Obama's Blockage of the Keystone XL Pipeline

[soonercruiser]

Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=pipelineinknots.jpg
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=pipelineinknots.jpg

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=Pipehugger.jpg
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=Pipehugger.jpg

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=Politicscapsthepipeline.jpg
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=Politicscapsthepipeline.jpg

http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=cloggedpipeline.jpg
http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/?action=view&current=cloggedpipeline.jpg

[Midtowner]

Obama's blockage? Try a fake deadline imposed on the presidency by a bought and paid for Republican House. The pipeline isn't deep-sixed, it's just not going to be approved as to the form and timetable demanded by the lobbyists who own the House. Boo hoo.

[ictsooner7]

The Obama adminstration could have given conditional approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, according to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Governors Journal, prior to the administration’s rejection of the pipeline, Heineman said Obama could arrange it so that the last part of Keystone XL to be built would be the section that runs through Nebraska.

“I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say yes,” Heineman of Obama said in the interview. “Do you think it [the pipeline] is in the national interest of the United States of America? When you have an 8.5% unemployment rate in America, this is a no-brainer.”

Facts.

So Nebraska and Keystone had already agreed to move the pipeline. They have been working to save the pipeline while Obama has been working to kill it.

What did the Nebraska governor say earlier this week?



Try harder.


Typical of the right. NEBRASKA scuttled the first pipeline route. THEN they rush to pick a new route, rush it through the statehouse to approve it, limit the environmental study funds, then have the ba!!s to claim Obama killed it. The republican govenor claims Obama can approve it without an EPA study, which is not done, so who's fault is it that it's not done? NEBRASKA! What a joke you people are. You left out a lot of the article, as usual. The republicans in NEBRASKA killed it.

The decision likely puts a final federal decision on the project off until after the 2012 elections. In his statement, the president made clear that his decision “does not preclude any subsequent permit application, or applications for subsequent projects.”

Nebraska governor suggests ‘conditional’ Keystone approval

January 18, 2012, 4:52 PM
.


The Obama adminstration could have given conditional approval to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, according to Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman.

In an interview published Tuesday by the Governors Journal, prior to the administration’s rejection of the pipeline, Heineman said Obama could arrange it so that the last part of Keystone XL to be built would be the section that runs through Nebraska.

Heineman, a Republican, last year rejected TransCanada Corp.’s TRP initial plans for the pipeline with the backing of the GOP-controlled legislature as it would have run through the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills area above the Ogallala aquifer. The Sand Hills area — grass-covered sand dunes in the northwestern part of the state — consumes roughly one-third of Nebraska’s land mass, and the aquifer is a key source of water for Nebraska and much of the Great Plains region. But Heineman and lawmakers say they aren’t opposed to the pipeline, only that it ran through the Sand Hills region. TransCanada was supposed to have come up with an alternative route in coming days and weeks.

One of the reasons the Obama administration’s State Department gave for rejecting the project was that Nebraska had yet to settle on where the pipeline would run. Officials from Nebraska’s Department of Environmental Quality said TransCanada has yet to submit a proposed rerouting.

“I don’t understand why he just doesn’t say yes,” Heineman of Obama said in the interview. “Do you think it [the pipeline] is in the national interest of the United States of America? When you have an 8.5% unemployment rate in America, this is a no-brainer.”

[sappstuf]

Obama's blockage? Try a fake deadline imposed on the presidency by a bought and paid for Republican House. The pipeline isn't deep-sixed, it's just not going to be approved as to the form and timetable demanded by the lobbyists who own the House. Boo hoo.

Didn't the Senate pass the bill with the 60 day deadline on the Keystone decision on an 89-10 vote? Hell, only 2 Dems voted against the bill.

Then 5 Democratic Senators wrote a letter to John Boehner that said:


On Saturday, December 17, the Senate passed the bipartisan Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, the Reid-McConnell substitute amendment to H.R. 3630. The bipartisan bill, which passed with 89 votes, will move the Keystone XL pipeline forward. The Keystone XL project is critical to the nation’s energy security--it will reduce our dependence on oil from hostile regimes--and it will put thousands of Americans back to work.

This important bill will require the President to make a decision on the pipeline’s future within 60 days. It will also protect private property rights and establish a procedure for re-routing the pipeline around sensitive land within the state of Nebraska. Delays or changes to the bill may jeopardize the important shared goal of moving the project forward.

In the interest of America's energy security and economic recovery, we urge the House of Representatives to take up this bill and pass it as soon as possible. Thank you for your consideration.

http://baucus.senate.gov/12192011JointLettertoSpeakerreKeystoneCompromise.p df

Clearly it is the damn dirty bought and paid for Republicans in the House that caused the Senate to pass this bill on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote....

[pphilfran]

Trans Canada took a risk and chose the shortest route even though it was going to be the toughest approval path...once Neb bucked up they elected to change the route...changing the route then adds to the time needed to get approvals...

IMO Obama's hatred of anything carbon based would have caused him to shoot down any proposed route...but Trans Canada didn't help themselves out with the initial plan...

[soonercruiser]

THE FACTS....you libs!

After initial "problems" with the pipeline route (Obama administration's ignoring what they wanted), The Gov. of Nebraska held a public news conference several weeks before the latest Obama announcement, saying that the state's concerns had been met.

INFACT....you libs....
Several alternate routes had aleady had their environment studies done as part of the original plan!

AND FURTHERMORE.....you libs....
Why not release the contracts for the southern portion???
Answer.....POLITICS!!!
What Obama does is designed to only reward those who reward him with $$$$!
(Not Texas and Oklahoma!)
No change here! Just hypocrisy from the left!

[cleller]

The bottom line is Obama had the opportunity to approve the deal a few months back, but did not have the courage to upset his environmentalist backers, so he sidestepped it.

