Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLouie
Keystone is already obsolete. The people behind the project already admitted it. At $100 a barrel sure, at $25 no one wants it. Other better pipelines have come on line and rail traffic has picked up. You don't hear much anymore because it is a dead issue.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLouie
Here are the cold hard facts... everyone is saying that there is no real need to do any more on Keystone. The situation changed.
|
Not sure where you get your info, LittlePhooey, but the WSJ disagrees with you and Trans-Canada still wants to complete the pipeline.
Anyone who professes to care about the environment should take note - "pipelines emit less carbon than rail systems and result in fewer spills."
A Keystone Resurrection
Trump should drop his royalties demand and revive this job creator.
Updated Nov. 11, 2016 7:52 p.m. ET
Donald Trump promised in his victory speech Tuesday that he will “rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none.” Allow us to suggest a great place to start: Approving the Keystone XL pipeline that President Obama rejected to satisfy his climate friends.
TransCanada’s Keystone could carry some 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to Nebraska, and the company said in a statement this week that it is “fully committed” to building the pipeline. TransCanada said that it is “evaluating ways to engage the new administration on the benefits, the jobs and the tax revenues this project brings to the table.”
In 2015 TransCanada withdrew its route application after seven years of haggling with the Obama Administration, which rejected the pipeline despite favorable environmental reviews from its own State Department. President Obama said that approving Keystone would undercut U.S. “global leadership” on climate change. In other words, the President wanted leverage at the Paris climate drum circle—and Keystone would enrage Democratic campaign donors like Tom Steyer.
TransCanada has challenged the decision in federal court, and it is unclear if the company would be forced to restart the application process. Mr. Trump said in his campaign that he’d approve Keystone, but has also demanded royalty payments, a demand he should drop. By the company’s estimates the pipeline would add $3 billion to GDP, including millions in property taxes and create more than 40,000 jobs. Cost to taxpayers? $0.
Keystone fulfills several of Mr. Trump’s ostensible goals, including energy exploration. The pipeline could carry 100,000 barrels a day from North Dakota, which would encourage more development. And no one benefits more than America: 70% of refined products pumped through Keystone would stay in the U.S., according to a report last year from IHS, and that means consumers will enjoy lower prices. By the way, environmental objections were always bogus: Pipelines emit less carbon than rail systems and result in fewer spills.
All of this is also true for the Dakota Access pipeline, which could carry 500,000 barrels a day from the Bakken Shale to Illinois. The builder altered the route in North Dakota some 140 times to placate concerns from environmental outfits and the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which sued. A federal judge ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had met its obligations under the law. Yet the Administration disregarded the rule of law—a judicial outcome in its favor—and halted construction.
For anyone mystified by Mr. Trump’s victory, these episodes are instructive: Progressives for eight years indulged the pipe dreams of wealthy environmentalists, even at the expense of growing the economy and helping middle-class Americans. Expedited approval for Keystone would be a down payment on the change in political culture that Mr. Trump has promised.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-keysto...ion-1478910354
