• Keystone 'not even nominal benefit' to US consumers, Obama says
    55 replies, posted
[quote]President Obama on Friday said building the Keystone oil pipeline would “not even have a nominal benefit” to consumers, pushing back at claims it would lower gas prices further. Obama stressed that the issue at hand for Keystone is “not American oil, it is Canadian oil.” “That oil currently is being shipped out through rail or trucks and it would save Canadian oil companies, and the Canadian oil industry enormous amounts of money if they could simply pipe it all the way down to the Gulf,” Obama said during his final press conference of 2014. “It’s very good for Canadian oil companies, and it’s good for the Canadian oil industry but it’s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers, it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers,” Obama said. Obama has repeatedly criticized Republicans for demanding approval of the $8 billion oil sands project. A Senate vote in November fell one vote short of sending legislation to Obama's desk. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has vowed to make it the first piece of business for a Republican Senate next year. ..... “I think there has been this tendency to really hype this thing as some magic formula to what ails the U.S. economy and it is hard to see on paper where they are getting that information from,” Obama added.[/quote] [url]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/227721-obama-keystone-not-even-nominal-benefit-to-us-consumers[/url] Not really sure of why I've seen a lot of flip-flopping as of recently regarding Keystone XL on FP. It's been pretty clear the entire time that it's Canadian oil (being sold to China) and is only going to create a handful of temporary jobs, and even fewer permanent jobs, hardly benefiting the US at all while potentially creating huge environmental risks.
[QUOTE]“It’s very good for Canadian oil companies, and it’s good for the Canadian oil industry but it’s not going to be a huge benefit to U.S. consumers, it’s not even going to be a nominal benefit to U.S. consumers,” Obama said.[/QUOTE] Sorry.
I think some Americans like to get caught up in the "Drill baby drill" mentality without really considering exactly what the impacts really are. Take the Keystone, for instance. It's selling a Canadian oil company the land rights to a ridiculous amount of American land in exchange for a few thousand temporary jobs, and a few hundred permanent ones. And yet the Right seems to portray it as a bastion of hope for our unemployed, and it's hard to think a lot of their talking heads aren't being paid to do so. If you look at our current pipelines, they're nasty things. Running one across America's heartland, our breadbasket, seems like it'd be a monumentally bad decision on all fronts.
Progress and job creation is still progress and job creation, hopefully the republicans can push this through with 2/3rds over ride
Can't let those damn [I]Canadians[/I] have our oil money.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760271]Progress and job creation is still progress and job creation, hopefully the republicans can push this through with 2/3rds over ride[/QUOTE] is this satire? I can't even tell anymore.
[QUOTE=Xain777;46760292]is this satire? I can't even tell anymore.[/QUOTE] no I really hope this gets overridden and the pipeline is built, jobs are still jobs and we need to start somewhere. Just like offshore drilling in the US east coast really hope that gets pushed through
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760271]Progress and job creation is still progress and job creation, hopefully the republicans can push this through with 2/3rds over ride[/QUOTE] Again, a couple thousand temporary jobs, maybe a couple hundred permanent ones, and we're having to enforce eminent domain against a lot of people for it. We've got just over 16 MILLION Americans who are unemployed right now. This would give a few hundred of them jobs. That's not progress, that's a drop in the bucket. And the Canadians would be laughing all the way to the bank because of it. Is that really what you want? Because you don't seem to understand the numbers involved. (I know for a fact that some of the GOP members backing this thing are invested in TransCanada, they have said as much in interviews. Their loyalties should be abundantly clear, and they are not to the American people.)
Nobody's mentioned the issue of eminent domain either. They're planning on taking U.S. citizen property away from them with no say in the matter. Maybe if the Keysone XL would benefit us it would be okay but ripping U.S. citizens privately owned land from them for the benefit of a private company (that's not even American) is disgusting.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46760326]Nobody's mentioned the issue of eminent domain either. They're planning on taking U.S. citizen property away from them with no say in the matter. Maybe if the Keysone XL would benefit us it would be okay but ripping U.S. citizens privately owned land from them for the benefit of a private company (that's not even American) is disgusting.[/QUOTE] Just did. Nothing builds public support like forcing farmers off their land at gunpoint! Unless we've forgotten the last time we enforced eminent domain across large swaths of land.