That's when the ugly politics bit started. Obama has merely stalled things, cost more money, and delayed our ability to create more North American oil and jobs.

[soonercruiser]

And....again today, TransCanada talks about beginning an alternate pipeline ...towards China!

[diverdog]

Trans Canada took a risk and chose the shortest route even though it was going to be the toughest approval path...once Neb bucked up they elected to change the route...changing the route then adds to the time needed to get approvals...

IMO Obama's hatred of anything carbon based would have caused him to shoot down any proposed route...but Trans Canada didn't help themselves out with the initial plan...

Looks like Koch Industries has a big stake in the pipeline. Republicans love Koch money.

[champions77]

Dems on here making excuses for their incompetent, inept pathetic excuse for a President. If it wasn't so damaging to this country, it might be funny. This President makes it a policy to be against anything that would help America. This Pipeline is about the biggest "no-brainer" decision a President could ever make....but he can't get it right. It might make gasoline prices go down, and that would make it even more difficult for him to sell his green energy policy. That and it's pay back to the environmental radicals that contributed to his 2008 campaign.
God help us survive yet another year of his "reign of error".

[Sooner5030]

Looks like Koch Industries has a big stake in the pipeline. Republicans love Koch money.

Koch is actually pretty small (lobby wise) when compared to CORN and RAIL. Neither corn nor RAIL want this pipeline. Of course you prolly believe that money only influences one party.

[Whet]

Looks like Warren Buffet has big stakes in not allowing the pipeline, one of his companies will profit from not building the pipeline!

[sappstuf]

Looks like Koch Industries has a big stake in the pipeline. Republicans love Koch money.

How? They don't have any stake in Transcanada They have refineries in Minnesota, Alaska and Corpus Christi. Keystone will not go to any of those places. The refinery in Minnesota already has the Enbridge pipeline from Alberta running directly to it. The Corpus refinery gets all of its oil from the gulf. Alaska is in the wrong direction..

So please explain to me how it will help them. I have read that it will actually hurt them.

I think the more likely scenerio is that this is an effort by the Dems to tie Keystone to the Koch Brothers because Obama's decision to nix the pipeline is wildly unpopular and they are grasping at straws to not take a big hit.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Okay, can someone please help me understand how a pipeline buried a few feet in the ground can affect an aquifer that is hundreds of feet deeper than the deepest trench for the pipeline? What environmental threat is there to the aquifer? You want to talk about sensitive grasslands, I can see that argument, not the aquifer issue. I'll hang up and listen offline...

I am in Yokohama, a bit off the time table...

[diverdog]

How? They don't have any stake in Transcanada They have refineries in Minnesota, Alaska and Corpus Christi. Keystone will not go to any of those places. The refinery in Minnesota already has the Enbridge pipeline from Alberta running directly to it. The Corpus refinery gets all of its oil from the gulf. Alaska is in the wrong direction..

So please explain to me how it will help them. I have read that it will actually hurt them.

I think the more likely scenerio is that this is an effort by the Dems to tie Keystone to the Koch Brothers because Obama's decision to nix the pipeline is wildly unpopular and they are grasping at straws to not take a big hit.

Then why did One of Koch subsidaries say they had substantial interest in the pipeline and filed for intervenor (sp) status in Canada? Its not like Koch industries would never lie to the US government. Brahahaha

[ictsooner7]

Okay, can someone please help me understand how a pipeline buried a few feet in the ground can affect an aquifer that is hundreds of feet deeper than the deepest trench for the pipeline? What environmental threat is there to the aquifer? You want to talk about sensitive grasslands, I can see that argument, not the aquifer issue. I'll hang up and listen offline...

I am in Yokohama, a bit off the time table...

gravity

[sappstuf]

Then why did One of Koch subsidaries say they had substantial interest in the pipeline and filed for intervenor (sp) status in Canada? Its not like Koch industries would never lie to the US government. Brahahaha

The Sierra Club also has intervenor status as well.. I don't think it means what you think. It means outside parties that have an interest. Sierra Club has obvious interest. Koch has obvious interest. But it doesn't mean that either one have anything directly to do with the pipeline itself.

What do you think they are lying about? Are they secretly going to reroute the pipeline to Minnesota, Corpus and Alaska?

[Ton Loc]

And....again today, TransCanada talks about beginning an alternate pipeline ...towards China!

They're just pissed that they have to wait another 6 months to a year. Not that I blame them, but its just an empty threat.

[sappstuf]

gravity

Oddly enough, that isn't the case.


During the past 40 years, my colleagues and I at the Conservation and Survey Division of the University of Nebraska have focused our research on this aquifer. I personally have drilled more than 1,000 test holes into and through its complexities; I have analyzed the volume and behavior of the waters it holds. Here are several important findings.

1. The slope of the regional water table is from west to east; the deep waters within the host rocks move persistently downhill eastward. Approximately 80 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer lies to the west of the proposed alignment, “uphill” of the pipeline’s route. Spilled oil could not move upward against gravity.

2. Along much of the alignment, the depth to water is over 50 feet. Sediments above the top of the aquifer contain fine-grained deposits like silts and clays. In a 25-year study of an oil spill near Bemidji, Minn., the Geological Survey reported that “apparently fine-grained layers impeded the infiltration and redistribution of oil.”

3. If areas of the Ogallala were exposed to leaks from the pipeline, the highly varied layers within the rock formation itself would serve to localize the impact of a spill.

4. In places along the pipeline’s route, there are locations where the water table is near or at the land surface. It is my understanding that in these areas, TransCanada will encase the pipeline in a waterproof covering and cement jacket.

