Keystone XL Pipeline: White House Veto Promised After Keystone Gets Approval From House Of Representatives

Posted: 04/18/2012 6:30 pm Updated: 04/20/2012 10:58 am

WASHINGTON - Legislation that would allow TransCanada's controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline to proceed has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives — a move the White House has vowed to shoot down.

The move comes on the same day TransCanada announced it has submitted a proposal to Nebraska officials for a new route through the state for the disputed pipeline.

The Keystone XL pipeline project was included as part of a larger bill passed by the House that finances road projects through stopgap measures.

But the White House has vowed to veto the legislation because it mandates the construction of the Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline that President Barack Obama earlier blocked.

Republicans, who control the House, added the requirement to build the Keystone XL pipeline project, but the White House argues such a requirement would bypass long-standing practices on how to approve cross-border pipelines.

Tuesday's statement from the White House noted that a pipeline route has yet to be identified.

TransCanada said in a statement Wednesday that it has submitted a planned route for the pipeline to Nebraska officials. The state has become a focus of concern for the 2,735-kilometre pipeline, which would carry oil from Alberta's oilsands to refineries in Texas.

When Obama blocked the pipeline he cited uncertainty over a planned route intended to avoid Nebraska's environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.

Details of the new route were not immediately available. A spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department said officials had not received notification of a new route. State Department approval is need because the US$7-billion pipeline crosses a U.S. border.

Obama's stance on the Keystone plan has endured ferocious Republican attacks, with Republicans calling the move a blow to job creation and U.S. energy needs.

The president maintains Republican leaders in Congress forced his hand by insisting on a decision before an acceptable pipeline route was found.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has voiced disappointment with Obama's decision. He also visited China in February to explore alternatives.

Canada has the world's third-largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels, after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to rise to 3.7 million by 2025.

Environmentalists have mounted an extensive campaign against Keystone XL, assailing the plan to transport millions of barrels a week of bitumen — an energy source they decry as "dirty oil" — to the Gulf Coast.

FOLLOW CANADA BUSINESS

WASHINGTON - Legislation that would allow TransCanada's controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline to proceed has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives — a move the White House has vowed to s...
WASHINGTON - Legislation that would allow TransCanada's controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline to proceed has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives — a move the White House has vowed to s...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 104
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
01:19 AM on 04/19/2012
Thank you Obama. Somebody has to accept the fact that oil companies should not run America. It is time to get back to the idea of having highly efficient buildings, cars and light bulbs plus cars that get fifty mpg. And thanks for ending the tax subsidies which American tax payers fed to the oil companies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:54 AM on 04/19/2012
Obama will approve it in the fall of 2012. In the fall of 2011 he said he would make his decision about Keystone in the fall of 2012. Republicans tried once already to force his hand knowing full well he would say no...all they wanted was a talking point and they got it.

Now they are pulling another stunt...for the same reason, a talking point.

You can do it all, including a Pipeline that is as safe and secure as it possibly can be. There are so many questions to iron out, route, how much oil will be for US consumption etc.
11:47 PM on 04/18/2012
This oil is not for U.S consumption. It is destined for China. Pollute in Canada, refine on the gulf and super tanker leaks all the way to China. The U.S. is a net exporter of crude at the moment so the Middle East is just a talking point because of Global oil influence in the U.S. Oh and while I am on the soap box, B.P. gulf spill was much bigger than Exxon Valdez and all the land pipes spillage combined. It will be in the hundreds of billions in damage for the next 20 years added in. http://gizmodo.com/5903021/bp-oil-spill-aftermath-eyeless-shrimp-clawless-crabs-and-fish-with-oozing-sores
03:15 PM on 04/19/2012
Land pipeline with a state of the art automatic shutoff switch is not comparable to the Gulf, and you still have hundreds if not thousands of U.S. and other rigs parked out in gulf waters, by the way. Canada can pipe to the Pacific bound for Asia, and Asia refines it and produces jobs for themselves, or the U.S. can refine it bound for Asia and get a cut and jobs. Canada's margin likely remains the same.
photo
TT Esty1
Failure is a temporary condition.
11:42 PM on 04/18/2012
The Republican action vividly illustrates how a corporate owned governing body operates. In this instance oil companies need only to whisper 'jump' and Republicans obediently defy gravity. This is not about jobs and it is not about US oil consumption. This tar will be refined and with value added will be shipped off to China. Corporate America doesn't want oil. It wants money and cares little about the harm it does. Always has been that way and always will be.
11:53 PM on 04/18/2012
Yes, the U.S. making money and jobs off of Canada's oil = bad. You do realize that those shipments would be turned back around inland if the U.S. was running short? Anti-business.
photo
TT Esty1
Failure is a temporary condition.
12:18 AM on 04/19/2012
First, understand that it is not the US making money. It is the Oil oligarchy. The majority are owned off shore. Secondly, they don't create jobs. Jobs create them. Think it through. Why is there so little manufacturing in the US. The answer is that corporations are not interested in creating jobs. They are interested in profits and jobs eat into profit. Thirdly, the price of gas will remain high because the oil companies need the profit and the extraction of the tar sands is very expensive. OPEC countries need higher prices because the amount being sold is being reduced.