Why are people so fucking upset over the pipeline, it's much safer than rail
[QUOTE=woolio1;46760331]Just did. Nothing builds public support like forcing farmers off their land at gunpoint! Unless we've forgotten the last time we enforced eminent domain across large swaths of land.[/QUOTE] Take a thousand jobs away and give a few hundred back, that's an improvement right???
[QUOTE=woolio1;46760319]Again, a couple thousand temporary jobs, maybe a couple hundred permanent ones, and we're having to enforce eminent domain against a lot of people for it. We've got just over 16 MILLION Americans who are unemployed right now. This would give a few hundred of them jobs. That's not progress, that's a drop in the bucket. And the Canadians would be laughing all the way to the bank because of it. Is that really what you want?[/QUOTE] We lease some of the land, get paid for up keep and taxation of goods, port tariffs, ship yards needed, towns built to support checkpoints at the pipeline, inspectors to ensure environmental and safety regulations are met, etc. Can you provide proof where it will only be "a few hundred jobs", or are you just pulling that number out of the air? eminent domain means that the government would also provide relocation fees for families in that zone, oh fuck no some people may have to move a few blocks or a mile away and get fully compensated for it. So yes I want that if it promotes job growth. [editline]21st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46760326]Nobody's mentioned the issue of eminent domain either. They're planning on taking U.S. citizen property away from them with no say in the matter. Maybe if the Keysone XL would benefit us it would be okay but ripping U.S. citizens privately owned land from them for the benefit of a private company (that's not even American) is disgusting.[/QUOTE] You do realize that the land and other expenses are compensated for right? What's the matter if everything is compensated for.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760342]We lease some of the land, get paid for up keep and taxation of goods, port tariffs, ship yards needed, towns built to support checkpoints at the pipeline, inspectors to ensure environmental and safety regulations are met, etc. Can you provide proof where it will only be "a few hundred jobs", or are you just pulling that number out of the air? eminent domain means that the government would also provide relocation fees for families in that zone, oh fuck no some people may have to move a few blocks or a mile away and get fully compensated for it. So yes I want that if it promotes job growth.[/QUOTE] The issue isn't the concept of eminent domain, IMO the issue is what it's being used for. Yes those people will be compensated for it but the point is they're being kicked off THEIR land for the benefit of a privately owned CANADIAN company.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46760336]Why are people so fucking upset over the pipeline, it's much safer than rail[/QUOTE] Because theres no gain for it. Its very few temporary jobs and even fewer permanent ones for the cost of people's private property and the chance to cause total ecological damage to fresh water lines or ground water with US gaining literally nothing since its canada's oil corporations and not US'.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760342]We lease some of the land, get paid for up keep and taxation of goods, port tariffs, ship yards needed, towns built to support checkpoints at the pipeline, inspectors to ensure environmental and safety regulations are met, etc. Can you provide proof where it will only be "a few hundred jobs", or are you just pulling that number out of the air? eminent domain means that the government would also provide relocation fees for families in that zone, oh fuck no some people may have to move a few blocks or a mile away and get fully compensated for it. So yes I want that if it promotes job growth.[/QUOTE] I'd like to point you toward the Hoover Dam construction, since you seem to think eminent domain is a perfect system. If getting paid pennies on the dollar for your home and land is acceptable to you, you might want to try growing some empathy. And, again, it won't make a dent in our 16+ MILLION unemployed citizens. At all. Even if it puts 10 or 20 thousand people to work, it's still absolutely nothing, and we could do a lot more if we invested in domestic companies instead. You seem to have a utopic idea of what the Keystone pipeline would do, but you don't seem to understand the ramifications involved.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46760354]The issue isn't the concept of eminent domain, IMO the issue is what it's being used for. Yes those people will be compensated for it but the point is they're being kicked off THEIR land for the benefit of a privately owned CANADIAN company.[/QUOTE] Okay and they are fully compensated for relocating, so I still fail to see the problem. The republicans were elected by the majority and I believe that the majority wants the pipeline done. It's promoting job growth of potentially thousands of workers, bringing income in through the use of taxation of that company and tariffs etc. Also can you provide a source on how the pipeline will only have a few hundred jobs?