All this comforts me with the knowledge that a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole. However, we should require TransCanada to post a bond for any cleanup in the event of a spill. With that in place, we should approve the pipeline while simultaneously implementing an aggressive national policy that mandates energy efficiencies and finances the development of alternative energy sources for transportation.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer

[TheHumanAlphabet]

gravity
Bull****

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Oddly enough, that isn't the case.



http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer
This is what I thought. all the disingenuous arguments about polluting the aquifer. people who buy these bull**** reasons are stupid.

As for TransCanada, they are looking at building a pipeline from BC to plug into the US pipeline to the Gulf as partof the alaska pipeline. Easy enough to reverse the direction from AB to BC instead of coming from Alaska.

[ictsooner7]

Oddly enough, that isn't the case.

During the past 40 years, my colleagues and I at the Conservation and Survey Division of the University of Nebraska have focused our research on this aquifer. I personally have drilled more than 1,000 test holes into and through its complexities; I have analyzed the volume and behavior of the waters it holds. Here are several important findings.

1. The slope of the regional water table is from west to east; the deep waters within the host rocks move persistently downhill eastward. Approximately 80 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer lies to the west of the proposed alignment, “uphill” of the pipeline’s route. Spilled oil could not move upward against gravity.

2. Along much of the alignment, the depth to water is over 50 feet. Sediments above the top of the aquifer contain fine-grained deposits like silts and clays. In a 25-year study of an oil spill near Bemidji, Minn., the Geological Survey reported that “apparently fine-grained layers impeded the infiltration and redistribution of oil.”

3. If areas of the Ogallala were exposed to leaks from the pipeline, the highly varied layers within the rock formation itself would serve to localize the impact of a spill.

4. In places along the pipeline’s route, there are locations where the water table is near or at the land surface. It is my understanding that in these areas, TransCanada will encase the pipeline in a waterproof covering and cement jacket.

All this comforts me with the knowledge that a leak from the XL pipeline would pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole. However, we should require TransCanada to post a bond for any cleanup in the event of a spill. With that in place, we should approve the pipeline while simultaneously implementing an aggressive national policy that mandates energy efficiencies and finances the development of alternative energy sources for transportation.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer

I believe the operative phrase is; pose a minimal risk to the aquifer as a whole. This is why the republicans in Nebraska halted the project a year ago.

[dwarthog]

Oddly enough, that isn't the case.



http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/03/what-are-the-risks-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-project/the-pipeline-poses-minimal-risk-to-the-ogallala-aquifer

And this administration was supposed to be about using science to make great decisions. Just another collection of hack politicians pandering for votes.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Meanwhile, China has no such equivocations about buying Canadian oil. And Canada has no problem selling it to them. Mr Obama is the best President China ever had.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/canada-determined-to-build-gateway-pipeline-2012-01-26?link=home_carousel

[Skysooner]

Minimal risk doesn't mean no risk. Look at the Macondo oil spill by BP in the Gulf. There were a bunch of problems behind this. The overall risk wasn't assessed properly, and the BoP that should have been used would have effectively made this work. We can rationalize it all we want, but the pipeline should not be built through the charge area of this aquifer. Reroute it and go. The Republicans tried to play politics with this introducing the 60 day approval/disapproval.

For those that say that Obama hates anything carbon (cruiser), he was trying to open up more areas for drilling prior to Macondo. In fact, he was vilified by the left for doing so.

[okie52]

Minimal risk doesn't mean no risk. Look at the Macondo oil spill by BP in the Gulf. There were a bunch of problems behind this. The overall risk wasn't assessed properly, and the BoP that should have been used would have effectively made this work. We can rationalize it all we want, but the pipeline should not be built through the charge area of this aquifer. Reroute it and go. The Republicans tried to play politics with this introducing the 60 day approval/disapproval.

For those that say that Obama hates anything carbon (cruiser), he was trying to open up more areas for drilling prior to Macondo. In fact, he was vilified by the left for doing so.

He was opening a very small area on the east coast prior to the spill while virtually shutting down the all of the west coast and most of the east coast. It was a way he could tell the public he was drilling offshore when in actuality he was shutting most of it down. Both coasts were wide open for drilling when Obama took office.

[Skysooner]

This seems to say otherwise. West Coast has not been open since I have been in the business (at least in federal waters which is all he can control). Try again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40455797/ns/us_news-environment/t/obama-no-offshore-drilling-east-coast-waters/

I have been in this business including offshore drilling for 22 years now. I know what I am talking about.

[diverdog]

The Sierra Club also has intervenor status as well.. I don't think it means what you think. It means outside parties that have an interest. Sierra Club has obvious interest. Koch has obvious interest. But it doesn't mean that either one have anything directly to do with the pipeline itself.

What do you think they are lying about? Are they secretly going to reroute the pipeline to Minnesota, Corpus and Alaska?

Flint Hills a subsidiary of Koch Industries is heavily invested in the development of the oil sands in Canada and stand to benefit substaintually if this pipeline is built.

[REDREX]

Flint Hills a subsidiary of Koch Industries is heavily invested in the development of the oil sands in Canada and stand to benefit substaintually if this pipeline is built.----As would many other companies and the American consumer

[okie52]

This seems to say otherwise. West Coast has not been open since I have been in the business (at least in federal waters which is all he can control). Try again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40455797/ns/us_news-environment/t/obama-no-offshore-drilling-east-coast-waters/

I have been in this business including offshore drilling for 22 years now. I know what I am talking about.

For being in the business for 22 years its surprising you didn't know Congress let the congressional ban expire in 2008 and W lifted the executive ban shortly thereafter.

President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium on New Drilling
•The Obama Administration has moved our country backwards in terms of offshore energy production. In 2008, in response to record-high gasoline prices, Congress and the President acted to end the decades-long bans on offshore drilling – opening new areas off the Atlantic Coast and the Pacific Coast.
•When President Obama took office, these offshore areas were open for energy production. Since that time, President Obama has systematically taken steps to effectively re-impose an offshore drilling ban.


http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/opencoaststoObama.jpg

In March 2010, he abandoned the 2010-2015 leasing plan and announced a delay to the scheduled lease sales in offshore Virginia and in the Gulf of Mexico.

