Obama Announces "No Keystone Pipeline"!

Obama Rejects Pipeline

Barack Obama has rejected a proposal from TransCanada to build the Keystone XL pipeline through the American heartland, the Guardian has learned, ending years of uncertainty about the project.
...
Prospects for Keystone XL have been receding over the last year because of low oil prices, which made the project uneconomical, and amid political shifts in the US and Canada.

This is GREAT NEWS! I didn't expect this to happen, but I know environmentalists will be thrilled as well as the people who would have been affected by it.

ABC News

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

YES! A win for the little guy!

Yay!!! Now all that heavy crude can continue to be transported in rail cars. It's an ecological win for sure because there are never any problems when that tar sand oil is on a train. Pipe = bad. Train = good.

a reply to: quercusrex

Take a look to see who makes the most profit from using trains to transport the crude now. That's who the winner is.

I can't believe the press coverage this stupid pipeline has gotten.
It will not destroy the environment any more than the other million miles of oil and gas lines already in use.
It will not be a boon to the economy or a big job producer either.

Let's all pretend to be surprised when the first action of our next puppet leader is to overturn this

Here we go again! Anything the Kenyan Communist can do to hurt America he will do.

Great news! He did the right thing on this, good on him.

He's still wrong on TPP, though...

Great news!

a reply to: Enochstask

How does this hurt america?

originally posted by: quercusrex
Yay!!! Now all that heavy crude can continue to be transported in rail cars. It's an ecological win for sure because there are never any problems when that tar sand oil is on a train. Pipe = bad. Train = good.

Good for me. I build those things.
Unfortunately tho, if the price of oil does not go above 50 dollars a barrel tank cars are not a viable mode of transportation.
Instead transporting oil in large batches via ships and barges is more economically sound.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Enochstask

How does this hurt america?

It would supply jobs and lower fuel prices. It would also supply our refineries in the South which would ensure more revenue which equates to more tax revenue.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It wasn't going to be built anytime soon regardless of Obama's opinions. Oil prices are abysmal right now and so goes the demand for that pipeline. It will return in a few years when oil skyrockets again and constructing it makes financial sense. (and Obama will be gone, so yay)

What a lot of you posters refuse to understand is that this Canadian heavy crude is already being transported and refined down here. Bury your heads in the (tar) sands all you want and deny it with your loudest yells, but it's already happening.

Rail is a bad way to do it, but if you prefer that then continue to cheer this political grandstanding announcement!

The oil will keep flowing.

I'm delighted to hear this. I had to carefully weight the pros and cons on this subject, and clearly, prohibiting it is the right decision.

Its ok the tar sands from canada are still processed in the usa to be shiped to china. But yea that evil obama lol, you guys are getting pretty sad to read.

a reply to: quercusrex


Never let the truth get in the way of a good environmental story.....


Rails or pipes, it's still flowing

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Looks like TransCanada's request to postpone the KXL rewiew totally backfired and blew up in their face. Well that or they had an insider in the Whitehouse and tried to avoid the inevitable rejection notice from Obama and hoped they could hold off the judgement until after the Presidential elections.

Either way it's all good in my eyes. And in regards to shipping by rail, I'd rather have the odd derailment and a ruptured car or two than some pipeline spewing oil undetected for days or weeks.

originally posted by: Kukri
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And in regards to shipping by rail, I'd rather have the odd derailment and a ruptured car or two than some pipeline spewing oil undetected for days or weeks.

We have these things called flow meters and pressure indicators...kinda lets us know how much is going through a line vs how much is supposed to be, but thanks anyway.

originally posted by: quercusrex
What a lot of you posters refuse to understand is that this Canadian heavy crude is already being transported and refined down here. Bury your heads in the (tar) sands all you want and deny it with your loudest yells, but it's already happening.

Rail is a bad way to do it, but if you prefer that then continue to cheer this political grandstanding announcement!

The oil will keep flowing.

Rail is better for jobs, environment, safety, and maintenance.
The rails are already existing, put in place many years ago. Tank cars also are going through a vigorous change in safety and regulations, especially in Canada where the standards are higher and in the states soon to follow. It's also easier to micro manage oil flow, keep track of product, and it creates jobs.
And it keeps corrupt people out of the scene as well with government officials and checkpoints along the way, no missing oil.

A pipeline is a set in stone feature, and if it breaks in one area the whole operation comes to a halt, it's a bottle neck as well giving power to just a handful of people if they don't get what they want.