Page 2 of 12
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 12:55:43by Sixstrings
How can the administration reject it, if Transcanada pulled the request?
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 13:11:45by Lore
Sixstrings wrote:How can the administration reject it, if Transcanada pulled the request?
It was a
request for delay which was rejected.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 13:42:54by Plantagenet
The unemployment rate dropped to 5% today. Turns out we didn't need those high-paying union construction jobs building the pipeline anyway---we've got plenty of jobs in the service economy now and those older white union workers are all dying off anyway.
And we're in an oil glut now. Turns out we don't need that oil from the Alberta tar sands----at least not as long as we continue in an oil glut.
Its a win-win for Obama.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 13:52:03by ROCKMAN
Si - Why do you think there was a sudden rush for the POTUS to make the speech? Coincidence? LOL.
Sitting here getting my monthly MS infusion I got to here the entire speech live. He did start off with an excellents point: the importance of KXL has been greatly overstated by BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE. A point the Rockman has explained in detail for years. And he should know since he stood in the construction yard of the southern leg of KXL and pointed out how criticle this project was for the US economy because it would facilitate the import of record amounts of oil sands production.
Unfortunately most of the rest of the speech was pure misdirect: he gave of the best cornucopian spin from a politician I've seen in a long time. Basically not only is the country in a great energy place to carry on BAU but we will be doing better then ever in the future. And it has all happened on his watch so obviously it has happened largely due to his party's policies. So we can stop worrying: mission accomplished.
Sounded just as true as shen President Bush made that same comment about Iraq from the carrier flightdeck. LOL.
The biggest misdirect IMHO was painting a picture that implied the US wasn't going to importing much of the "dirtiest oil on the plant" in the future thanks to his not approving KXL. No mention that there already exists sufficient oil transport infrastructure to continue to import record amounts of the dirtiest oil on the planet.
Also mentioned plans for the future meeting with other countries to discuss combating climate change. And do it from a position of strength since the US is leading the world in reducing fossil fuel consumption. But our ff consumption reduction...not the rest of the world. Which is why he had to avoid the huge increase of exported US coal from federal lands during his term. Likewise couldn't mention the orders he gave to his departments to expedite the permit approval process for expanding coal export terminals on the Texas coast.
Also had to avoid mention the US was suppling the rest of the world with refinery products made from almost 1 BILLION BBLS OF OIL PER YEAR. Rather difficult to point a finger over AGW at other countries when the US is a major supplier of the comodities used to produce the AGW.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 13:54:21by Lore
Plantagenet wrote:The unemployment rate dropped to 5% today. Turns out we didn't need those high-paying union construction jobs building the pipeline anyway---we've got plenty of jobs in the service economy now and those older white union workers are all dying off anyway.
And we're in an oil glut now. Turns out we don't need that oil from the Alberta tar sands----at least not as long as we continue in an oil glut.
Its a win-win for Obama.
Those high paying jobs were for Canadian workers putting the pipeline together. Past history of lines built in the U.S. by TransCanada only employed an average of about 11% of locals and they were in the less skilled areas.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 14:00:39by Lore
ROCKMAN wrote:Also had to avoid mention the US was suppling the rest of the world with refinery products made from almost 1 BILLION BBLS OF OIL PER YEAR. Rather difficult to point a finger over AGW at other countries when the US is a major supplier of the comodities used to produce the AGW.
Coal is next on the long dirty fossil fuel list Rockman.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 14:02:45by Plantagenet
Lore wrote:
Those high paying jobs were for Canadian workers putting the pipeline together.
Don't be silly. Its very easy for states to pass laws that tilt the playing field to favor their own local workers. For instance, we've got local hire laws here in Alaska to reduce the number of outside workers on projects and oilfield jobs here.
For that matter, under FEDERAL rules, the FEDS aren't supposed to give work permits visas to foreign nationals to enter the US to do jobs that Americans are available to do. If Obama didn't want Canadians to take the high paying union jobs he could've just not given the Canadians the special work visas they need to enter and work in the US.