The jobs will come when it is time to clean up the mess that Corporate America has made. And, do you know who will pay the wages for those jobs?
11:19 PM on 04/18/2012
Obama will veto business opportunity from Canada but not the NDAA ruling? Wow.
The number of existing pipelines already criss-crossing the questioned areas look like a New York street map. If it's an election stance, what if it backfires on him?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:00 AM on 04/19/2012
Read the entire NDAA2012 and see "all the things" he would have had to veto.

NDAA2013 will be written soon.

I believe he will make a final decision on the Pipeline in the fall of 2012 just like he said he would in the fall of 2011. I also believe it will be a green light. You don't promote the continued construction of the lower section of the Pipeline only to not approve the top part.
05:51 AM on 04/19/2012
Here's the thing. I thought the U.S. had a democratic House and a Senate that voted on these things by representation. The fact that 'he' will make a decision by that time sounds, well, king like. Anyway, thanks for your reply as hadn't heard that timeline.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Boyce
Not a right state of mind
09:55 PM on 04/18/2012
Surprise, surprise, the Republican house passes a move that they have not bothered to investigate but pass only because Obama does not want to have the Keystone pipeline until it is completely investigated and a sound route is viable. Besides that the oil in this pipeline is suitable for a tar pit and not as useable clean oil. The gulf coast is still suffering from the BP oil spill and is still not completely cleaned. The President is looking to find alternatives to oil and is interested in bio-fuels and not dirty fuels. Yet, again, the GOP rushes to do something without checking it out thoroughly only because Obama does not want it! Palin is the dumbest of all saying that the President is attempting to curb oil market manipulation. No dummy he wants to get rid of oil and get another type of fuel made available so we do not have to rely on the Arab world to keep us in oil with horrendous prices. We need alternative sources of energy. OMG are you all so dumb. You complain about the prices of oil but no one wants to find another fuel. Either stop complaining and start looking for different types of alternative energy. No on the pipeline, we do not want more crappy dirty oil. Let Canada keep their oil and let us come up with a solution and not a repeat of what we keep doing over and over and over.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:01 AM on 04/19/2012
It's all about obtaining a talking point for Republicans.
09:43 PM on 04/18/2012
If the US needs this oil, then why would it be piped all the way to the Gulf Coast? Wouldn't it make more sense to refine it somewhere in the Mid-West? The value, and therefor the price, of the oil sands bitumen is also going to rise considerably when a pipeline makes it easier to transport. It won't put any downward pressure on the price of gasoline. The oil companies will increase profits and the consumer will continue to get screwed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Howzat
Eliminate Poverty
12:45 AM on 04/19/2012
China bound,,,thanks to the Koch Brothers and the republicans p[oliticians who live on Oil Lobbists support
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nikki717
War...what is it good for?
09:36 PM on 04/18/2012
Great!! The benefit woud have been negligible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nadene Morton
08:54 PM on 04/18/2012
thank you Mr. Obama. Canada does NOT want our pristine areas destroyed by this pipeline.
fisch123
For those of you who don't know 1T = 1000B.
09:00 PM on 04/18/2012
Unfortunately Harper isn't nearly as enlightened.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nadene Morton
07:34 PM on 04/24/2012
the almighty dollar cannot destroy our beautiful country!!
11:14 PM on 04/18/2012
Don't presume to speak for Canada. You speak for yourself. Do you even live in Alberta?
The area can be flown over and past in a blink of an eye. The reclaimed areas look the same as the rest; the soil just has less oil in it. Northern Alberta is scrubby, northern land.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Howzat
Eliminate Poverty
12:51 AM on 04/19/2012
Alberta land mass is larger than many of the States in the UUnfortunately the crude extracted fron the Oil Sands is polluting the heck out of the land.

Should keystone go through, pray like heck that there is never a disaster 'cos this crude is really heavy.

I don't understand why all the wells already given a clean bill for drilling are not being worked on...Obama has signed off on more drilling of well than any previous President in the US ever.

Republican Politics?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nadene Morton
07:33 PM on 04/24/2012
i will speak for canada, i am a proud canadian..and i live in b.c. where we seem to value our land. and northern alberta is beautiful..why do you want to destroy?
photo
LuisD
It's a wonder what you'll find with an open mind
08:43 PM on 04/18/2012
Wow, this is great news! I didn't think Obama would hold his ground, but he did. Well done!

We need a comprehensive energy, transportation and urban policy. We need investment in alternative sources of energy. We need to fight suburban sprawl and automobile dependency. We need to promote densfification. We need walkable communities with good access to transit.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canpete
08:41 PM on 04/18/2012
as a canadian i say let the yanks use up their own oil and or practice conservatism, either way keep our oil in canada and build our own refineries...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Boyce
Not a right state of mind
10:26 PM on 04/18/2012
This American agrees. Keep your dirty filthy oil and when we discover and process a clean bio fuel you can use your Canadian dirty oil. Build your own refineries keep your pipeline.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
canpete
11:05 PM on 04/18/2012
sounds good to me, and in the meantime how about americans stop invading countires under the premise of terrorism when its really all about the oil...
12:25 AM on 04/19/2012
Your Coal is the real problem . Way, way bigger than any petro issue. You will keep burning that no matter what, as it is the biggest source of carbon energy in the world. That and using cropland to produce Bio fuel.I'd rather grow food that someone eats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
efell
Careful with that axe, Eugene
08:38 PM on 04/18/2012
This stuff is pure poison. Stop the madness. It won't have a good ending.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:24 PM on 04/18/2012
"This stuff is pure poison."