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Obamadrillingban-2012.jpg


• Under the plan announced by President Obama in April 2010, the majority of the areas open for drilling once the moratoria were lifted were once again closed. This included all of the Pacific Coast, the Northeastern Atlantic and Bristol Bay in Alaska.
• In total, the Obama OCS plan puts 13.14 billion barrels of oil and 41.49 trillion cubic feet of natural gas under lock and key.
• The Administration only considered development of the Mid-Atlantic, Southern Atlantic, Chukchi and Beaufort Sea following Draft Environmental Study work to be conducted over the next year.
• The Administration would allow drilling in a portion of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico if Congress lifted the ban that is in place until 2022.

◦

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af24/okie54/Obamadrillingban-2017.jpg

In December 2010, the President announced an even more restrictive offshore drilling plan that placed the entire Pacific Coast, the entire Atlantic Coast, the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and much of Alaska off-limits to future energy production – as they were before the record gasoline prices in 2008.

•The President’s actions have placed some of the most promising shallow water resources in the world off-limits and pushed domestic oil development into a smaller fraction of the Gulf of Mexico and into deeper water. The lease sale off the coast of Virginia, originally scheduled to take place in 2011, was put on hold until after 2017.
•Failure to develop our offshore energy resources is costing American jobs, hurting our economy and denying American taxpayers revenue to help pay down the national debt. According to the American Energy Alliance, permanently lifting the offshore moratoria would result in 1.2 million U.S. jobs, $8 trillion in additional economic output (GDP), $2.2 trillion in total tax receipts, and $70 billion in additional wages each year.
•President Obama has taken our offshore energy policies back to the days of 2008 when gasoline prices were over $4 per gallon. He has imposed a drill nowhere new policy that has cost jobs, forfeited revenue and denied access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy. The following maps show how the Obama Administration has blocked access to our offshore energy resources.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=231015



When Obama announced areas in offshore VA would be considered for leasing he effectively shut down both coasts except for that area. When W left office he announced 5 areas to be considered for leasing on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Obama delayed those as stated above. Now he has banned all offshore drilling on both coasts.

Now Obama says he is going to open up 75% of our reserves to offshore drilling. If he does that I will applaud him.

[Skysooner]

Federal restrictions
Areas withdrawn from oil and gas leasing as of 2007 Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972, which provided for the establishment of National Marine Sanctuaries, in which certain activities, including oil and gas drilling, are prohibited. To date, 13 sanctuaries with a combined area of 150,000 square miles (390,000 km2) have been so designated.

In 1982, the US Congress directed that no federal funds be used to lease federal tracts off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, or central and northern California. Over the years Congress added other areas until the prohibited area included all the east and west coasts, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Congress repeated the effective ban on offshore drilling in these areas every year until September 2008, when an appropriations bill passed the House and Senate without the ban.

In 1990, Congress passed the North Carolina Outer Banks Protection Act, prohibiting leasing and drilling on federal seabed offshore from North Carolina.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued an executive moratorium restricting federal offshore leasing to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Alaska. The moratorium banned federal leasing through the year 2000 off the East Coast, West Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico (offshore Florida Gulf Coast), and the Northern Aleutian Basin of Alaska. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012. In July 2008, President George W. Bush rescinded the executive order.

In 2002, Congress imposed a moratorium on drilling on or directionally beneath the Great Lakes. The ban was made permanent by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Part of the central and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico was declared off-limits to oil and gas leasing until 2022 by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.

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

Nothing is quite so simple as you want us to believe. The West Coast was opened up for about 1.5 years. California state waters have been off-limits for a long time now. The April Obama ban was in direct response to the Macondo spill which was stated in my earlier post. Most of the opposition to drilling off of certain coasts come from the state and residents. Cutting off drilling is a political expediency. Bush only did it at the end of his 2nd term. You would have us believe that Obama wants to ruin the energy industry. In fact, we have been in a revolution in our industry that could very well make us oil independent for the first time in decades. Offshore is a very dangerous game. High risk, high reward.

At this point, we have proved natural gas reserves that are a 100 year supply at current usage rates. For oil, we have 4 trillion barrels in place in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.

BTW, don't believe what politicians say. It is easy for them to lift an executive order when there are many other roadblocks in the way to prevent this drilling. The states would file suit, the permits would take years to issue, etc. That is why I don't pay attention to short term moves that mean nothing. Unless they open it up and drilling has occurred, I don't count it as anything more than rhetoric. So yes, I do know what I am talking about.

[okie52]

Federal restrictions
Areas withdrawn from oil and gas leasing as of 2007 Congress passed the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972, which provided for the establishment of National Marine Sanctuaries, in which certain activities, including oil and gas drilling, are prohibited. To date, 13 sanctuaries with a combined area of 150,000 square miles (390,000 km2) have been so designated.

In 1982, the US Congress directed that no federal funds be used to lease federal tracts off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, or central and northern California. Over the years Congress added other areas until the prohibited area included all the east and west coasts, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Congress repeated the effective ban on offshore drilling in these areas every year until September 2008, when an appropriations bill passed the House and Senate without the ban.

In 1990, Congress passed the North Carolina Outer Banks Protection Act, prohibiting leasing and drilling on federal seabed offshore from North Carolina.

In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued an executive moratorium restricting federal offshore leasing to Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Alaska. The moratorium banned federal leasing through the year 2000 off the East Coast, West Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico (offshore Florida Gulf Coast), and the Northern Aleutian Basin of Alaska. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended the moratorium through 2012. In July 2008, President George W. Bush rescinded the executive order.

