Skip to main content

Keystone XL pipeline route
Although its formal name is the North American Leaders’ Summit, media are calling it the Three Amigos Summit. But while it may be all friendly public smiles and mutual praise in sunny Toluca, Mexico, Tuesday and Wednesday, President Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto are headed into some disputes with each other.

For Nieto and Harper, the argument will be over the visa requirement the Conservative government imposed in 2009 on Mexican travelers as a way to curtail what it calls phony claims of asylum. The Mexican government continues to bristle at the restriction, but a Canadian government official, speaking anonymously, said there are no plans to lift it.

While Harper gets an earful over visas, he'll be delivering his own diplomatically toned complaints about the Keystone XL pipeline that the Canadian government at the behest of the tar sands industry has been pushing for five years:

“We want the president to choose Canada over Venezuela, hard-hats over celebrities, a pipeline with fewer [greenhouse gases] over rail,” [Canada's ambassador to the United States Gary] Doer told Platts Energy Week.

Doer warned that if the Obama administration opted against building the pipeline, it would be seen as a “political” decision by the Canadian government.

“If you play by the rules established by somebody else and you're perceiving this country isn't playing by the same rules they established … it would strain relations,” Doer said.

Obama may, in his head, have already made up his mind about the pipeline. But his reply to Harper's lobbying seems certain to be what it's been to others—including members of his own party, many of whom favor the project: We'll let you know when the process is complete. Under a twice-amended executive order with roots in the 1960s, the State Department is currently reviewing the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the northern leg of the proposed 36-inch pipeline. If approved, it will connect Canada's vast tar sands resources in Alberta to existing pipelines terminating at the Gulf Coast refineries of Texas.

The review includes public comments and a federal interagency assessment, including whatever the Environmental Protection Agency has to say. EPA has twice judged previous versions of the Keystone EIS as inadequate. The deadline for receiving public comments is March 7. You can read the 4,800+ that have been already submitted or add your own here.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Fewer greenhouse gases"? (13+ / 0-)

    What's Harper been smokin'? Low-grade petcoke?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:40:09 AM PST

    •  he's smoking (16+ / 0-)

      petrocash.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:55:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  less nicotine and tar sand /nt (8+ / 0-)

        Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

        by annieli on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:31:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  More News About The NJ, NYC, spectra gas pipeline. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HedwigKos, JeffW, Laurence Lewis

        Jersey City NJ and several environmental groups have a lawsuit being heard this Wednesday in Federal Appeals Court.

        ♥The Statue Of Liberty Thanks You All For Your Activism♥ Great Weather Wed, Going To DC?

        SNOW CHANGE-FINAL Oral Arguments Against spectra pipeline To Be Heard Wednesday, February 19, 2014, 2 pm in Federal Appeals Court

        E. Barrett Prettyman US Courthouse and William B. Bryant Annex
        333 Constitution Ave., NW
        Washington, DC 20001

        Wednesday February 19 AM Clouds/PM Sun day 61°/night 35°
        Chance of rain 10%
        Wind WSW at 9 mph

        The spectra gas transportation pipeline is a very important story. Totally ignored and hushed up by the traditional media.

        From what I read immediately after a case is scheduled. It's heard within like maybe a week, a couple of days, etc. Very short time.

        So this postponement really helped because hardly anyone knows about this. spectra pipeline has been a well kept secret.

        ♥The Blizzard Gave Us Time To Organize♥
        Can you imagine if 1,000 spectra pipeline protesters showed up outside the Courtroom with signs, singing, etc!

        (I also, sent this diary to everyone on facebook and put it on nj.com everyday too).

        spectra gas co thinks that just because they finished building this pipeline (supposedly, I've searched everywhere and there's no real info about how much of it is actually completed that I could find).

        They think the Court has to agree with them.

        All they did was drill a trench a couple of feet (usually 3) underground and slide a pipe in. Just leave it there. But shut the pipeline down. Simple.

        Not! The Court Does Not Have To Agree With spectra.

        spectra knew, there was a lawsuit to stop their building this pipeline.

        If they continued to build, it makes them culpable.

        I say buy them off, just get rid of them. The State of NJ can afford the financial hit.

        I don't even want to imagine; what a tidal surge wave storm like sandy, would do to spectra's gas pipeline!

        spectra and cronies are planning on building a network of these pipelines all over the US. Starting on the East Coast.

        We have to stop this, as well as stopping Keystone xl.