So is liquor . . . what's your point?

They are both profitable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Boyce
Not a right state of mind
09:57 PM on 04/18/2012
Oh, I love all the alcoholics who are ruining their lives. You know the homeless people living on our streets. But at least they are both profitable. Moron.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Howzat
Eliminate Poverty
12:54 AM on 04/19/2012
Do you drink crude?

Will it evaporate like licquor if spilt or pollute like oil.

Both profitable huh. Oilmen (Kochs, EXXON, BP) make money, citizens pay for the clean up...go figure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Boyce
Not a right state of mind
10:27 PM on 04/18/2012
May be we should start drinking it and then may be some of the idiots out there will understand what poison is. May be then we can come up with a clean bio fuel. Something we have been talking about since Bush Sr.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
efell
Careful with that axe, Eugene
06:55 AM on 04/19/2012
Too bad we have Mr. Harper and his cohorts for the next few years. The new budget already slashes environmental protection rules to 'streamline the proces'. The good news is that Obama seems a little wary of the whole thing. Fingers crossed.
08:37 PM on 04/18/2012
Take another line or 2 to the BC coast and lets build some refineries in Canada make sure we show due dilligence and we set up the sites to be as environmentally sound as possible. Let's refine it here get the value of Value added jobs for Canadians and allow us now to have flexible markets for our refined product. I mean if the Americans had this amount of Raw Crude avaiable over a forecasted life expectancy of 80 to 100 hundred years they would have Refineries all over the place. Let's get in the game and do what others do and start to control our exports and the Market instead of being controlled by it.
04:01 PM on 04/19/2012
Wouldn't that be rational. Arabians and Venezuelans pay far less for their gasoline as a house perk. Imagine average Canadians benefiting the same way from their own industriousnous.
08:36 PM on 04/18/2012
That's right VETO it!!! Not one of those tpers had one clue on how to stop the leak in the Gulf. Two months that oil run into the Gulf. Two!! Then the Republicans claimed the President shook down BP for money to help the families that lively hoods were destroyed over that mess. Not always about just money. I bet right now they wouldn't know how to clean up a leak of that magnitude again.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:27 PM on 04/18/2012
A leak that big can only come from an underwater rig. Some people suggest you can have a "Gulf BP Spill" sized mishap with a pipeline. Simply not true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
4evercanadian
Still my guitar gently weeps
11:18 PM on 04/18/2012
Maybe not two months, but even a small amount of time can result in significant damage. Which is what happened to the Enbridge pipleline near the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. They are still trying to clean-up the mess created by 840,000 gallons of raw tar sands crude spilling out of the ruptured pipe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrea Boyce
Not a right state of mind
10:11 PM on 04/18/2012
What about all the wildlife that was killed and the everglades and the gulf coast that is still black with oil. What did it cost $20 billion and more? We all need new types of fuel. If there was a profitable fuel out there today, right now, then we would be using it and developing it. No one wants to make a fuel that does not make money! The big oil companies make Billions in profits and they do not care what you pay at the pump unless it is a way for them to fill their pockets and get million dollar bonuses. People would rather drive around in their huge SUV's and complain about the price of oil. Get a smart car an electric car or a hybrid and give a crap. Stop using my oil in your Durango's and Explorer's, stop driving oil rigs. It is because of you in your ridiculous sized SUV's using tons of oil that I am forced to pay $4 a gallon. Drive 55, not 75 and do something instead of complaining. Stop blaming Obama for all of your problems. Keep America clean.
photo
freeSpeakr
I stand on the shoulders of giants
11:57 PM on 04/18/2012
Here's a TED talk on the liquid metal battery. This has possibilities. I'd like to see this developed and used in something like the Tesla RS.

The Sadoway on the liquid metal battery http://goo.gl/25KS8

And the Tesla Roadster Sport (0-100 kph in 3.7 seconds) http://goo.gl/dUKiF
12:27 AM on 04/19/2012
The Smart car was kept out of the US because it did not meet US emissions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rotary
canucklehead
08:27 PM on 04/18/2012
No jets, no pipeline.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:26 PM on 04/18/2012
It's almost as if Obama doesn't want a 2nd term.
08:32 PM on 04/18/2012
Why not? Cause you want a pipeline that isn't fully investigated running through two countries for money! After the Gulf leak the President would a damn well dumb to go and do something like that!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
celtics
09:09 PM on 04/18/2012
On the other hand, if he doesn't continue to veto it, he would lose a lot of voters who were counting on him for progressive, green energy policies.