In 2002, Congress imposed a moratorium on drilling on or directionally beneath the Great Lakes. The ban was made permanent by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Part of the central and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico was declared off-limits to oil and gas leasing until 2022 by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.

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

Nothing is quite so simple as you want us to believe. The West Coast was opened up for about 1.5 years. California state waters have been off-limits for a long time now. The April Obama ban was in direct response to the Macondo spill which was stated in my earlier post. Most of the opposition to drilling off of certain coasts come from the state and residents. Cutting off drilling is a political expediency. Bush only did it at the end of his 2nd term. You would have us believe that Obama wants to ruin the energy industry. In fact, we have been in a revolution in our industry that could very well make us oil independent for the first time in decades. Offshore is a very dangerous game. High risk, high reward.

At this point, we have proved natural gas reserves that are a 100 year supply at current usage rates. For oil, we have 4 trillion barrels in place in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming.

I've been in the energy field for quite a while myself. About 40 years but I certainly have been wrong before.

The April ban was prior to the Macondo by about 3 weeks. The december ban was in response to the Macondo (or at least that was the cover).

The only ban in place right now is an executive ban (other than around FL). Obama is the only one preventing drilling on the west coast or anywhere on the coasts save FL. Bush lifting the executive ban would have done nothing prior to the congressional ban expiring. When it expired he lifted the executive ban. It was politically expedient but more on the dems part in response to public outcry for drilling offshore during an election year. That, and they were pretty sure Obama was going to be elected and they would have even stronger majorities in congress.

There have been thousands of wells drilled in the gulf over the last 50 years so there have been plenty of rewards for the risk. Over a third of our domsestic production comes from the gulf. You do know he was court ordered twice to reopen the gulf. Where else in the world did they quit drilling offshore following the Macondo?

Actually Obama campaigned heavily against the oil and gas industry as well as coal.

Do you recall his cap and trade bill in 2009? How was NG treated? Has the NG act passed yet? Why has Obama not tried to convert our transportation sector more to NG?

I am very involved in our new drilling plays involving horizontal drilling and fracking the shales. Do you think Obama has helped that?

Did you read the Harold Hamm thread? Did you see his comments about his conversation with Obama?

Why do you think Obama has done an about face on offshore exploration (at least he stated he was)?

[okie52]

BTW, don't believe what politicians say. It is easy for them to lift an executive order when there are many other roadblocks in the way to prevent this drilling. The states would file suit, the permits would take years to issue, etc. That is why I don't pay attention to short term moves that mean nothing. Unless they open it up and drilling has occurred, I don't count it as anything more than rhetoric. So yes, I do know what I am talking about.

You mean I can't trust politicians?

Well you didn't seem to know the coasts were open to drilling and Obama placed the ban. And if there are going to be court fights over drilling on the Atlantic and/or Pacific then better to get started on them now rather than waiting for them 10 years down the road. But nobody is going to have to challenge drilling rights in court until Obama lifts the ban and proceeds to allow drilling.

BTW-where are all of those court battles in the gulf coast?

[Breadburner]

Obama will strike a deal to buy the Canadian oil from China....!

[Skysooner]

You mean I can't trust politicians?

Well you didn't seem to know the coasts were open to drilling and Obama placed the ban. And if there are going to be court fights over drilling on the Atlantic and/or Pacific then better to get started on them now rather than waiting for them 10 years down the road. But nobody is going to have to challenge drilling rights in court until Obama lifts the ban and proceeds to allow drilling.

BTW-where are all of those court battles in the gulf coast?

There are plenty of court battles in the east gulf coast. Florida doesn't want it due to tourism. Admittedly I don't follow the west coast that much, but it seems that it has been shut down for years. As I said, I don't worry about it until there is drilling, and all sorts of groups fight it on the west coast. On the east coast, it was open until Macondo. That kind of disaster should prompt us to be more careful. The rest of the gulf coast is primarily open since that was the true birth of the high rate industry from Spindletop to East Texas. It is just a different culture. It would be interesting to read a study of it. As it is, I'm primarily involved in modeling onshore fields in North America. Offshore drilling isn't exactly needed to supply the energy needs of this country, so I'm not so worried about it. In fact, more drilling will just hurt the industry overall as natural gas is at a 10 year low and unlikely to come back until 2014-2015.

[okie52]

The east coast was "open" for Virginia leasing to be done in 2012. This declaration was by Obama on 3/31/2010 weeks before the Macondo. But this act by Obama virtually closed off the rest of the east and west coast. (see chart #2)

They are once again giving out permits again in the gulf but the courts had to twice order Obama to do it. Now Obama wants to open up 75% of our reserves offshore....what changed?

I'm onshore too and well aware of our ng glut. If we were implementing distribution points for ng stations rather than wasting money on ethanol distribution points our energy policy might start making some sense. That and providing incentives for autos to be converted to ng or manufactured that way. An MCF being lower than $2.50 would be something consumers could appreciate and would be far cleaner than gasoline (or ethanol for that matter). As it is now companies like Chesapeake are shutting in wells and moving to oil. The Marcellus, haynesville, Barnett, etc...are all going to be in hibernation.

Our energy independence and/or our poor economy don't need to be turning away opportunities for jobs, royalties, reducing our trade deficit, increased tax revenues, etc...
Even with our new discoveries we are far from meeting our crude oil needs particularly with no movement in the transportation sector towards ng.

I would love to see us actually exporting oil again. Maybe that will happen in the future. Until then we need to utilize every resource available to meet our own needs.

[sappstuf]

Flint Hills a subsidiary of Koch Industries is heavily invested in the development of the oil sands in Canada and stand to benefit substaintually if this pipeline is built.

How? It shouldn't be hard to explain how they would benefit. The pipeline doesn't go to any of their refineries. They don't own any part in Transcanada.