Anyway, I don't know why you're kvetching about my post. Can't we just agree for once? This is a huge political victory for Obama. Thats why he staged a while house announcement to personally take his victory lap. Rockman does a very nice job above of critiquing O's white house TV speech.
Its a win win for Obama. Lets just salute the victor and enjoy this political moment together
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 15:03:28by Lore
Plantagenet wrote:Lore wrote:
Those high paying jobs were for Canadian workers putting the pipeline together.
Don't be silly. Its very easy for states to pass laws that tilt the playing field to favor their own local workers. For instance, we've got local hire laws here in Alaska to reduce the number of outside workers on projects and oilfield jobs here.
For that matter, under FEDERAL rules, the FEDS aren't supposed to give work permits visas to foreign nationals to enter the US to do jobs that Americans are available to do. If Obama didn't want Canadians to take the high paying union jobs he could've just not given the Canadians the special work visas they need to enter and work in the US.
Anyway, I don't know why you're kvetching about my post. Can't we just agree for once? This is a huge political victory for Obama. Thats why he staged a while house announcement to personally take his victory lap. Rockman does a very nice job above of critiquing O's white house TV speech.
Its a win win for Obama. Lets just salute the victor and enjoy this political moment together
TransCanada has already done most of their own work in this country and it's real easy to circumnavigate work permits by declaring those workers essential to the successful and safe completion of the line. I use to do it all the time with foreign technicians.
I haven't heard where states were demanding laws to enforce the hiring of local workers for the pipeline? Have you?
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 15:13:35by Sixstrings
Lore wrote:Sixstrings wrote:How can the administration reject it, if Transcanada pulled the request?
It was a
request for delay which was rejected.
So it's "I deny your request to rescind your request, so that I can have a press conference denying your request."
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 15:19:10by Lore
Sixstrings wrote:Lore wrote:Sixstrings wrote:How can the administration reject it, if Transcanada pulled the request?
It was a
request for delay which was rejected.
So it's "I deny your request to rescind your request, so that I can have a press conference denying your request."
No it was a request for a delay which was denied. You're under the illusion that the person who has submitted the application can dictate the terms of how the application is processed. Don't forget that a lot of money has also been spent on reviewing the application.
They can always resubmit a new application.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 15:54:53by GHung
350.org is certainly declaring victory. I just got this email:
From: Bill McKibben and 350.org's Keystone team
Friends,
We just made history together. 4 years to the day after we surrounded the White House, President Obama has rejected the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline!
This is huge.
A head of state has never rejected a major fossil fuel project because of its climate impacts before. The President's decision sets the standard for what climate action looks like: standing up to the fossil fuel industry, and keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
Make no mistake: this victory belongs to us, the movement. President Obama's courage today is a reflection of the courage shown by thousands of people who have sat in, marched, organized, (and opened a lot of emails) across North America against this pipeline.
This fight started with First Nations in Canada where the tar sands are extracted, and spread to farmers, ranchers and tribal nations along the pipeline route. Since then people from all walks of life have joined hands against Keystone, and the 830,000 barrels per day of destructive tar sands oil it would have carried through the country to be burned.
Together, we have shown what it takes to win: a determined, principled, unrelenting grassroots movement that takes to the streets whenever necessary, and isn't afraid to put our bodies on the line.
Politicians in Washington DC didn’t make this happen. Our movement did. We want to thank everyone who has been a part of this campaign -- from calling Congress to getting arrested on the White House fence.
