What a tool...it would create jobs, use our own resources and lower energy costs! Even his union buddies supported that one! Sigh...
Minnesota: You used the wrong adjective. He didn't reject the pipeline, it was the path the pipeline was to take was rejected for good reason. A new engineering plan has to be made. Read the whole story before accepting the con's take.
Keystone Pipe will bring 435k barrells of oil PER DAY. That equates to about 43 mil $/day in oil flowing to a hub in Texas. The tax breaks that you refer to are not only minimal, but have more to do with the drilling and exploration than for piping oil. You can check my tax points, I think you will see that none of them are false.
In addition, Kansas thought that it was in their best interest to cede revenue that may or may not be there for a decade so that they could benefit from the long term revenue from the pipeline. In KY a little farming town called Georgetown KY gave away the farm by offering tax incentives to Toyota to build a Camry plant. There were all types of incentives offered, I wonder why they did that? I lived through this project and can see the outcome everyday when I see the growth and job creation that Toyota has 'imposed' on the community.
As far as CA - US relationship is concerned I would be very careful. They have a glut of gas, liquids and heavy crude. We have the answer to thier problem. The gas can be compressed, the liquids used by all types of industry and we have the best refining facilities in the world for cracking heavy crude. The Canadians simply want to sell oil, and we should simply want to buy that oil.
I understand your argument but we're already on good terms with Canada
So what good does that do us once the pipeline sends the oil to China? It's about security/economic and otherwise.
As for peripheral jobs...any time there is infrastructure built, it is a boon to towns along the way. We've been in the hotel/motel business for 40 years...these types of things are a boon to small towns along the way.
Oh yeah...Boone Pickens, although heavily vested in the energy industry, is a real idiot! Bet you didn't think so when he was losing BILLIONS on his wind energy investments!
Your: I think you are ranting about something that is not relevant. The Obama administration; the State Department, after being pressured by the Governor and other Nebraska officials asked that the planned route for the proposed pipeline be cancelled and a new route for the pipeline be drawn up. Any engineer will tell you this takes time to do this. This cannot be done in 60 days as imposed by the Republicans.
At least we have a President that makes studious decisions. The Nebraska officials had great reservations about the planned path of the pipeline. The Governor of Nebraska is a Republican and he was against the planned route. Congress then attached a provision to a bill with a 60 day window for planning a new route for the pipeline. Any engineering firm will tell you that this is not workable. The oil that will flow through the proposed pipleline will be refined into products that will go to Europe and Asian Countries. This will actually raise the gas and diesel prices for the United States customers.
The pipeline will raise prices for US consumers.......OK
So, right now we have the capabilities to crack the type of heavy crude that is coming out of the canada. We are currently doing so and shipping octane off to other countries which is raising the price marginally on domestic supplies. If we have a increase in supply and an increase in capacity utilization I don't see how one could make an arguement that prices would go up. Actually there might be more total sipments to Europe, although they are in a recession and demand has been dropping for distillates for the past 4 mos. out of europe, so eventually that demand will come back. And, for that very reason we need greater supply. If we have greater supply coming on line over the next 12 mos. then we can meet that demand with volume. As it stands the oil will be cracked either here in the US or Chnia, it is your pick.
The arguement about prices going up is absurd and speculation at best.
Your arguement about the POTUS making studious decisions is also absurd, there is nothing that the POTUS has studied other than lobbyist literature to make this decision. THat 60 day window was attatched as a part of the sunset clause on the payroll tax, not as a new planning provision like you proported.
"A president that makes studious decisions"
You'r NOT talking about our present president are you ???
Unless you're referring to his golfing,,, "Hmmm should I use the 6 iron or the 7 ,, ??? hmmmm.
Also: The "refined oil will be shipped to Europe and Asian Countries"
Do a little research, Refined Crude oil is being shipped to Latin America & Panama Not Europe.
One last thing, "ALL" the Dept.of Resources for "All the states" that the pipeline was going to go through gave their blessings on the project.
It was the pressure from conservationists that pressured our "studious" president to say no.
I understand your argument but we're already on good terms with Canada; a pipeline is not going to make or break our relations. I'm also not sure if the tax revenue from this project is going to be as favorable as you think. I'm under the belief that since the oil companies already receive 4-5 billion in tax breaks annually, that this project won't be any different. I know due to an exemption Kansas gave TransCanada on this project, the local authorities would lose $50 million public revenue from property taxes for a decade. In addition, since there are only going to be a few thousand temporary jobs at most building the pipeline, the money isn't going to spread to non-oil industries like you say.