        Brought To You By That Crazed Sociologist/Media Fanatic rebel ga Be The Change You Want To See In The World! Gandhi

        by rebel ga on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 01:36:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The guy is quite the enigma, wrapped inside of (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, cotterperson

    Canadian bacon, or whatever the turn of phrase might be.

    I mean really, the Canadian west was opened up by railroads, I don't see why Harper can't/doesn't/or simply won't embrace that truth as a Western Canadian and let the bitumen move by rail.

    Which it will w/o the KXL.

    Heck, there's even a non-offensive (if that's possible!) Canadian song about that

    •  maybe because (6+ / 0-)

      not nearly as much of it will move by rail.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:58:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there is no pipeline, just as much can (0+ / 0-)

        easily move by rail.

        For example, rail shipments from the Bakken now exceed the capacity of the proposed KXL pipeline.

        Or to look at it another way, the KXL carries about 10 trains of crude oil a day, or about one train every 2 and a half hours.  Which would hardly be felt by the North American rail system.

        •  wrong (11+ / 0-)

          http://thinkprogress.org/...

          and once again to quote:

          The SEIS states that the difference between not building Keystone XL and building it would not significantly boost carbon emissions into our already overburdened atmosphere. The authors' argument behind this conclusion is that other means of transporting the bitumen from the tar sands—notably railroads—will replace Keystone XL if it is rejected. And thus the tar sands will be extracted at just as fast a pace as before.

          One big problem with this theory. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling, president and CEO of Statoil Steve Tungesvik, CEO of Cenovus Energy Inc. Brian Ferguson and the International Energy Agency all have said that Keystone XL is crucial to rapid, expanded development of the tar sands.

          Canada's Environment Minister Joe Oliver said (to Greenwire, subscription required) last August:

          “In order for crude oil production to grow, the North American pipeline network must be expanded through initiative, such as the Keystone XL Pipeline project.”
          Are they all bluffing? Do they not mean it when they say Keystone is essential to expansion efforts?

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:24:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's from the environmentalist "echo chamber" (0+ / 0-)

            which is all well and good if that's your community.  Or maybe not so well and good if you actually put stock into the shit that TransCanada executives say (really, how stupid is that, to believe these shitheads, which you seem to be doing).

            In any event, the real world moves on without much regard to what environmentalists think or care.

            For example, it is now projected to be less expensive to ship bitumen crude by rail than via a newly-built pipeline, largely due to two factors that anti-pipeline types opt to ignore: (i) that the railroad infrastructure is already in place, offering huge cost savings compared to building a new pipeline, and (ii) a pipeline only operates in one direction.

            •  i see (7+ / 0-)

              the environmentalist echo chamber and the industry execs agree that kxl is critical for tar sands expansion, but the real world moves on?

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:33:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, exactly, it's not like the railroad folks (0+ / 0-)

                who stand to benefit massively are going to sit idly by.

                And they're not.  

                •  yes (3+ / 0-)

                  the environmentalists and the industry execs are in agreement, but they're both wrong. thanks for sharing your reality.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:49:21 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, the empirical evidence shows that they (0+ / 0-)

                    are both wrong.

                    And I've posted numerous links verifying that.

                    Including right here in this diary, showing that the railroads can easily ramp up to move greater-than-KXL sized volumes of crude oil (in less time than it would take to build the pipeline, btw).

                    If you don't believe my links, do your own googling. The information is out there from multiple sources.

                    •  i see one link (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      cybrestrike, Glen The Plumber

                      in your thread with mb. unless you include gordon lightfoot, which may be as definitive as your proof gets. i'll just follow your thread with mb.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:03:46 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK, here are some quotes that come from (0+ / 0-)

                        Joe Oliver - who (per your previous post) is an unquestioned bearer of truth:

                        On his visit to Washington yesterday, Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver had a pretty blunt message to the Americans: the dirty tar sands will be continued to be developed regardless of whether the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline is approved or not.

                        Oliver said: “If Keystone wasn’t developed there would effectively be as much development of the oilsands in any case, as a result of the use of rail and as the result of export of the crude to other markets.”

                        Oliver’s argument was at least backed up by one analyst who was quoted in the Canadian press yesterday. Phil Skolnick, a New York-based analyst at Canaccord Genuity, published a report arguing that a combination of growing oil-by-rail capacity and other new pipelines is increasingly providing alternatives to KXL.

                        Skolnick is quoted as saying: “The oil will find a way down, and if Keystone gets delayed, at the minimum you still don’t have a pinch point because this rail capacity should be built by that time anyway”.

