in the northern hemisphere (sharing a long border).

Personally / IMO what's good for Canada is good for the U. S. of A. and vice-versa.

I don't understand why all the disagreement.

It should be as easy as pie to forge a good solid and fair Trade Agreement.

What's the matter with waiving any semantic hurdles and selling them the NGLs / Diluents they need to enable their Tar Sands Oils to be diluted enough to transport via Pipeline, share all costs of building any pipelines required (50-50) and also fairly share proceeds of sales of the resultant diluted production ?

Joseph, the only issue I see with the 'semantic hurdles' is if it results in converting the product into something that can't be exported under current law. Perhaps relaxation of the export ban is a better solution than straining NGL definition under that law, then everyone is on a level playing field.

We agree Bob.

However, I'm in the 'make it work' camp on especially this.

Tell me Bob, if the U.S.A. and Canada can't come to a fair agreement (even as the most staunch allys that I personally know of) what other agreement any where in the world can the U.S.A. expect to broker / resolve ? For instance 'Peace in the Middleast' or 'No Nukes For Iran', or 'North Korea' - I think 'Fat Chance'.

Seems to me we've got a 'win-win' deal on the table with Canada and it earns a Presidential veto with no negotiation offered.

Politics stink.

All only IMHO.

Why not build a refinery here?

RSS

© 2022   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service