Lawmakers push bills to approve Keyst...

Lawmakers push bills to approve Keystone pipeline

There are 37 comments on the reuters.com story from Mar 15, 2013, titled Lawmakers push bills to approve Keystone pipeline. In it, reuters.com reports that:

Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress said Friday they are moving forward with bills introduced this week to pluck the power of approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada's oil sands to Texas, from the hands of the Obama administration.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at reuters.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Trump fixing Obama's mess”

Since: Mar 09

& Making America Great Again!

#25 Mar 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Veto them. We don't need temporary jobs, massive spills, and more revenues for Canada when they sell the oil abroad.
So you want us to invade more countries for oil instead? We can do that.
Your Ex

United States

#26 Mar 15, 2013
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what you ahole colored greenies said about the Alaska pipeline...
"OMG, leaks, damagae etc....we'll all die."
Much worse conditions.....not a problem yet after 5 decades..LMAO
Go see your proctologist and have your head removed, boy.
Texas Vertigo strikes again...
~and this is from 2006!!!!
But in March, the largest leak in North Slope production history – as many as 267,000 gallons – poured out of a corroded pipeline at the Prudhoe Bay complex for five days before being discovered. Since then, US EPA investigators have been seeking to determine whether BP violated the federal Clean Water Act by failing to prevent corrosion in the ruptured line. If it did, criminal charges could follow.

By comparison, the most recent oil spill was about 200 gallons. The consequent shutdown came after inspection tests found 16 thin spots from what BP officials said was "unexpectedly severe corrosion." The last time a "smart pig" had been used to check that line was in 1992.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0809/p02s01-usg...

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#27 Mar 15, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
Yea, we gotta help China get all that Canadian Oil. We don't care how high gas prices go here in the USA, as long as China gets low prices. Who cares if it's an environmental disaster? We should be willing to take the risk so oil barons can make more money.
That Oil is refined in Texas and then sent to China.
So should that Canadian Oil be sent to Texas and refined( giving AMERICANS JOBS) under US environmental laws,befor being sent to China, or do you want it shipped directly as crude to China and refined under Chinese laws with no jobs in the USA.?
see the light

United States

#28 Mar 15, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
Great Post!!!!!
I agree 100%.
We the People won; we placed the only qualified guy in the White House (for a 2nd time) that we wanted who we deemed to make all of the decisions on what’s a go and what’s not.
After his brilliant leadership led to the killing of Osama bin Laden the American people fully trust all of his decisions and we don’t want to hear anything from the idiot right-wingers who had 9-11 and Katrina happen on their watch.
We the illegals, and the rest of the bafoons.
see the light

United States

#29 Mar 15, 2013
If it is good for America, Obama will say no!
Les Claypool

Rowlett, TX

#30 Mar 15, 2013
Heaven forbid we actually produce and export a valuable commodity from the US!

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#31 Mar 15, 2013
American_Infidel wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want us to invade more countries for oil instead? We can do that.
Considering how well (cough) you did getting all that Iraqi oil to pay for the war Bush started, we'll pass.

You kinda proved when we invade countries, we don't EVER get our money back.
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#33 Mar 16, 2013
see the light wrote:
If it is good for America, Obama will say no!
Pumping toxic, molten, oil-sands sludge through
the Midwest to pollution spewing refineries in Texas
so that the product can be sold to China is good for
America?
Gary

Bellingham, WA

#34 Mar 16, 2013
Les Claypool wrote:
Heaven forbid we actually produce and export a valuable commodity from the US!
We already do, moron. Half of all the oil produced
in American is sold on the world market.