                        He added: “The main message is that Keystone XL, and the fear of rejection, has been the overhang on these [Canadian energy] stocks. Because of all the rail advances that are coming on, that should no longer be a fear”.

                        link
                        •  you're flailing (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Glen The Plumber
                          an unquestioned bearer of truth
                          pummel that straw. hurt it.

                          as sanguine as he is in that quote, it kinda makes you wonder why such a hard push for kxl. as you said above. although i think we're interpreting it differently. as are, apparently, the industry sources and echo chamber environmentalists.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:26:51 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It was you who first heralded his comments (0+ / 0-)

                            as being worth paying attention to.

                            To me, they never were.

                            Especially now that he's speaking voraciously on both sides of the issue.

                            Bottom line - read the trade journals and find out what's really happening - pay the politicians little or no heed.

                          •  if any are public companies (0+ / 0-)

                            their shareholders should be outraged that so much money is being wasted lobbying for something so unnecessary. and keep pummeling that straw.

                            heralded his comments

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:36:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you feeling remorseful about doing that now? (0+ / 0-)

                            I seem to have touched a sore point there.

                            In any event, maybe you'll be a tad more reluctant to trot that guy and his cronies out in the future in support of your position.  

                            And no, about the first point you raise, if TransCanada is a public company (or not, doubt if that's important here), they're probably eternally grateful that they have high level contacts that help them pursue their otherwise increasingly untenable business aspirations.  Of course, who knows how many campaign contributions were needed for them to secure this level of support . .. . but, as the Koch Brothers have taught everybody, that comes really cheaply (e.g., they are reaping vast rewards for spending 3 cents on each  $10 of revenue).

                          •  i quoted him (0+ / 0-)

                            among several others. funny that there's so much agreement. and funny that the industries waste so much money lobbying for something they don't really need. that's terrible management!

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:46:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh yeah, the Gordon Lightfoot reference (0+ / 0-)

                        was a (in retrospect perhaps misguided) effort to connect with readers who refused or opted not to look at the cold hard stats.

                        And to try to convince them on a more visceral / emotional level that Canadians have fairly massive railroading expertise.

                        Or, IIRC, as they call them up there, railway expertise.

              •  Another way to look at this (0+ / 0-)

                is that environmentalists are unwittingly, or perhaps wittingly (I really have no inside insight into this), promoting the well being of the railroads.

                From the standpoint of employment, that's laudable, I suppose.

                From the standpoint of the environment, somewhat less so when considering the details (e.g., how the crude oil gets to market).  

                From the standpoint of the environment, however, this whole snafu over KXL is absolutely devastating because it distracts attention from the bigger problem out there - the planet's addiction to fossil fuels.  That's what "we" should be paying attention to and trying to fight, not this shit.

                •  No on KXL IS fighting fossil fuel addiction (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JeffW

                  You're missing the larger significance of this fight.  It's NOT just about whether or not KXL is built.  It's about the President standing up and saying for the first time that we cannot have it all:  fossil fuel production and climate action.  If we continue to develop fossil fuels, all the "climate action" we take will be irrelevant.  

                  KXL is a rare opportunity where President Obama can act without Congressional restraint.  If he won't act here to stop a project with massive carbon emissions, then when will he?  

                  KXL is not a distraction from the climate fight.  It IS the climate fight.

            •  you said (0+ / 0-)
              Or maybe not so well and good if you actually put stock into the shit that TransCanada executives say (really, how stupid is that, to believe these shitheads, which you seem to be doing).
              Relying on an assertion of fact by your opponent's leadership that a particular fact declared by your opponent is the truth is an element of summary judgement review and practice in courts by judges in the weighing of uncontested facts.

              For those in anti-KXL camp, failing to hold your opponent accountable for their fact declaration that the development of KXL both promotes and is completely integral to further tar sands development....would be committing advocacy malpractice in anti-KXL camp.

              So I reject your claim that it is "stupid" for anti-KXL camp to hold TransCanada accountable for fact assertions contained in utterances from TransCanada executives.....especially when there is no reason for anti-KXL camp to deny a TC allegation as to the encouragement of tar sands development resulting from  the KXL pipeline construction.

              •  But isn't it a slipperly slope to claim that (0+ / 0-)

                some of the things that TransCanada executives say are gospel truth (like this) while vigorously disputing other of their claims (like the safety of the pipeline)?