And they aren't a shipper on the potential pipeline. These companies are:

Keystone XL Shippers Group (Collectively Canadian Natural Resources, ConocoPhillips Canada, EnCana Corporation, Shell Trading Canada Total E&P Canada Ltd and Trafigura Canada General Partners

[LiveLaughLove]

I read somewhere today that the big winner on no pipeline is one of Warren Buffett's railroads. They will be hauling oil via railway.

How convenient.

Nothing to see here I'm sure. Move on folks.

[okie52]

I read somewhere today that the big winner on no pipeline is one of Warren Buffett's railroads. They will be hauling oil via railway.

How convenient.

Nothing to see here I'm sure. Move on folks.

Maybe his secretary will pull a train.

[sappstuf]

Minimal risk doesn't mean no risk. Look at the Macondo oil spill by BP in the Gulf. There were a bunch of problems behind this. The overall risk wasn't assessed properly, and the BoP that should have been used would have effectively made this work. We can rationalize it all we want, but the pipeline should not be built through the charge area of this aquifer. Reroute it and go. The Republicans tried to play politics with this introducing the 60 day approval/disapproval.

For those that say that Obama hates anything carbon (cruiser), he was trying to open up more areas for drilling prior to Macondo. In fact, he was vilified by the left for doing so.

It has been. The Department of State has already signed off on the potential environmental impacts and said the project was safe. That was in August of last year.

[sappstuf]

I read somewhere today that the big winner on no pipeline is one of Warren Buffett's railroads. They will be hauling oil via railway.

How convenient.

Nothing to see here I'm sure. Move on folks.

Plus shipping by rail is more expensive and it is worse for the environment!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Minimal risk doesn't mean no risk. Look at the Macondo oil spill by BP in the Gulf. There were a bunch of problems behind this. The overall risk wasn't assessed properly, and the BoP that should have been used would have effectively made this work. We can rationalize it all we want, but the pipeline should not be built through the charge area of this aquifer. Reroute it and go. The Republicans tried to play politics with this introducing the 60 day approval/disapproval.

For those that say that Obama hates anything carbon (cruiser), he was trying to open up more areas for drilling prior to Macondo. In fact, he was vilified by the left for doing so.

Bull! and Horse hockey. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposed route. You can't eliminate every risk, but it is very small.

[champions77]

Flint Hills a subsidiary of Koch Industries is heavily invested in the development of the oil sands in Canada and stand to benefit substaintually if this pipeline is built.

So what, does America benefit from this?

So did the Country benefit from Solyndra? Or was it crony capitalism at it's worst? 500 Million in taxpayer funding and some was redirected back towards Obama's campaign coffers. I guess that makes me, as a taxpayer, an indirect contributor to Obama's 2012 re-election bid?

[SoonerPride]

So what, does America benefit from this?

So did the Country benefit from Solyndra? Or was it crony capitalism at it's worst? 500 Million in taxpayer funding and some was redirected back towards Obama's campaign coffers. I guess that makes me, as a taxpayer, an indirect contributor to Obama's 2012 re-election bid?

Crony capitalism.
Vulture capitalism.

I thought the right loved all forms of capitalism and it is verboten to protest any form of it.
Ever.

[LiveLaughLove]

I thought the right loved all forms of capitalism and it is verboten to protest any form of it.

We've discovered the problem.

[champions77]

Crony capitalism.
Vulture capitalism.

I thought the right loved all forms of capitalism and it is verboten to protest any form of it.
Ever.

Conservatives love capitalism that is based on sound economics, geared to the market, and is well thought out and excuted. Unfortunately, Solyndra contained none of the above. Was probably doomed from the get go. But all was okay for Obama, as he was able to pay back some campaign contributors...with American tax payer monies. 500 Million lost. I long for the days when a President would be impeached for having his finger prints on something so unethical.

It's okay to waste their money, afterall, the ones that pay federal taxes mostly vote for the GOP anyway, unlike Obama's constitutents, who don't pay federal taxes. Welfare and food stamps are exempt from federal taxes, right?

[Skysooner]

Bull! and Horse hockey. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the proposed route. You can't eliminate every risk, but it is very small.

Macondo was a very small risk, and yet it still happened. It didn't have to if the offshore operators had done their risk assessment properly. See World Oil this month if you want a further explanation.

Okie52-My job is resource and risk assessment for a major North American operator. I'm mostly focused on the upstream resource, but I also am tied into our marketing people who assess market conditions, gains, etc. I can't say I know much about ethanol subsidies beyond what I read. I try to stay informed, and obviously I'm a bit behind the times when it comes to knowing when certain offshore. However, the study you quoted on page 2 was obviously a piece entirely slanted in one direction. I don't buy into the rhetoric from either side nor do I think that Obama has been a hindrance to at least my part of the industry (namely onshore production) since the proposed IDC from instant to depletion related tax has never been enacted. Bush wasn't much of a friend to the industry either. As long as the government doesn't enact too many restrictive things (see the recent Bulgarian vote to ban fracking) then I'm fine with it.

On the pipeline, I don't really care that much. There was risk running it over a charge area of an aquifer. The government likely assessed the risk properly given the hoops we have to jump through to get permits on federal lands. However this is a highly politically charged atmosphere. Both sides are doing strange things. The Republicans put some arbitrary limit in place, and he called them on it. This will most likely still be done regardless of who wins the next election, but I'm frankly tired of the stupid things being said all around (see Romney's most recent ad against Gingrich referring to Pelosi).

[pphilfran]

Macondo was a very small risk, and yet it still happened. It didn't have to if the offshore operators had done their risk assessment properly. See World Oil this month if you want a further explanation.