Moreover, the products derived from Canadian oil sands would
belong to the Canadians and the profits thereof.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#35 Mar 16, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Considering how well (cough) you did getting all that Iraqi oil to pay for the war Bush started, we'll pass.
You kinda proved when we invade countries, we don't EVER get our money back.
We thought Bush went was expensive, wait until Obama gets troops into N Korea and Egypt and Syria and Pakistan.
ThirdPartyAnimal

Omaha, NE

#37 Sep 5, 2013
Of course without the pipeline TransCanada would have to refine the oil in question near the source, and sell it here or in Canada. Please don't try to sell that silly story that TransCanada will run the pipeline through the Rocky Mountains to the West Coast.
Don Joe

Saint Paul, MN

#38 Sep 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> That Oil is refined in Texas and then sent to China.
So should that Canadian Oil be sent to Texas and refined( giving AMERICANS JOBS) under US environmental laws,befor being sent to China, or do you want it shipped directly as crude to China and refined under Chinese laws with no jobs in the USA.?
Instead of taking my tax dollars to create a pipeline for the benefit of a few rich Oil barons, why not give me the billions instead. I promise I will hire a few people. You have to say yes, because as you said we need the jobs.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#39 Sep 6, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Instead of taking my tax dollars to create a pipeline for the benefit of a few rich Oil barons, why not give me the billions instead. I promise I will hire a few people. You have to say yes, because as you said we need the jobs.
Because the Pipeline is not being built with tax Dollars, its will be built with private dollars. Are Liberals lying and saying it being built with tax dollars?
http://www.stateenergyreport.com/2013/08/10/t...

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

#40 Sep 6, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Because the Pipeline is not being built with tax Dollars, its will be built with private dollars. Are Liberals lying and saying it being built with tax dollars?
http://www.stateenergyreport.com/2013/08/10/t...
A blatant lie - taxpayers will end up funding a large portion of this - to go to other countries?

"Sen. Mitch McConnell claimed recently that the Keystone XL Pipeline “doesn’t require a penny of our taxpayer money all the president has to do is approve it.” But our research reveals many places that the pipeline project benefits from taxpayer subsidies.

The refineries that are linked to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as committed shippers will receive between $1 billion and $1.8 billion in tax breaks. They are paid specifically for investing in equipment to process the heavy sour oil the pipeline promises to deliver.

The largest of these refineries, Motiva, is half owned by Saudi Refining Inc., and will receive between $680 million and $1.1 billion in U.S. taxpayer support.

Keystone XL, like all oil industry projects, is enabled by substantial taxpayer subsidies. Three of the refineries that are planning to process the pipeline’s oil have invested in special equipment to handle the extra heavy tar sands oil. According to our conservative estimates, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing these investments to the tune of $1.0-1.8 billion. Here’s how it works

Tar sands oil is not like most other crude oil. It is a semi-solid bituminous sludge that has to be diluted with much lighter oil in order to be transported by pipeline. Once it arrives at a refinery, the diluent is removed and the bitumen is refined into petroleum products using special equipment. The equipment required includes cokers and hydrocrackers.

In anticipation of the Keystone XL pipeline, three refineries in Port Arthur, Texas have added this equipment in order to be able to profitably process the bitumen. Their goal is to maximize their production of high value fuels such as gasoline and diesel rather than be left with less valuable fuels such as residual oil (for shipping and industrial burners) and Petroleum Coke, a coal like substance that is burned in aluminum smelters and the like. Heavy oil yields high proportions of these less valuable fuels if you do not have the specific equipment to increase the higher value yield.

Special tax rules apply to these investments that are unique to the refining industry. Title 179C of the tax code allows the refining companies to deduct the value of these investments from their tax returns at a highly accelerated rate. Rather than spread the expense over the life time of the equipment, say 20-30 years, the refiners are allowed to expense (i.e., deduct from their taxable income) 50% in the first year and expense the rest through the next 9 years. This is tantamount to a massive interest free loan from the taxpayer to big oil refiners, making it cheaper for them to process a particularly dirty form of foreign oil. In the case of the three Port Arthur refineries preparing to process Keystone XL crude, we calculate this to cost the taxpayer between $1.0 billion and $1.8 billion"