                I mean really, if you say they are telling the truth in one regard, doesn't it logically follow that claiming everything else they say are blatant lies just a tad difficult to pull off with a straight face?

        •  Could you source that, please? TOTAL... (7+ / 0-)

          ...shipments of ALL crude oil by rail in 2013 in the United States, as estimated by the Association of American Railroads was 400,000 carloads.

          Taking an average of 714 barrels of oil per tanker car, that's 285 million barrels a year not just from the Bakken, but from all sources. At its design capacity, Keystone XL could carry 303 million barrels a year.

          According to the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, the Bakken produced 270 million barrels in 2013.

          According to this article:

          Railroads have become the preferred route to market for crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region, in the absence of new pipelines. The state produces about 1 million barrels of oil a day, and about 70 percent of it moves by rail.
          That would mean crude carried by rail from the Bakken in 2013 was 62% of Keystone's capacity.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:30:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Source what, exactly? (0+ / 0-)

            if the question is crude oil transport capacity from the Bakken, how about this?

            BNSF adds Bakken capacity..BNSF Railway has announced it can now ship up to 1 million barrels of oil daily from western North Dakota and eastern Montana,
            link

            That's just ONE RAILROAD's shipping capacity from the Bakken, which exceeds the KXL pipeline by 20 to 30%.

            And the rail capacity is growing all the time.

            I'm not sure if you're being deliberately disingenuous or not by time averaging year 2013 stats, during which time capacity increased dramatically to where it is today.

            •  You say *I* am being disingenuous? Here... (7+ / 0-)

              ...is what you said and I responded to:

              For example, rail shipments from the Bakken now exceed the capacity of the proposed KXL pipeline.
              You did not say the capacity exists to move a million barrels a day. You claimed that shipments exceeding Keystone's capacity were actually made in 2013. And that is what I asked you to provide a source for.

              And you didn't. Not only didn't, you implicitly called me a liar.

              Unless the ND DMR and the AAR are lying, crude oil shipments throughout the U.S. for all of 2013 came nowhere near Keystone's capacity.

              "Time averaging" doesn't rescue you and it doesn't impeach me.

              If we take the second half of 2013's Bakken production and extrapolate that to the slower production rate of the first half, then total Bakken production for the year would have been 316 million barrels. But since only 70% of that would have moved by rail, such shipments would STILL have been just 73% of Keystone's capacity.

              If you want to argue that they could have moved more by rail, then make that not argument, not the phony one you did.

              Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

              by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:57:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Correx to that last jumbled sentence: (3+ / 0-)

                If you want to argue that they could have moved more by rail, then make that argument, not the phony one you did.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 12:00:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  No, I did NOT say this (0+ / 0-)
                You claimed that shipments exceeding Keystone's capacity were actually made in 2013.
                what I said, which you objected to, was this:
                rail shipments from the Bakken now exceed the capacity of the proposed KXL pipeline.
                "now" implies the present day, which is 2014, not 2013.

                But still, here's data from November, 2013:  

                Last November, rail shipped 71 percent -- nearly 800,000 barrels of oil a day --  of the basin's oil,
                link

                Which is essentially the capacity of KXL.  

                If you wish to argue that the increase in capacity that the railroads now have (e..g, now up to one million barrels a day) are not going to be used this year, I guess I have to defer to the lack of evidence, which won't be forthcoming until after the fact.

                However, the historical record supports my longstanding contention that railroads can, and will, step in if pipelines are not built,  I'm really not sure what dynamic has changed to stop that from continuing to take place in 2014.

    •  Since officials there have been arguing that... (10+ / 0-)

      ...moving it by rail is more dangerous than by pipeline, it would be an unseemly change of stance at this juncture.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:58:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, they're probably boxed in by their (0+ / 0-)

        financiers.

        Not sure if they now wish they had gone to bed (figuratively speaking) with the railroad types years ago (like Obama did) or whether they're happy to stick with their pipeline flunkies to the bitter end.

      •  You said: (0+ / 0-)
        it would be an unseemly change of stance at this juncture.
        It might appear 'unseemly' in reality space, but part of the pro-KXL camp's efforts involve organized lying in which different parts of the pro-KXL coalition utter different factoids and anti-factoids to different parts of the media and to anti-KXL camp at different times.