Okie52-My job is resource and risk assessment for a major North American operator. I'm mostly focused on the upstream resource, but I also am tied into our marketing people who assess market conditions, gains, etc. I can't say I know much about ethanol subsidies beyond what I read. I try to stay informed, and obviously I'm a bit behind the times when it comes to knowing when certain offshore. However, the study you quoted on page 2 was obviously a piece entirely slanted in one direction. I don't buy into the rhetoric from either side nor do I think that Obama has been a hindrance to at least my part of the industry (namely onshore production) since the proposed IDC from instant to depletion related tax has never been enacted. Bush wasn't much of a friend to the industry either. As long as the government doesn't enact too many restrictive things (see the recent Bulgarian vote to ban fracking) then I'm fine with it.

On the pipeline, I don't really care that much. There was risk running it over a charge area of an aquifer. The government likely assessed the risk properly given the hoops we have to jump through to get permits on federal lands. However this is a highly politically charged atmosphere. Both sides are doing strange things. The Republicans put some arbitrary limit in place, and he called them on it. This will most likely still be done regardless of who wins the next election, but I'm frankly tired of the stupid things being said all around (see Romney's most recent ad against Gingrich referring to Pelosi).

I agree 100%...

[diverdog]

So what, does America benefit from this?

So did the Country benefit from Solyndra? Or was it crony capitalism at it's worst? 500 Million in taxpayer funding and some was redirected back towards Obama's campaign coffers. I guess that makes me, as a taxpayer, an indirect contributor to Obama's 2012 re-election bid?


Pfft. How much taxpayer money got redirected back to Bush from all those juicy contracts Haliburton got in the war effort? And the $500 million lost on Solyyndra wouldn't be enough to grease an Iraqi Sheik to stop stealing from our government for a day.

Heres the point. Koch Industries said they had no interest in this pipeline but now it appears they do. Why did they lie to congress?

Honestly I don't give a rats *** if this pipeline gets built or not. In the grand scheme of things it won't have much of an impact on the economy.

[sappstuf]

Pfft. How much taxpayer money got redirected back to Bush from all those juicy contracts Haliburton got in the war effort? And the $500 million lost on Solyyndra wouldn't be enough to grease an Iraqi Sheik to stop stealing from our government for a day.

Heres the point. Koch Industries said they had no interest in this pipeline but now it appears they do. Why did they lie to congress?

Honestly I don't give a rats *** if this pipeline gets built or not. In the grand scheme of things it won't have much of an impact on the economy.

DD,

I already explained this to you once. If you or Waxman wanted to know why Koch was interested in the pipeline, all you would have to do is look at their application for the intervenor status. It isn't hard to look up.

Here is what is on the application status.


Flint Hills Resources Canada LP ("Flint Hills") is among Canada's largest crude oil purchasers, shippers and exporters, coordinating supply for its refinery in Pine Bend, Minnesota. Consequently, Flint Hills has a direct and substantial interest in the application.

That's it. That is what Waxman is wailing about and trying to waste tax dollars and diverting attention away from Obama's decision. Koch is obviously concerned about the effects of the pipeline on their supply of oil coming out of Canada. They should be. Keystone will carry 900K barrels a day to US refineries. None of which Koch owns. They have a valid concern.

As I told you, Sierra Club has intervenor status. Here is their reasoning.


Sierra Club Canada is applying for Intervenor Status in the proceedings due to concern for the numerous, significant, and cumulative adverse impacts of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline. Sierra Club Canada’s objective is to ensure that the adverse cumulative impacts of existing and proposed projects connected by the Keystone XL Pipeline are rigorously assessed. The role of Sierra Club Canada’s participation will be to ensure that the NEB rigorously examines the adverse cumulative impacts of the Keystone XL Pipeline including climate change, water and air quality, community health, food production, biodiversity, wildlife, and
habitat fragmentation issues. The NEB must also assess the purpose of and need for proposed projects. Sierra Club Canada’s participation will demonstrate alternatives to the project that support sustainable development.

Some guy named Craig Wilkins has intervenor status... Why?


Right now the compressor station is planned to be put near many farm yards, if they moved it 4 to 5 miles south it would be in the
middle of the community pasture, where no one lives, and would not bother anyone.

Crestin Anderson..



We live in a very remote area, and are very used to our peace and quiet. I have heard an d know that pumping stations are very noisey. The pumping station will not even be 1 mile from my residence and I am strongly apposed to this location.

Chief Sheldon Wuttunee of the Red Pheasant Band(Indian tribe I guess..) has intervenor status. Here is his reasoning.


WEe have a serious interest in the environmental, spiritual, economic, cultural and historic effects of this project on people and territories. We also have an interest in training, business opportunities and employment potential on both an immediate and long term basis for our people, resulting from this project

Do you now understand that having intervenor status isn't a big scary deal like Waxman and left wing sites are making it out to be?

Because if not, I can go on.

[LiveLaughLove]

Sappstuf, good post. Facts and all, they are stubborn things.

Don't expect any agreement or conciliation however.

They see a Koch behind every tree, yet do not acknowledge Warren Buffett's railroad out in plain sight.

They see pressure on Republicans from lobbyists, yet do not see the Sierra Club and environmentalists effecting the President.

No, indeed, his motives are always seen as pure, while the Republicans are always seen as having selfish rotten motives.

And they call us dogmatic.

[hawaii 5-0]

No love for Moderates?

I thought I saw one somewhere.

Musta been on another Bored.


5-0

[diverdog]

DD,

I already explained this to you once. If you or Waxman wanted to know why Koch was interested in the pipeline, all you would have to do is look at their application for the intervenor status. It isn't hard to look up.

Here is what is on the application status.



That's it. That is what Waxman is wailing about and trying to waste tax dollars and diverting attention away from Obama's decision. Koch is obviously concerned about the effects of the pipeline on their supply of oil coming out of Canada. They should be. Keystone will carry 900K barrels a day to US refineries. None of which Koch owns. They have a valid concern.

