Obama Says He’ll Evaluate Pipeline Project Depending on Pollution

[ProSense]

Obama Says He’ll Evaluate Pipeline Project Depending on Pollution

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and JACKIE CALMES

GALESBURG, Ill. — President Obama said in an interview that he would evaluate construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on the basis of whether it would significantly contribute carbon to the atmosphere.

But he mocked Republicans’ arguments that the approval of the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast, would create many jobs in the United States.

“Republicans have said that this would be a big jobs generator,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with The New York Times. “There is no evidence that that’s true. The most realistic estimates are this might create maybe 2,000 jobs during the construction of the pipeline, which might take a year or two, and then after that we’re talking about somewhere between 50 and 100 jobs in an economy of 150 million working people.”

He said 2,000 jobs were “a blip relative to the need.”

The president also disputed the argument that the pipeline would help lower retail gasoline prices. He said most of the oil would be destined for refineries on the Gulf Coast and then exported. In fact, he said, the pipeline might increase prices somewhat in the Midwest, which would suddenly be able to ship more of its oil to other parts of the world.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/us/politics/obama-says-hell-evaluate-pipeline-project-depending-on-pollution.html

[Scurrilous]

1. Cue the outrage!

[riqster]

32. Boink!

[Scurrilous]

58. ...

[woo me with science]

60. Isn't it amazing that the positive news stories about this administration

always seem to take the form of:

"Obama says he'll..."

"Obama will consider..."

"Obama might..."

What a glorious future we continue, five years into this Presidency, to anticipate.

[JVS]

66. Hope

[chervilant]

67. Still waiting for the other shoe to drop...

The "change" shoe, that is...

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Given the fact that the Dept of Interior doesn't even know

where the pipeline will run because the builders won't tell them, and the fact that, despite that, enough data are already in hand to show that the total environmental impact of the project is not tolerable, why's he still playing footsie on this issue?

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Because that's what Presidents do n/t.

[truedelphi]

41. Obama let it slip to reporters at

The San Francisco Chronicle, that on account of his concern for poor people and how they need to pinch pennies, he will be approving it.

I can't remember if the trip to the Bay area took place in May 2013 or June, but he is all set to have it go through.

It is for the Poor and Their Children, don't cha know!

After he leaves the WH: Any hundreds of thousands of dollars he makes per speech in front of Corporate Podiums will be purely coincidental!

[sheshe2]

52. I tried google to find any reference to

the trip that you speak of. Yes their were several stories on his trip, however I did not see the comments that you are referring to. I would have thought that if he stated this:

Obama let it slip to reporters at

The San Francisco Chronicle, that on account of his concern for poor people and how they need to pinch pennies, he will be approving it.

That it would have been front page news all over the country. Would you help me out here?

Thanks.

[truedelphi]

53. The pertinent comments were back on page fifteen or sixteen,

During the time period of the trip made in May or June.

On edit: I just tried to see if I saved the hard copy in question -- I hadn't. But Forbes had this to say:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/25/obama-declares-keystone-xl-will-be-approved/

[sheshe2]

56. Sorry that doesn't work for me.

That is an opinion piece in Forbes about the Presidents speech at Georgetown University on June 25th.

So no the "quote" or "slip" as you call it that said:

Obama let it slip to reporters at

The San Francisco Chronicle, that on account of his concern for poor people and how they need to pinch pennies, he will be approving it.

is just your "opinion" or "interpretation" of what he said. As I said before if that statement had in fact been made it would have been Headlines News from coast to coast. And not lost on page 15 or 16.

So that doesn't work for me at all. I prefer to work with the facts.

[truedelphi]

62. I can't help it - I read it and what interested me was thaqt

The quote the Chronicle reporters made had to do with Obama saying that the Keystone Pip0leine had to go through for the good of poor people who might not be able to keep up with their utility bills. It was not my opinion - it was a quote. And I re-read and re-read that section of the newspaper, as what Obama was telling re[porters was in contrast to what gets printed here on DU.

Sorry I didn't keep the hard copy.