        I don't think anti-KXL camp is doing a very good job since there is disengagement in anti-KXL camp from directly confronting specific elements of the pro-KXL organized lying campaign.   For example, Ed Schultz recently really never got any effective  push-back that knocked him off of the political perch when he was saying that approving KXL was part of USA energy independence and dissing rail transportation in favor of building the KXL pipeline for safety reasons.

  •  maybe john kerry (9+ / 0-)

    should talk to harper...

    am i the only one who finds kerry's indonesia remarks just a tad surreal?

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 10:54:33 AM PST

  •  I wish we all had a much better and more detailed (7+ / 0-)

    understanding of the relationship between the KXL pipeline issue, bilateral U.S.-Canada diplomatic negotiations, and TPP and TIPP.

    The reason for needing a better understanding is that if KXL is thoroughly mixed up into all of these diplomatic negotiations and we don't know or understand how, then the lack of knowledge is our most vulnerable point of tactical consideration of the situation.   Within the context of all of these diplomatic negotiations we could have already either won or lost the KXL issue.

  •  what hath NAFTA wrought /nt (4+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 11:30:46 AM PST

  •  Marsha Blackburn vs Bill Nye @ MTP Sunday (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Lefty Coaster

    .. is exactly as idiotic as what Harper is arguing:

    State's review also found that oil sands extraction would continue regardlessof whether the TransCanada pipeline — which would carry crude oil from Alberta to Gulf refineries — is built.
    ..and just as stupid as Bill O'Reilly pre-super bowl Presidential attack where O
    Reilly's passive aggressive glib assurances that 'of course the President is going to approve the pipeline', got some definite push back from the President.

    Push back that sounded encouraging to me, more than other statements of late:

    Obama said in the Fox News interview; "Well, that, bottom line is… the process now goes agencies comment on what the State Department did, public's allowed to comment, Kerry's gonna… give me a recommendation."

    There is a concern that because Secretary of State John Kerry has been a supporter of environmental issues and climate change through his political career, and his decision might be biased. However, the State Department promises he will make an objective decision; "Obviously, the Secretary has a long record on environmental issues.... But he’s going to make this decision based on a range of factors. There's a legal process that’s underway, and he will follow that legal process."

    I don't know, but the Presidents response to O'Reilly, while not a guarantee sounded like the pushback was against the pipeline as much as it was towards O'Reilly

    At least I hope so anyway

    Thx MB

  •  Trans-Mountain Pipeline Project is moving ahead (0+ / 0-)

    "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

    by Lefty Coaster on Mon Feb 17, 2014 at 02:39:04 PM PST

  •  Might get interesting (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, Dem Beans

    Native Americans vow a last stand to block Keystone XL pipeline

    WASHINGTON — Faith Spotted Eagle figures that building a crude oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast would bring little to Indian Country besides more crime and dirty water, but she doubts that Native Americans will ever get the U.S. government to block the $7 billion project.

    “There is no way for Native people to say no – there never has been,” said Spotted Eagle, 65, a Yankton Sioux tribal elder from Lake Andes, S.D. “Our history has caused us not to be optimistic. . . . When you have capitalism, you have to have an underclass – and we’re the underclass.”

    “We’re going to do everything we possibly can,” said Greg Grey Cloud of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, who attended a two-day conference and training session in Rapid City last week sponsored by the Oglala Sioux Tribe called “Help Save Mother Earth from the Keystone Pipeline.” He said tribes are considering setting up encampments to follow the construction, but he stressed that any actions would be peaceful. “We’re not going to damage anything or riot or anything like that,” he said.

    "If you pour some music on whatever's wrong, it'll sure help out." Levon Helm

    by BOHICA on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:20:28 PM PST

  •  why can't they billed the refineries in Canada? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cosette, Catskill Julie

    And then ship the finished products to where they need to go?

    Why does this need to be shipped to Louisiana for refinement and then export?

    I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

    by Dave from Oregon on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:23:14 PM PST

  •  I do like the idea of Canada twisting our arm. (0+ / 0-)

    Down with great-power imperialism and all that. But I'd rather they bossed us about something that helped the world rather than hurting it.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:29:50 PM PST

    •  Unfortunately since Harper was elected we haven't (0+ / 0-)

      really done anything to help the world, pretty much exclusively hurting it.  And I'm really pessimistic that we will be able to get rid of him (or his party if he steps down) any time soon.

      We agree...that "anything which dominates the life of the community should be owned by the community." That is the basis upon which we believe there should be government ownership of monopolistic enterprises. -Tommy Douglas

      by RabbleON on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:32:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama should be sure to ask Harper (6+ / 0-)

    why he doesn't just build the pipe to Vancouver.  Far closer than Louisiana.