As I told you, Sierra Club has intervenor status. Here is their reasoning.



Some guy named Craig Wilkins has intervenor status... Why?



Crestin Anderson..




Chief Sheldon Wuttunee of the Red Pheasant Band(Indian tribe I guess..) has intervenor status. Here is his reasoning.



Do you now understand that having intervenor status isn't a big scary deal like Waxman and left wing sites are making it out to be?

Because if not, I can go on.

And why is hard for you to understand that additional pipeline capacity will allow their company to expand production and develop more resources in Canada. One of Flint Hills biggest crude terminals sits in Hardisty Alberta Canada where the Keystone Pipeline begins. It would make business sense to use the pipeline at some point. What I don't get is why are they lying to Congress?

[sappstuf]

And why is hard for you to understand that additional pipeline capacity will allow their company to expand production and develop more resources in Canada. One of Flint Hills biggest crude terminals sits in Hardisty Alberta Canada where the Keystone Pipeline begins. It would make business sense to use the pipeline at some point. What I don't get is why are they lying to Congress?

Flint Hills has a terminal there.. It is the beginning of the pipeline I spoke about previously. It sends oil directly to their refinery in Minnesota that processes that type of oil. That has nothing to do with Keystone. It is a separate pipeline.

TransCanada has said they have commitments from shippers for 1.1 million barrels daily from 2013 through, I think, 2017. Can you find anything that says that Flint Hills is one of those? I have seen names like Valero, ConocoPhillips and Cenovus, but not Flint Hills.

[soonercruiser]

Pfft. How much taxpayer money got redirected back to Bush from all those juicy contracts Haliburton got in the war effort? And the $500 million lost on Solyyndra wouldn't be enough to grease an Iraqi Sheik to stop stealing from our government for a day.

Heres the point. Koch Industries said they had no interest in this pipeline but now it appears they do. Why did they lie to congress?

Honestly I don't give a rats *** if this pipeline gets built or not. In the grand scheme of things it won't have much of an impact on the economy.

Gee Diver!
And here I thought all you OUI libs were complaining that Cheney got all that Hallibuton $$?
Whatever fits, I guess.

[soonercruiser]

Obama's blockage? Try a fake deadline imposed on the presidency by a bought and paid for Republican House. The pipeline isn't deep-sixed, it's just not going to be approved as to the form and timetable demanded by the lobbyists who own the House. Boo hoo.

El stupido Press Secretary made a case today that they are awaiting some compromise that the Neb Gov. will agree to.
Problem is, the Neb Gov. held a news conference a month ago and stated that they had worked out their differences with the State Dept.!
Hmmmmmmm.....somebody is looking to twist the truth, or deflect criticism.
:boxing: (wish I could!)

[StoopTroup]

Cruiser really got this thing started basically blaming Obama using politics to stop the pipeline either to keep Pubs from getting credit and or Obama not doing it unless he gets credit. Now you jump back in and attack Diver after really disappearing from what seemed to be a good discussion from folks who were explaining how some folks might be hurt because they would lose their income from Transporting the oil via rail.

I think it would be great if the pipeline would create jobs but it sounds like this isn't about jobs as if the rail loses the money via transport there will be job loss there. This sounds more like another handout to Big Oil by getting the Government to help them develoP a cheaper way to get that oil across the Continental US.

God Fobid the Oil Company have to pay every land owner for access or reimburse them for any spill or property loss due to a spill. That would be political job killing.

It was interesting hearing folks who have been in the oil
Business expand on the benefits that different folks and Corporations and politicians would get by this pipeline going through.

The second you blame Obama we can find the Pubs on the outside doing the exact same thing.

Your outrage is hilarious.

[TitoMorelli]

Crony capitalism.
Vulture capitalism.

I thought the right loved all forms of capitalism and it is verboten to protest any form of it.
Ever.





http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/dweebius/sig_soonerprik.jpg



Fixed.

[okie52]

What is really stupid is thinking transporting by rail is ever justified economically vs a pipeline. One of the serious drawbacks of ethanol is that it has to be shipped by rail or truck since it can't use pipelines.

[dwarthog]

Isn't the ethanol required to be modified in some way prior to shipping, since is basically "booze" and would run afoul of liquor transport laws? Keep peeps from pinching it along the way.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Fixed.I see what ya did thar:worked_till_5am:

[cleller]

Isn't the ethanol required to be modified in some way prior to shipping, since is basically "booze" and would run afoul of liquor transport laws? Keep peeps from pinching it along the way.

When will the ethanol ever go away? Thousands of chainsaw owners have no clue why they keep burning up saws and other hot running, air-cooled gas motors.

I saw a good story in National Geographic bashing ethanol once. Scientists making the point that corn is food, and should be used that way, since refining it into ethanol is a net energy loss, and greenhouse gas accelerant. But this is a digression.

[dwarthog]

When will the ethanol ever go away? Thousands of chainsaw owners have no clue why they keep burning up saws and other hot running, air-cooled gas motors.

I saw a good story in National Geographic bashing ethanol once. Scientists making the point that corn is food, and should be used that way, since refining it into ethanol is a net energy loss, and greenhouse gas accelerant. But this is a digression.

You'll get no argument from me with your digression. It's a really bad idea on so very many fronts. A poster child for Government excess and foolishness.

[diverdog]

When will the ethanol ever go away? Thousands of chainsaw owners have no clue why they keep burning up saws and other hot running, air-cooled gas motors.

I saw a good story in National Geographic bashing ethanol once. Scientists making the point that corn is food, and should be used that way, since refining it into ethanol is a net energy loss, and greenhouse gas accelerant. But this is a digression.

I ran unto this problem with my boat. You have to put in a filter system or you could ruin an engine.