However, as we have observed with all the Big Important Appointments, and also in keeping with what film maker Josh Fox noted about Obama's "Environmental Climate Change Speech," the man is all about natrual gas, fracking, and supporitng Big Energy. Basically he is owned by Big Finance, and Big Energy.
[h2][font color=blue]
If you wanna change my mind, then please offer up some names of some appointments that show him to care about the Middle Class. About the only decent appointments he has made, that show any consideration for us in the middle class are his appointment of Neal Barofsky, and also Van Jones.[/h2][/font color=blue]

[Recursion]

55. Interior has nothing to do with the pipeline; international pipelines belong to State (nt)

[Jackpine Radical]

57. I should have written EPA, not DOI.

[think]

3. "2,000 jobs were “a blip relative to the need.”

I'm hoping this is an encouraging statement....

[NoOneMan]

4. According to Canadian networks, Obama's tough talk is just a political posturing

Since there is already a State Department report saying it will not significantly increase emissions. Example:

“Today President Obama made clear that Keystone XL would be approved if it does not significantly exacerbate the problem of greenhouse gas emissions,” Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said in statement.

Canada was quick to point out that a recent U.S. State Department report forecast no significant increase in emission-causing activity.

“We agree with President Obama’s State Department Report in 2013 which found that, ‘approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area’,” Mr. Oliver said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/obama-climate-speech/article12799330/

[ProSense]

6. Canadian networks don't get to decide, and the State Department hasn't issued a final assessment.

Everyone knows about the flawed report issued by State last year. It was re-released earlier this year for clarification, but it the criticisms and conflicts of interest brought to light initially are still issues.

[NoOneMan]

7. No, but they get to evaluate world events without US partisan perceptions

Maybe they are being optimistic, but they have clearly signaled certainty to the entire financial sector over the tar sand expansion, due to this.

Who gets to decide anyway? I'm pretty sure money gets to decide, and its lining up behind the "yes"; a lot of people now have a ton to lose if it doesn't go through, especially after that speech.

Bookmark this thread. If it doesn't go through, Ill eat crow. But Im pretty sure whatever report backs the "decision" is going to be tailored to support the decision that has already been made.

In my opinion it doesn't really matter. Shy of promising not to consume that shitty oil, its going to be transported in devastating ways to the markets anyway (by rail or by sea....or by pipeline). Since not consuming it isn't an option...

[ProSense]

9. "Without US partisan perceptions"?

It's not their decision. So U.S. opinion trumps whatever "perception" they have.

[NoOneMan]

14. Its a good thing that the NSA can run a flash poll now to find out how everyone feels about it

But honestly, your opinion, as well as your friends' opinions, mean fuck all to this "decision". Money rules the day and its already been told--while you were fantasizing about the wonderful speech--that this is good to go. Everyone who wasn't too busy climaxing (or hating) over the US chosen leader got the message loud and clear. Keep foolin yourself

[ProSense]

17. About

"Its a good thing that the NSA can run a flash poll now to find out how everyone feels about it But honestly, your opinion, as well as your friends' opinions, mean fuck all to this 'decision'."

...as much as your and the Canadian network's opinion, huh?

[cali]

5. whether the pipeline is built or not, the tar sands oil will be extracted

[think]

13. But if the pipeline is built it will cross the Ogallala Aquifer

Wikipedia: Ogallala Aquifer

The Ogallala Aquifer, part of the High Plains Aquifer System, is a vast yet shallow underground water table aquifer located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it covers an area of approximately 174,000 mi² (450,000 km²) in portions of the eight states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. It was named in 1898 by N.H. Darton from its type locality near the town of Ogallala, Nebraska.[1]

The Ogallala Formation underlies about 80 percent of the High Plains and is the principal geologic unit of the High Plains Aquifer. About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of all ground water used for irrigation in the United States. The aquifer system supplies drinking water to 82 percent of the 2.3 million people (1990 census) who live within the boundaries of the High Plains study area.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

Considering the appalling record of the tar sands pipeline companies this would seem like a completely insane project to initiate.....

It's Crazy To Think Keystone XL Won't Leak

4/07/2013 @ 5:17PM - James Conca, Contributor

~Snip~

It’s not that these pipelines and rigs can’t be run safely, it’s that they aren’t. Maybe the managers and operators who originally built them once cared, but after they’ve retired or died, the new managers don’t have the same ownership.