    "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

    by Publius2008 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:37:40 PM PST

  •  The real issue is the tar sands (0+ / 0-)

    Mining the tar sands is environmentally destructive and produces very toxic crude.  Whether the crude travels by pipeline or train is not terribly relevant. It is a sideshow.
    Unfortunately we have no control over tar sands production.

  •  If this pipeline is so critical to Canada, they (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    spritegeezer

    should just run it through Canadian territory. Oh, right. Canadians won't let them!

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:03:05 PM PST

    •  And if it is so critical to Canada... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Catskill Julie, roadbear

      they should be willing to indemnify any and all property owners along the pipeline from any and all misadventures.  This would include all those who rely on the Ogalala aquifer for their water.  They have no intention of doing this but rather will rely on the U.S. Taxpayer to clean-up their mess ala BP.

      You will note that the Bill of Rights is now apparently a Bill of Concerns. Charles Pierce, Esquire Magazine Feb 2014

      by spritegeezer on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:07:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Product will go on the world market. (0+ / 0-)

    Refined in Houston and Beaumont, TX.
    Product will not stay in the US of A.

    I think that things will end badly.

    by cosette on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:28:53 PM PST

  •  It's no longer about the carbon .... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    roadbear

    .... it's now only about who's going to make the money.

    Keystone XL is now just a diversion, distraction, political football -- with little relevance to future effects on climate.

    It was only ever wishful thinking that the carbon wouldn't get used, but concentrating efforts on transportation issues simply ignored the current infrastructure already in place.  Did anyone really think that our addiction to oil and our profit-oriented culture would let a mere pipeline stand in our way?  Silly.

    I'm always surprised that even some of the most vocal opponents of Keystone haven't considered what's already in place.  Alberta dilbit is already being sent to the USA via pipeline - a pipeline that is being expanded to the same size as Keystone XL.

    Anytime you read an article on Keystone XL that fails to mention Enbridge, you're reading incomplete information.

    As the Superior Evening Telegram reported:
    (sorry - article is now behind a paywall)

    ""Expansion of the Alberta Clipper pipeline, which runs from Hardesty, Alberta, to Superior, WI the U.S. portion of which was completed in 2010 at a cost of $1.2 billion. While sometimes reported as a new pipeline, the project is really a $240 million effort to increase the amount of oil running through the existing pipe. Enbridge is planning a series of pump station and other upgrades to increase capacity from the current 450,000 barrels a day to 570,000 barrels a day in the first phase and to 800,000 barrels a day by 2016 — about the same as the controversial proposed Keystone XL pipeline and carrying the same kind of oil."
    What's at stake is who gets to make the $$$$, not whether or not we're going to make a decision to help the environment.  

    Google: alberta clipper enbridge superior

    You'll find dozens of links, including some written here on DailyKos.  This is not new or secret information.  Just not widely discussed by opponents of Keystone XL.

    •  Keystone is a Trojan Horse for Enbridge (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      roadbear

      Google "Enbridge Flanagan South Pipeline". Met a man building the line in Quincy, IL. It is being built along existing right of way from Flanagan, IL terminal to the mother terminal that Keystone is planning on connecting to in Cushing, OK. It is 36 inch in diameter same as Keystone. Among a couple other important things, it crosses the Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri and Arkansas Rivers.

      The Flanagan, IL terminal has been sending the tar sand to the Wood River refinery north of St. Louis for some time. Conoco Phillips has been pouring money into it to increase tar sand capacity. Once connected to Cushing it will feed the Gulf refineries. They are planning on many more death funnels. Go to there web site to take it in.

      This is the map of the project:

      www.enbridge.com/FlanaganSouthPipeline/~/media/www/Site%20Documents/Delivering%20Energy/Projects/US/FlanaganSouthMap12-13-13.jpg

      There is some push-back, but nothing like Keystone.

      This from the Kansas Sierra Club:

  •  Canada "arm twisting" and threatening? Strain this (0+ / 0-)

    All the good environmental and economic reasons to reject the Keystone XL pipeline are beside the point if the United States is getting "arm twisted" and threatened by ANY other country - Canada in particular.

    Since when does Canada get to arm twist a project inside the United States just because it might negatively affect a Canadian oil company, extracting Canadian bitumen and pumping a slurry of it across the United States.

    Two words for Harper et. al :

    Get Bent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site