Keystone fact check from think progress

And look who's drinking the Kool-Aid...

And that would be the same Valero that spent millions in California on a referendum to kill the environmental rules so they could pollute more... And lost....

Oh yes, always the boogie man of big business making a profit.

Can anyone in this forum deny that this project would put lots of Americans to work? Don't you think the construction project itself will generate substantial revenues? Are we so concerned about Valero getting over that we would deny these men and women work?

Is it only a GOOD shovel-ready project if it's paid for by the government?

I guess I don't see the scam here. All I see is work for people in an economy that truly has double digit unemployment. Some people are just never happy. Glass half empty types I guess.

Who's pipeline would this be....ours or Canada's? Who does the hiring? Do you have a link to an independent source with job projections? I have seen so many conflicting stories it's hard to judge this project......even without considering the environmental issues. I would like to be in favor of this, but I just don't think we know enough about the project, the actual job prospects, the environmental issues, and the states rights issues (NE does not want it from what I have read, will we force it on them?). By insisting that the president make a decision by Feb, the GOP may be shooting itself in the foot. My feeling is he will reject it because we just don't have all the ducks in a row yet. If he is given time, and everything looks good, I don't see why he would turn it down.

Hasn't this project been looked at for a few years now? How many years does it take for the government to approve a shovel ready project?

Soulshiner wrote: "Keystone XL would divert Canadian oil from refineries in the Midwest to the Gulf Coast where it can be refined and exported. Many of these refineries are in free trade zones where oil may be exported to international buyers without paying U.S. taxes. And that is exactly what Valero, one of the largest potential buyers of Keystone XL’s oil, has told its investors it will do. The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil and its friends in Washington DC."

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/ ... ign-lands/

You forgot the link. There needs to be more evaluation of this in the media and by Government. I would not support a Canadian pipeline thru the US if it was all for export. I suspect there is more to the story and a portion would be exported, but not all. Diesel fuel, for example is a big export.

This is why I said earlier it would be better to have a refinery in ND or Wyoming maybe, and a shorter pipeline.

archer wrote: Who's pipeline would this be....ours or Canada's? Who does the hiring? Do you have a link to an independent source with job projections? I have seen so many conflicting stories it's hard to judge this project......even without considering the environmental issues. I would like to be in favor of this, but I just don't think we know enough about the project, the actual job prospects, the environmental issues, and the states rights issues (NE does not want it from what I have read, will we force it on them?). By insisting that the president make a decision by Feb, the GOP may be shooting itself in the foot. My feeling is he will reject it because we just don't have all the ducks in a row yet. If he is given time, and everything looks good, I don't see why he would turn it down.

NE (north east)? The pipeline does not go northeast if that was your reference.
see page 45 http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Pro ... -10-10.pdf or http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

Hiring is done by those entities involved within this industry? All independent sources must still get paid, which would no longer make it independent? The states need to do their homework by visiting those communities that have this type of industry to see actual value. They can't claim that there are NO examples to evaluate and conflict only exists when one doesn't do their own homework if interested.

Parachute, CO would not exist if it were not for the drilling industry providing oil and gas resources, along with Silt and larger geographic radius that covers Grand Junction to New Castle. The Department of State (DOS) is involved with each state negotiating "right of way" land for construction and raw material (oil) in conjunction with TransCanada. The "right of way" is owned by landowners who would receive a lump sum payment for the right of way and possible royalties. This project has been on our radar screen for some time and the DOS needs to approve the permitting process for the project to move forward. If I am not mistaken everything has been completed (studies) and simply waiting for DOS approval. The ducks have been lined up for almost a year and this is down to politics and special interest groups that in my opinion should stay out.

I am also of the opinion that there are many benefits to this project concerning our energy policy/energy re-allocation and types of jobs created directly and indirectly. If you are involved with an excavation company, roustabout crew, workover rig, pumpers, flow testers or reclamation services of which makeup a small part of the industry. Then you take into consideration entities who rent out support equipment and several other servicing businesses, both private and light industrial. Although this IS a temporary job for construction it does not not differ when we construct a building. Once the building is complete (temporary work) for one type of industry it still continues to employ others. This is true even for infrastructure projects. You don't see a motor grader on our highways once it has been completed and placed into operation, but the highway still provides a service to all of us after construction.

Check out the Dept. of Energy or Dept of State for further information but this comes down to those states that would be directly impacted not necessarily us in Colorado, at least not now?

znovkovic wrote:
NE (north east)? The pipeline does not go northeast if that was your reference.
see page 45 http://www.transcanada.com/docs/Key_Pro ... -10-10.pdf or http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html

A little too much Christmas cheer znovkovic?

NE would be Nebraska, one of our neighbor states actually, and they are not on board with the pipeline going through their state.

Nebraska Celebrates Keystone Pipeline Delay

Largely because of complaints from Nebraska, the State Department agreed Thursday to look for new routes that would steer clear of the state's Sandhills region and the aquifer, which flows beneath eight states and provides irrigation to huge farming areas. That effort will delay a final decision until early 2013.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 88161.html

By forcing a decision in just 2 months.....the question I asked was does the federal government have the right or the authority to force it through a state that doesn't want it?????

They changed their mind.

http://ballotnews.org/2011/12/22/nebras ... l-process/

archer wrote: [NE would be Nebraska, one of our neighbor states actually, and they are not on board with the pipeline going through their state.

Nebraska Celebrates Keystone Pipeline Delay

Largely because of complaints from Nebraska, the State Department agreed Thursday to look for new routes that would steer clear of the state's Sandhills region and the aquifer, which flows beneath eight states and provides irrigation to huge farming areas. That effort will delay a final decision until early 2013.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 88161.html

By forcing a decision in just 2 months.....the question I asked was does the federal government have the right or the authority to force it through a state that doesn't want it?????

neptunechimney wrote: They changed their mind.

http://ballotnews.org/2011/12/22/nebras ... l-process/

archer wrote: [NE would be Nebraska, one of our neighbor states actually, and they are not on board with the pipeline going through their state.

Nebraska Celebrates Keystone Pipeline Delay

Largely because of complaints from Nebraska, the State Department agreed Thursday to look for new routes that would steer clear of the state's Sandhills region and the aquifer, which flows beneath eight states and provides irrigation to huge farming areas. That effort will delay a final decision until early 2013.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 88161.html

By forcing a decision in just 2 months.....the question I asked was does the federal government have the right or the authority to force it through a state that doesn't want it?????

Actually they did not change their minds. The Nebraska governor actually said that he supported efforts to accelerate the pipelone ONCE A ROUTE ACCEPTABLE TO THE STATE OF NEBRASKA WAS AGREED UPON. They have not agreed upon the present route, which means that once another route has been agreed upon, it still must go through an EIS review which will put the decision sometime in 2013.

"The Republican governor told reporters in a conference call that he'd like to see the Keystone XL project move forward as soon as state officials agree to a new, acceptable route in Nebraska."

Read more: http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-r ... z1hVmQKdli

sorry about the NE archer? I should have brushed up on my state abbreviations

yes it was early and Hornitos started to flow a bit to freely with the neighbors.