Just look at last weeks’ Exxon Pegasus pipeline spill in the middle of an Arkansas neighborhood. Almost a hundred thousand gallons of heavy crude poured down the street of homeowners who didn’t even know the pipeline was there. It was 65 years old. Everyone who worked on it is dead.

And this was the second U.S. spill in a week involving Canadian crude (Reuters).

At the time Pegasus was built, it was state-of-the-art. But like any system, it needs upkeep and maintenance. Why isn’t that happening? With any of our millions of miles of pipelines? And why does anyone think it will be different with Keystone XL?

Exxon installed what it called new leak detection technology in the Pegasus line in 2009.

How’d that work out?

It’s not like Keystone XL will leak in the first five years following its construction, but it will in the decades following that, for just the same reason.

ExxonMobil was fined nearly $2 million for a similar spill in 2011 in the Yellowstone River. And regulators are considering a similar fine for the Pegasus.

~Snip~

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/04/07/its-crazy-to-think-keystone-xl-wont-leak/

Add to that that the owners of the proposed Keystone pipeline doesn't plan to use state of the art monitors for leaks:

Keystone XL Pipe Shuns Infrared Sensors to Detect Leaks

By Rebecca Penty & Mike Lee - Jun 18, 2013 4:19 PM CT

TransCanada Corp. (TRP), which says Keystone XL will be the safest pipeline ever built, isn’t planning to use infrared sensors or fiber-optic cables to detect spills along the system’s 2,000-mile (3,200-kilometer) path to Texas refineries from fields in Alberta.

Pipeline companies have been slow to adopt new leak detection technology, including infrared equipment on helicopters flying 80 miles an hour or acoustic sensors that can identify the sound of oil seeping from a pinhole-sized opening. Instead of tools that can find even the smallest leaks, TransCanada will search for spills using software-based methods and traditional flyovers and surveys. ...

~Snip~

Pipelines spilled an average of 112,569 barrels a year in the U.S. from 2007 to 2012, a 3.5 percent increase from the previous five-year period, according to U.S. Transportation Department figures compiled by Bloomberg.

The department is studying leak detection as it considers new rules to improve safety. Equipment available to spot spills more quickly would have cut 75 percent off the estimated $1.7 billion toll in property damage caused by major incidents on oil lines from 2001 to 2011, consultants said in a December report prepared for the department...

Full article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/keystone-xl-pipeline-shuns-high-tech-oil-spill-detectors.html

[cali]

36. of course. I'm just pointing out the obvious flaw in the President's reasoning

[think]

38. I missed the relationship between your statement & Obama's

Sorry about that.

[LiberalAndProud]

8. I find it reassuring that he has discredited the talking points.

Still, I believe that the pipeline permit will be granted. Carbon emissions aren't exactly the environmental concern this project poses, are they?

[PDJane]

10. I hope that was sarcasm....yes, it is, among other things.

[ProSense]

11. The EPA

"Still, I believe that the pipeline permit will be granted. Carbon emissions aren't exactly the environmental concern this project poses, are they?"

...has criticized State's report.

EPA critical of State Department review of Keystone XL
http://watchdog.org/81139/epa-critical-of-state-department-review-of-keystone-xl/

How much does EPA’s objection to Keystone XL matter? A lot.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/23/how-much-does-epas-objection-to-keystone-xl-matter-a-lot/

E.P.A.’s Keystone Report Card
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/opinion/the-epas-keystone-report-card.html

[freshwest]

59. Bookmarking here.

[XemaSab]

12. He's going to approve it

Mark my words.

[NoOneMan]

15. And the moment he does, the same NSA-loving Democrats will be all over it

Like flies on shit

[XemaSab]

16. Yup

[ProSense]

20. You calling people "NSA-loving Democrats" while supporting the fucking Keystone pipeline is

beyond bizarre.

[NoOneMan]

21. I don't support the pipeline, or the Tar Sand project at all

And yes, some (not all) Democrats embrace the NSA and support their spying.

[ProSense]

22. So you're just here pushing the Canadian networks' opinion over "US partisan perceptions"

to kill time?

[NoOneMan]

24. Im telling you what people up north see from this speech: certainty in the pipeline and expansion

That's what we are being told...that the speech is a way to placate his base and create a feasible political loophole to proceed. Its masterful politicking.

