Republicans seek to cut Obama out of Keystone decision
BartSimpson @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:33 pm
Who loves ya', baby? 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/ ... cs+News%29
$1:
WASHINGTON | Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:19pm EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the Senate are drafting a bill that would approve TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, circumventing President Barack Obama who is reluctant to sign off on the project, an aide to North Dakota Senator John Hoeven told Reuters on Wednesday.
While approval of cross-border pipelines has traditionally been made by the administration, Congress can use its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations to approve the pipeline, said Ryan Bernstein, an energy advisor to Hoeven.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the Senate are drafting a bill that would approve TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, circumventing President Barack Obama who is reluctant to sign off on the project, an aide to North Dakota Senator John Hoeven told Reuters on Wednesday.
While approval of cross-border pipelines has traditionally been made by the administration, Congress can use its authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations to approve the pipeline, said Ryan Bernstein, an energy advisor to Hoeven.
DrCaleb @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 3:45 pm
I'd rather we (Canadian Taxpayers) don't wind up paying for the pipeline. I'd also rather that we shipped refined product, rather than bitumen.
That said, Obama is between a rock and a hard place. The need for the pipeline can only be eliminated after a serious conversation that USians need to have with their countrymen. So Obama must approve it. But his voter base is opposed to it because they oppose anything that might have a negative environmental effect just on principal, so he can't aprove it. But they need the mythical jobs that come with it, so he needs to approve it because even environmentalists need jobs.
I'm glad someone is taking responsibility for it's approval though. Hope it's the right decision. 
Unsound @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:28 pm
I just wonder if it'll get done any faster this way? Or will there end up being a bunch of legal constitutional wrangling over who actually has the authority that carries on for months or years?
raydan @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:34 pm
DrCaleb DrCaleb:
I'd rather we (Canadian Taxpayers) don't wind up paying for the pipeline. I'd also rather that we shipped refined product, rather than bitumen.
That said, Obama is between a rock and a hard place. The need for the pipeline can only be eliminated after a serious conversation that USians need to have with their countrymen. So Obama must approve it. But his voter base is opposed to it because they oppose anything that might have a negative environmental effect just on principal, so he can't aprove it. But they need the mythical jobs that come with it, so he needs to approve it because even environmentalists need jobs.
I'm glad someone is taking responsibility for it's approval though. Hope it's the right decision.
That said, Obama is between a rock and a hard place. The need for the pipeline can only be eliminated after a serious conversation that USians need to have with their countrymen. So Obama must approve it. But his voter base is opposed to it because they oppose anything that might have a negative environmental effect just on principal, so he can't aprove it. But they need the mythical jobs that come with it, so he needs to approve it because even environmentalists need jobs.
I'm glad someone is taking responsibility for it's approval though. Hope it's the right decision.
A question... what country refines oil before exporting it?
Canadian_Mind @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:49 pm
None. I personally have no issue with exporting raw oil to countries with refineries to refine for their own use. But there is no reason why Canada shouldn't be refining every drop of oil we use domestically into our plastics, our gasoline, our motor oil, etc. granted, we import certain products made from refined oil, so it'll never be 100%. But it could be established that for every unit of oil product we import, we have to export that same amount of product (not including raw oil). Whether that is measured in volume/weight, or by dollar value, and whether it is dollar value of the original crude or the finished product would be up to the economic-wenies to figure out.
raydan @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 4:59 pm
That's what I thought, CM. I was thinking that maybe Russian did before they piped it out.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
BartSimpson @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:04 pm
raydan raydan:
That's what I thought, CM. I was thinking that maybe Russian did before they piped it out.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
You mean like Celine Dion?
DanSC @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:08 pm
Unsound Unsound:
I just wonder if it'll get done any faster this way? Or will there end up being a bunch of legal constitutional wrangling over who actually has the authority that carries on for months or years?
Congress' actions would have to be signed by the President. The President would then have to sign or veto the measure, which is what Congress wants.
BartSimpson @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:16 pm
DanSC DanSC:
Unsound Unsound:
I just wonder if it'll get done any faster this way? Or will there end up being a bunch of legal constitutional wrangling over who actually has the authority that carries on for months or years?
Congress' actions would have to be signed by the President. The President would then have to sign or veto the measure, which is what Congress wants.
Exactly. It's an election year and they want Obozo to say yay or nay to this and then either alienate his envirowhacko base (not to be confused with rational environmentalists*) or alienate the part of his base that wants cheaper gas and heating oil for working people and the retired.
By forcing the issue the Republicans win no matter which way Obozo votes on this.
And Canada gains by obtaining access to a more stable market and by lessening the prospects of an oil spill in the Georgia Strait/Inland Passage as the same oil would be exported to China.
Rational environmentalists accept that a pipeline poses fewer environmental risks than do ocean going oil tankers.
raydan @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:44 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
raydan raydan:
That's what I thought, CM. I was thinking that maybe Russian did before they piped it out.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
You mean like Celine Dion?
She's made WAY more money on your side of the border.
Says a lot more about your tastes than it does mine.
sandorski @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:00 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Who loves ya', baby?
There's something very sinister in this sentence.
As for the Topic at hand, Keystone really doesn't matter for Canada. A Pipeline will be built, the Oil will be Sold, it matters not which Pipeline it is.
Unsound @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:17 pm
raydan raydan:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
raydan raydan:
That's what I thought, CM. I was thinking that maybe Russian did before they piped it out.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
Like you said... One thing I do hate is when we export something raw, it's transformed somewhere else, and then we import the finished product back here.
You mean like Celine Dion?
She's made WAY more money on your side of the border.
Says a lot more about your tastes than it does mine.
To be fair, that's probably just ecause there is more money on their side of the order. We still have to take responsibility for her. And by we, I mean you Quebecois.
Unsound @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:18 pm
DanSC DanSC:
Unsound Unsound:
I just wonder if it'll get done any faster this way? Or will there end up being a bunch of legal constitutional wrangling over who actually has the authority that carries on for months or years?
Congress' actions would have to be signed by the President. The President would then have to sign or veto the measure, which is what Congress wants.
Ahh ok. Nice move by the republicans then.
Thanos @ Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:41 pm
The Democrats control the Senate right now so there's no way this stupid stunt that's explicitly designed to embarass the President will pass anyway.
Republicans are "Canada's friends"? Despite what Bart wants you to think some of us still remember which party was in control of both chambers of Congress and the White House when the Americans whacked us first with the attacks on BC softwood lumber and then on the Canadian beef export business with their ginned-up "mad cow" hysteria. And blaming it all the antics of a goof like Jean Chretien doesn't cut it either because a "friend" doesn't hit you where it hurts just because they don't like another country's leadership. It's like saying "I can't stand your wife so I burnt the place you work at to the ground. Don't mind that though because we're still lifelong pals". What-evah. 
herbie @ Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:15 am
Stall the goddam thing until we get a gov't and business here that refines the oil here in Canada.
I just put up with a roadblock all day by the nates over Enbridge.
Goddam sick of the "We jess pick de cotton boss. None a our business wuffo!" mentality. Raw logs, fucking aluminum ingots... this is bullshit.