You can join us in appreciating everyone who made this day possible by co-signing our thank you card to the movement -- we’ll deliver personalized versions of the card with your messages to everyone who has led or attended an action against Keystone XL since 2011. Click here to sign the thank you card to the #NoKXL Movement:
http://act.350.org/go/7313?t=1&utm_medi ... 219.GJVM7K
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 16:43:56by Apneaman
In the building trades it's all dispatch from a list. In the Boilermakers it was a 25% name call, but that includes formen and the rest is usually primadonna TIG welders or the GF or foremans buddies/favorites, often highly skilled and competent riggers and fitters, but not always. 1 apprentice for every 5 journeyman. Most union building trades have similar rules. If the hall is empty or no one wants the job then they usually put the word out at other locals in N America. If that does not fill it, then workers with similar skills can pay a per job permit fee. For example, I have worked with permit hires from the Iron Workers, Pipe Fitters, Machinists, and non union fabrication shop guys. Also been on jobs with guys from Boilermaker locals all over N America. That's, more or less, how it was when I left a dozen years ago. Many job sites are isolated or the towns they are near are very small, so the chances of all the different tradesmen needed to complete a project or do a big shut down being local are slim to none. Not sure about pipelines, as I have never built one, but I would imagine it's like a moving camp job. Even non union has to hire workers from where ever they can get them and some companies probably have core crews. Again, I doubt most local towns can fill the requirements and even if they could how practical would it be to change out the tradesmen every time you get to a new town limit? Locals get the full time jobs at the refineries or plants or pulp mills or whatever needs full time operators and such.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 17:33:37by Plantagenet
I don't understand how shipping oil from Canada to US via rail releases less CO2 then shipping it via pipeline would've done? Don't the diesel trains emit large amounts of CO2 transporting the oil?
Yes…of course they do.
Why are O and 350.org celebrating this as a giant victory in the battle against climate change, when not having the pipeline means that MORE CO2 will be emitted in the future---not less.
Personally, I think the real winner here is Obama's crony Warren Buffett. Now that Obama has cancelled the pipeline, his oil trains have a monopoly on transporting oil.
Nothing shows that "crony capitalism" exists in America today quite as plainly as an oil train---a 19th century technology moving a 20th century fuel with 21st century profits going to Warren Buffett (D).
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 17:51:01by Cog
Well we will see if the status changes on this pipeline around January 2017.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 18:13:02by Plantagenet
“We are dismayed and disgusted that the President has once again thrown the members of LIUNA, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change,” Terry O’Sullivan, the union’s general president, said in a statement. “His actions are shameful.”
----------------
Is Mr. O'Sullivan just figuring that out?
He's a slow learner.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 18:19:18by Cog
Hey Obama got their endorsement . He doesn't need those blue collar people anymore.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 18:21:19by Lore
Plantagenet wrote:“We are dismayed and disgusted that the President has once again thrown the members of LIUNA, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change,” Terry O’Sullivan, the union’s general president, said in a statement. “His actions are shameful.”
----------------
Is Mr. O'Sullivan just figuring that out?
He's a slow learner.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 18:26:45by Lore
Plantagenet wrote:“We are dismayed and disgusted that the President has once again thrown the members of LIUNA, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change,” Terry O’Sullivan, the union’s general president, said in a statement. “His actions are shameful.”
----------------
Is Mr. O'Sullivan just figuring that out?
He's a slow learner.
Just have Walmart open a couple more Super Stores and you'll get more people to work over a longer period of time and they will be U.S. workers.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 18:29:55by ROCKMAN
First, the jobs aspect was just so much BS. Either way both sides are tossing up strawmen IMHO.
But again with the almost childlike delusion that the construction (or lack thereof) of the northern leg of KXL has had, or ever will have, an impact on the development of the oil sands. Remember our discussion of "willful ignorance": notice how both the pro and anti permit factions completely ignore the FACT I've repeated dozens of times: without nothern leg of KXL Canadian oil exports to the US increased month after month. And recently reached another new record high...and done without the permit being approved. And now as new oil sands projects are being delayed/cancelled excess tranport capacity will grow.
The nothern leg of KXL wasn't needed 3 years ago...or 2 years ago...or 1 year ago. And isn't needed today and wouldn't be neededd until oil prices significantly increase. Which could be many years or even decades.
Claiming a victory or a loss by either side of the debate is both funny and pathetic at the same time.
Re: Obama Administration to Reject Keystone XL
Posted:
Fri 06 Nov 2015, 18:37:04by Lore
Rock, of course it will have an impact. It already is. The tide maybe turning after all. If you have a better solution to end the copious burning of fossil fuels I'd love to hear it?