[ProSense]

26. So what? You're pushing this opinion like it's relevant to the decision. n/t

[NoOneMan]

37. Pushing? I am informing you what others around the world see in this speech

Others who have no interest in how this "helps" or "hurt"s Obama and his legacy, but rather how it will impact their personal pocket books. Canada's media overwhelming sees this as a coded message to signal certainty to the market while simultaneously fooling his base that some wise future decision will be met. Now, maybe that's not "reality", or maybe his base is really being fooled and they don't see the reality like the non-emotionally attached external observer.

[ProSense]

39. Wait,

"Pushing? I am informing you what others around the world see in this speech

Others who have no interest in how this "helps" or "hurt"s Obama and his legacy, but rather how it will impact their personal pocket books. Canada's media overwhelming sees this as a coded message to signal certainty to the market while simultaneously fooling his base that some wise future decision will be met. Now, maybe that's not "reality", or maybe his base is really being fooled and they don't see the reality like the non-emotionally attached external observer."

...why would you think I care about how it's being framed in "Canada's media"? And if you don't support it, why would you be pushing back against a statement that it will create only a few dozen permanent jobs and increase gas prices?

This is about the decision, and "Canada's media" have no input in the decision-making process.

[NoOneMan]

40. Its always important to understand how others perceive reality, especially if you have bias

Anyone who is partisan in America will have bias that will influence the messages heard from a partisan politician. What you may hear may in no way be fully representative of the truth. If you are not interested in the truth or other perspectives, than yes, you obviously should not care.

And if you don't support it, why would you be pushing back against a statement

Im not pushing anywhere. I am merely stating that non-Americans and non-Democrats did not get the same takeaway as you did. In fact, they were told to invest their money wisely in favor of the pipeline going forward.

This is about the decision, and "Canada's media" have no input in the decision-making process

If there is a decision to be made, yes, Canada's media doesn't have a say anymore than you or your media does. But there may not be a decision-making process in action, though it is highly political to project the reality that there is one. This decision may already be made, and what you are instead watching is an effort to influence public opinion for when that decision is announced.

Or maybe a cigar is just a cigar. But I doubt it. Pipeline is a done deal.

[ProSense]

42. None of

Anyone who is partisan in America will have bias that will influence the messages heard from a partisan politician. What you may hear may in no way be fully representative of the truth. If you are not interested in the truth or other perspectives, than yes, you obviously should not care.

<...>

If there is a decision to be made, yes, Canada's media doesn't have a say anymore than you or your media does. But there may not be a decision-making process in action, though it is highly political to project the reality that there is one. This decision may already be made, and what you are instead watching is an effort to influence public opinion for when that decision is announced.

...this is relevant. The opinion in the OP is the President's. It's his administration's decision. The EPA and State reports are being discussed.

Your opinion about "who is partisan in America" and Canada's media frame ("perception&quot of the President's comments aren't relevant.

[NoOneMan]

43. Haha, sure

Obama signaled certainty to the world's financial market (according to the non-emotionally attached).

I think you are caught up in the other part of the message the rest of us heard (about placating the base).

Believe what you want. Its a done deal. The decision making process is long over. What we see now is the convince-the-masses process.

[ProSense]

44. OK,

Haha, sure

Obama signaled certainty to the world's financial market (according to the non-emotionally attached).

I think you are caught up in the other part of the message the rest of us heard (about placating the base).

Believe what you want. Its a done deal. The decision making process is long over. What we see now is the convince-the-masses process.

...this is your opinion, but you could have simply stated that instead of hiding behind "Canada's media."

[NoOneMan]

45. Hiding behind blue links is a bad thing now?

God, I get a kick out of this shit.....


