U.S. House passes Keystone bill, but prospects unclear in the Senate

U.S. House passes Keystone bill, but prospects unclear in the Senate

The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives approved the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, but a similar measure struggled to get enough support in the Senate and President Barack Obama indicated he might use his veto if the bill does get through Congress. The legislation, approved by 252 votes to 161, circumvents the need for approval of TransCanada Corp's $8 billion project by the Obama administration, which has been considering it for more than six years. House lawmakers were confident the Senate would follow suit and pass its version of the bill. The bill's sponsor, Republican Representative Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, said before the vote the House would make it "as easy as possible for the Senate to finally get a bill to the president's desk that approves this long-overdue Keystone XL pipeline."

It's looks like the Koch brothers and the other oil company owners are starting to get a return on their purchase of our government. The pipeline will do nothing for America itself other than lining the pockets of the oil companies. In the long run it will cost America more jobs than it will create. The oil and gas from it will be going overseas not staying here in America. America will also be losing the taxes from it seeing how its going to a foreign tax free port. Not to mention the oil spill record of the company running it which makes it a bad idea seeing how it will be going through one of the largest aquifers in America one that our farmers depend on for growing our food. If this passes through the Senate Obama should not hesitate in vetoing it.

a reply to: buster2010

What 8 Billion dollars for solyndra I mean TransCanada to ship fuel out of the country. Why the hell do we have to pay for their pipeline. It is a dumb deal that will cause our fuel prices to soar.

Hell people were pissed about $535 million from solyndra but there isn't even a peep of indignity over 8 Billion.

The next two years will see many bills passed by Congress.

The scorecard of Obama vetoes and signing statements will determine the outcome of the 2016 elections.

a reply to: Grimpachi

For clarity,

Where in the bill does it say taxpayers will pay?

We need to see the exact language and any accounting that may exist.

Maybe it's tax breaks and secondary allowances?

a reply to: Grimpachi

I have a lot of peeps back in Nebraska willing to bleed rather than give up their land. A huge leaky pipe over the largest freshwater aquifer in the world...great idea. And the best part, none of the tar sludge is for domestic consumption. Just loading it on boats to China.
The pipeline isn't happening. Congress can vote on it until they're blue in the face. Listen all o' y'all this is sabotage...

a reply to: xuenchen

You really want to act like tax payers won't be fronting this??
You are all about calling it when it is alt energy but want to play word games with this?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

You really want to act like tax payers won't be fronting this??
You are all about calling it when it is alt energy but want to play word games with this?

Well what does the legislation actually say?

a reply to: the owlbear

I guess your peeps back in Nebraska don't mind the large, leaky trains currently carrying it?

Interesting.

I guess trains do have a better image than pipes. Unfortunately, I doubt the aquifer cares much about image.

originally posted by: peck420
a reply to: the owlbear

I guess your peeps back in Nebraska don't mind the large, leaky trains currently carrying it?

Interesting.

I guess trains do have a better image than pipes. Unfortunately, I doubt the aquifer cares much about image.

My family has worked the rails for generations in all facets of operations.
They have a better environmental record than petrochemical pipelines and actually clean up after themselves, the oil companies cant say as much. There's still a leak in the gulf thanks to bp.

originally posted by: the owlbear
My family has worked the rails for generations in all facets of operations.
They have a better environmental record than petrochemical pipelines and actually clean up after themselves, the oil companies cant say as much. There's still a leak in the gulf thanks to bp.

A better environmental record? Laughable.

The only thing that makes rail 'look' cleaner is that fact that it carries so little oil, in comparison to pipes, per year that even if it spilled all of it, it would still be less than the pipeline losses.

Great.

Now, what happens when the rail is carrying half as much as the pipes? What about when it is carrying the same amount?

Rails current record is 80 gallons spilled per billion gallons transported.

Pipe is at 38 gallons spilled per billion gallons transported.

But, since your family is in the 'know', and since I will never have to taste water from that aquifer, do what you will.

a reply to: buster2010
I totally agree with you, buster2010. The Keystone Pipeline is a loser for everyone except big oil and the politicians who are pushing it. It offers no benefit to America. The justification being given by politicians that it’s a jobs bill is laughable. A Cornell/Global Labor Institute study has estimated that construction jobs created would be in the range 2000-5000, and that these jobs would be temporary, lasting at most 2 years. Big whoopee! Also, in the long term it may result in a net jobs loss.

I hope Obama vetoes this legislation if it makes it to his desk...

a reply to: buster2010

It would create almost 42k jobs that are decent paying.

why wouldn't we do this?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Where did you get that number "42K". K stands for thousand. Not even the absolute overblown numbers I have seen even came close to that so you must be mistaken.

Maybe you meant it would create jobs that paid 42K which I would believe otherwise that statement needs a link.

Here is what I found.

It seems like an easy question. But the numbers vary widely.

The State Department, which completed an environmental review of the project Jan. 31, has said the pipeline would create the equivalent of 3,900 full-time construction jobs if it's completed in one year, or 1,950 if it’s done in two years. Once the pipeline is finished, there will be just 50 permanent positions, including 15 for temporary contractors.

TransCanada, the company hoping to build the pipeline from oil sands in western Canada to refineries in the U.S., has come to a far different conclusion. It says the project will create about 9,000 part-time, temporary and full-time construction jobs. It hasn't said how many permanent jobs it will provide once construction's complete.

So even if you are going with the numbers from transcanada you are off by 33,000 or 33K or 33 thousand jobs but you could be off by 38,000 - 38K - 38 thousand jobs.

a reply to: buster2010

Political posturing from both sides.

The right? See? We're doing something!
The left? See? We're doing something against the right!

Obama can sign/not sign and claim that he is acting presidential.

And while Rome burns, troops being sent back into Iraq, high unemployment, record numbers on food stamps, record numbers homeless, petty bickering over minimum wage, politicians can stare into the camera and say they are doing this for you!