[I]Everything is falling into place as planned, all glory to your new Northern Petrol Overlords...[/I]
[QUOTE=woolio1;46760364]I'd like to point you toward the Hoover Dam construction, since you seem to think eminent domain is a perfect system. If getting paid pennies on the dollar for your home and land is acceptable to you, you might want to try growing some empathy. [/quote] Wow pennies on the dollar for market rate of the dessert in a time when the economy was completely tanked. but it worked well and now hundreds of thousands are employed, new cities formed because of it(see las vegas), new technologies arose, and progress was made. Seems like a worth while investment [quote]And, again, it won't make a dent in our 16+ MILLION unemployed citizens. At all. Even if it puts 10 or 20 thousand people to work, it's still absolutely nothing, and we could do a lot more if we invested in domestic companies instead.[/quote] 10-20 thousand is still alot, no company will make all that happen in one swoop. Right now it's a way to employ a shit load of people who aren't working right now and provide income. Unless you want an all or nothing, if that's the case idk what to tell you. The pipeline will open up the possibility for many refineries/inspectors/ to be opened as well; worthy investment IMO [quote]You seem to have a utopic idea of what the Keystone pipeline would do, but you don't seem to understand the ramifications involved.[/QUOTE] I said it's a step in the right direction not an end all but it opens many more possibilities and improves the economy, even if only temporary.
[QUOTE=Kyle v2;46760398][I]Everything is falling into place as planned...[/I][/QUOTE] [I]It was the Canadians the whole time...[/I]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46760341]Take a thousand jobs away and give a few hundred back, that's an improvement right???[/QUOTE] Where did the take thousand jobs away come from?
[QUOTE=Sally;46760448]Where did the take thousand jobs away come from?[/QUOTE] Those large swathes of land being used for the pipeline aren't uninhabited.
[QUOTE=lipsokwater;46760428][I]It was the Canadians the whole time...[/I][/QUOTE] And they're still sorry for it......
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760373]Okay and they are fully compensated for relocating, so I still fail to see the problem. The republicans were elected by the majority and I believe that the majority wants the pipeline done. It's promoting job growth of potentially thousands of workers, bringing income in through the use of taxation of that company and tariffs etc. Also can you provide a source on how the pipeline will only have a few hundred jobs?[/QUOTE] You still don't see the problem? Let me put it this way: If some big company exec came knocking on your door saying he's going to take away your land (that has been in your family's possession) for a long time and you had no choice in the matter you'd probably be a little peeved off.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46760336]Why are people so fucking upset over the pipeline, it's much safer than rail[/QUOTE] Tar sand is the most wasteful petroleum extraction process ever, and we're going to push it through ecologically protected parts of the US, just so Canada can sell it to China? No thanks.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46760486]You still don't see the problem? Let me put it this way: If some big company exec came knocking on your door saying he's going to take away your land (that has been in your family's possession) for a long time and you had no choice in the matter you'd probably be a little peeved off.[/QUOTE] Surprisingly I already had land taken from my family by eminent domain in northern VA, you get cash and it's basically tax free. You can re-buy elsewhere and generally you get help with relocating. [editline]21st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BANNED USER;46760503]Tar sand is the most wasteful petroleum extraction process ever, and we're going to push it through ecologically protected parts of the US, just so Canada can sell it to China? No thanks.[/QUOTE] Yeah but they are going to do that anyway, why not employ people and make taxation money off it in the process?
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760507]Surprisingly I already had land taken from my family by eminent domain in northern VA, you get cash and it's basically tax free. You can re-buy elsewhere and generally you get help with relocating.[/QUOTE] Like I said before there's generally no problem with eminent domain when it's used or state/federal benefit but this is being used to benefit a -private-non-American-not state/federally owned-company. What do you not understand???