http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-...
serfs up

Ormond Beach, FL

#41 Sep 7, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
A blatant lie - taxpayers will end up funding a large portion of this - to go to other countries?
"Sen. Mitch McConnell claimed recently that the Keystone XL Pipeline “doesn’t require a penny of our taxpayer money all the president has to do is approve it.” But our research reveals many places that the pipeline project benefits from taxpayer subsidies.
The refineries that are linked to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline as committed shippers will receive between $1 billion and $1.8 billion in tax breaks. They are paid specifically for investing in equipment to process the heavy sour oil the pipeline promises to deliver.
The largest of these refineries, Motiva, is half owned by Saudi Refining Inc., and will receive between $680 million and $1.1 billion in U.S. taxpayer support.
Keystone XL, like all oil industry projects, is enabled by substantial taxpayer subsidies. Three of the refineries that are planning to process the pipeline’s oil have invested in special equipment to handle the extra heavy tar sands oil. According to our conservative estimates, the U.S. taxpayer is subsidizing these investments to the tune of $1.0-1.8 billion. Here’s how it works
Tar sands oil is not like most other crude oil. It is a semi-solid bituminous sludge that has to be diluted with much lighter oil in order to be transported by pipeline. Once it arrives at a refinery, the diluent is removed and the bitumen is refined into petroleum products using special equipment. The equipment required includes cokers and hydrocrackers.
In anticipation of the Keystone XL pipeline, three refineries in Port Arthur, Texas have added this equipment in order to be able to profitably process the bitumen. Their goal is to maximize their production of high value fuels such as gasoline and diesel rather than be left with less valuable fuels such as residual oil (for shipping and industrial burners) and Petroleum Coke, a coal like substance that is burned in aluminum smelters and the like. Heavy oil yields high proportions of these less valuable fuels if you do not have the specific equipment to increase the higher value yield.
Special tax rules apply to these investments that are unique to the refining industry. Title 179C of the tax code allows the refining companies to deduct the value of these investments from their tax returns at a highly accelerated rate. Rather than spread the expense over the life time of the equipment, say 20-30 years, the refiners are allowed to expense (i.e., deduct from their taxable income) 50% in the first year and expense the rest through the next 9 years. This is tantamount to a massive interest free loan from the taxpayer to big oil refiners, making it cheaper for them to process a particularly dirty form of foreign oil. In the case of the three Port Arthur refineries preparing to process Keystone XL crude, we calculate this to cost the taxpayer between $1.0 billion and $1.8 billion"
http://priceofoil.org/2012/02/08/keystone-xl-...
The progressives would have put the cleaner energy options in the forefront if they existed. They don't at the levels needed at economical prices. and we are living at artificially high prices today as we are all suckers. the money charged to taxpayers. Debate or not. but we pay the same to sluts crapping out babies and paying for their crumb snatchers just in any single city. Half this nation is progressive. Build the plants you like and stop blaming others.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#42 Sep 7, 2013
serfs up wrote:
<quoted text> The progressives would have put the cleaner energy options in the forefront if they existed. They don't at the levels needed at economical prices. and we are living at artificially high prices today as we are all suckers. the money charged to taxpayers. Debate or not. but we pay the same to sluts crapping out babies and paying for their crumb snatchers just in any single city. Half this nation is progressive. Build the plants you like and stop blaming others.
What these Liberals are incapable of understanding are standing is these so called "subsidies" are NOT a transfer of taxpayer money from other people to the Oil companies.. They are tax breaks that enable the companies to pay less taxes. But liberals think everyone elses money
belongs o them so if they only take half your money they are being genorous since that other half belong to them to.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#43 Sep 7, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Because the Pipeline is not being built with tax Dollars, its will be built with private dollars. Are Liberals lying and saying it being built with tax dollars?
http://www.stateenergyreport.com/2013/08/10/t...
And give me the right of way for the pipeline. And give me protection so I won't have to pay for any spills. Give me free insurance. Give me, give me, give me. So, do I sound like a republican?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator John Hoeven Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Oil pipeline: Trump's stock in company raises c... (Nov '16) May '17 WillieRapier 12
News News 22 Mins Ago Senator: Army Corp told to app... (Jan '17) Mar '17 Buried Valor 28
News Army grants permission to finish Dakota Access ... (Feb '17) Mar '17 Mikey 14
News Back on Track? Army Corps told to clear way for... (Feb '17) Mar '17 Native ... 24
News What's next for Standing Rock? Sioux tribe is c... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Texxy the Selfie Cat 1
News Company to resume work to finish Dakota Access ... (Feb '17) Feb '17 Texxy the Selfie Cat 1
News GOP makes final push for school lunch waiver (Dec '14) Feb '17 Texxy the Selfie Cat 23
More from around the web