So when we are all done pretending we are being wise in our "decision making", a bunch of arbitrary, easily avoidable regulations will be tied to the approval. On DU, the absolutists will say "bullshit, Obama sold us down a river!" and those placated by the loophole will say "Obama is so wise to have evaluated it and put these regulations in place. I am for it. He is our man. Let's add this to the list of accomplishments". Then 1000 threads will pop up and the pro-pipeliners will talk about ponies and gradual change and regulated capitalism to the people realizing our fucking climate is dying and the environment is being destroyed and who always let the perfect get in the way of the good. Bickering will continue. Meanwhile, a pipeline will come in. It will spill. They all spill. There is a 2 week spill in Alberta right now. Oil gushing on the ground. Worse than that is that is will increase the velocity of energy throughout the globe. But, thats just a faster nail in the coffin. Its over anyway. Good thing we have all this needless drama while the world is burning and cities decay. In the end, I'm glad we will have legacies to put in books for when all humans starve from climate change. Wish I had a blue link for all that crap, but will soon.

Its a done deal. I know it. Canadians know it. Anyone with a brain in the states know it.

[ProSense]

47. Seems like you're dealing with some issues. n/t

[NoOneMan]

48. Your opinion is not relevant

[ProSense]

49. You're right, my last comment isn't relevant to the Keystone decision

and neither are the issues you're dealing with.

[NoOneMan]

50. I am rubber and you're in the wrong sandbox

Grow up bub. Doesn't matter if I hurt your imaginary presidential best friend's feeling. Its a done deal. You are just one of the manipulated

[ProSense]

51. Actually,

"I am rubber and you're in the wrong sandbox

Grow up bub. Doesn't matter if I hurt your imaginary presidential best friend's feeling. Its a done deal. You are just one of the manipulated"

...you need to take a look in the mirror. You're all over this thread making irrelevant comments and name calling (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023355210#post15) because you apparently want to deflect attention from the President's comments.

You clearly are dealing with issues.

[Major Hogwash]

25. Not a chance.

Kerry is not Hillary.
And Kerry has already said he is against it because it is an environmental hazard that outweighs the need.
Kerry has already stated that we need a new environmental impact study and that study will not be favorable to the ol' XL pipeline.

[AtomicKitten]

28. thank dog Kerry's in charge at State now

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023022353

[XemaSab]

29. I doubt they'll redo the EIS entirely

That would take several years and millions of dollars.

They'll probably just rewrite a couple sections and tinker with the impacts and mitigations.

[NoOneMan]

46. Opinions evolve

Especially when the current pipeline is a death trap on rail that recently obliterated a small town's village core

[Agony]

18. What is he waiting for?

"President Obama said in an interview that he would evaluate construction of the Keystone XL pipeline on the basis of whether it would significantly contribute carbon to the atmosphere. "

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/04/23/epa-on-keystone-xl-pipeline-environmental-impacts/

Otherwise this is just about politics... is he segmenting the pipeline from tar sands carbon?

Some leadership from President Obama would be nice.

Fuck Republicans. Fuck Inhofe!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. Can we just get away from oil?

[NoOneMan]

23. But we haven't even got to 550 ppm yet!

What do you think will happen? Aren't you curious? Its like driving a car after the gas light goes on. How far will it make it? Lets find out! What's the worse that can happen?

I take it someone here doesn't love doomsday movies

[ProSense]

27. Are you opposed to getting away from oil? n/t

[NoOneMan]

31. Not a bit

I think we should immediately. I see no serious plan. Not a single serious plan

[putitinD]

33. all the oil will go to China anyway

[riqster]

30. Here's hoping he sticks to it.

After the Mayflower spill, this pipeline looks a lot riskier.

And it looked pretty damned risky before.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. Kick!

[bigtree]

54. fine, as long as he doesn't start talking about trade-offs to reach his carbon goal

. . .thing about numbers - like the ones used to measure carbon output - they've been screwy from the start. I'm not as reassured by this report as some might be that he's going to use this logic or formula and conclude Keystone would tip the balance. Now, if he already had a predisposition against tar sands, I might believe this report represents something more than eventually justifying approval of the pipeline.

[Safetykitten]

61. Farcical. It's a done deal. It's going to happen.

[ProSense]

64. We'll see. n/t

[grntuscarora]

63. My crystal ball says he kills the KXL.

He's going to give this one to the base to energize and rejuvenate us. I don't believe it's a "done deal" as so many are saying.

Hey, I can play soothsayer too.

[Whisp]

65. I want him to say No just to piss off the Clintons.

Second to the obvious environmental reasons.

They think they are the fucking boss of everything. Sick of them.