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;46760517]Like I said before there's generally no problem with eminent domain when it's used or state/federal benefit[/QUOTE] There is a benefit through taxation and tariffs as well as state growth for supporting the pipeline. You used the hoover dam as an example, I have why it was a worthy investment in the cities it spawned around it's creation. Supporting the damn led way to other investments such as las vegas and other towns that now renerate huge revenue for both state and federal levels. [quote]but this is being used to benefit a -private-non-American-not state/federally owned-company. What do you not understand???[/quote] Taxation of the line, private companies supporting it, construction agencies building it, inspectors making sure it lives up to US standards, possibilities for oil refineries, dock workers loading it onto ships, new ports, etc. Seems like a decent benefit to me. You also have to take into effect the fact that these potential people who are living off unemployment or government funding, due to a lack of job, is now diverted to the private sector as contractors meaning each individual is now getting income from another source and paying taxes off that income. There is a lot to gain from a government stand point in terms of growth.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46760530]There is a benefit through taxation and tariffs as well as state growth for supporting the pipeline. You used the hoover dam as an example, I have why it was a worthy investment in the cities it spawned around it's creation. Supporting the damn led way to other investments such as las vegas and other towns that now renerate huge revenue for both state and federal levels.[/QUOTE] instead of comparing an american company's dam, which actively generates electricity for sale to the nation and requires more than 35 permanent positions to keep operating, lets compare it to the trans-alaskan pipeline. [quote]Alaska expected the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to lead to the growth of chemical manufacturing and refining in the state. The Wall Street Journal concluded in September 1979 that the “capital intensive” oil industry had failed to create a significant number of permanent jobs for Alaska. After the pipeline was completed, unemployment grew, reaching 15% by June 1977. By September 1979 it had dropped to 11%, but private industry failed to expand substantially. 40% of Alaska’s workforce remained on the public payroll. This was a classic boomtown effect, in which the population of Alaska, particularly the interior city of Fairbanks, swelled in anticipation of petroleum construction jobs. Once the project was complete many thousands who had moved to the city were left unemployed. Eventually, by the mid-1980s, the pipeline project spawned additional spinoff pipelines, but they employed only a small fraction of the construction workers who had previously worked for Alyeska. Clearly, Trans-Alaska did not bring nearly as many jobs as promised.[/quote] [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2013/05/10/pipe-dreams-how-many-jobs-will-be-created-by-keystone-xl/2/[/url] now, granted, [quote]Over the long term, however, the existence of the Trans-Alaska pipeline enticed oil companies to further develop Alaskan oil, which led to increased state revenues. The Alaska Department of Revenue now estimates that since Trans-Alaska’s completion, 85% of Alaska’s unrestricted general fund has come directly from the oil industry. Today, Alaska attributes its lack of personal income taxes and sales taxes to the revenue from the oil industry.[/quote] ... but that was oil produced in alaska and sold from alaska. whereas this company is canadian, produces canadian oil, and gets canadian profits. so we get taxes and tarifs, so what? we don't get any of the real money from it, and the taxes and tariffs are nowhere near enough compensation if there is an accident, which has potential fuck with where almost all of our food is grown. but hey there are like a few thousands permanent jobs maybe so who cares right
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46760579] so we get taxes and tarifs, so what? we don't get any of the real money from it, and the taxes and tariffs are nowhere near enough compensation if there is an accident, which has potential fuck with where almost all of our food is grown.[/quote] Yes let's speculating on things that haven't happened and things we have learned from. That is why we have inspectors; same with airlines if we stopped after every crash we would be no where. Alaska and their people are still making money off it, so I fail to see the "bad" there was an ROI and the TCO proved it was worth it. [quote]but hey there are like a few thousands permanent jobs maybe so who cares right[/QUOTE] Sounds good to me which is why I voted republican this round; given proper safety inspections, technology, and proper care of what we know today, spills and such are minimal to near null.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.