Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Controversial Oil Pipeline Plan to Be Rerouted After Threat of Delayed U.S. Approval
Fox News ^ | 11/14/11 | Fox News

Posted on 11/14/2011 4:31:24 PM PST by Ron C.

Edited on 11/14/2011 4:36:08 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

LINCOLN, Neb. – Days after the Obama administration threatened to delay approval of a planned oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico -- angering unions while appeasing environmentalists -- the company seeking to build the pipeline says it's willing to reroute the project to get it back on track.

TransCanada said Monday evening it will move the planned pipeline out of the environmentally sensitive Sandhills area of Nebraska, and is confident the project will still win approval.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; deadnimby; defaultnimbys; economy; effeminatenimbys; energy; environmental; goodnimby; nebraska; oil; pipeline; politics; transcanada
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
This is such a leftist political football, but I've heard self proclaimed conservatives that are dead-set against this pipeline!
1 posted on 11/14/2011 4:31:27 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
I think this is just playing Obama’s game. This project will never be approved under an Obama Administration IMO.
2 posted on 11/14/2011 4:35:19 PM PST by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All




Please support Free Republic.

Donate soon, Monthly, if you can.

FReepathon Day 45 ...

3 posted on 11/14/2011 4:37:04 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC BY DONATING NOW! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Yeah there are a few greentards who lurk at FR.

The reality is that the pipeline will face the exact same opposition no matter what route it takes. The farmers of the plains won’t want it because they want to sell ethanol and the greenies don’t want it because they hate humanity and capitalism.


4 posted on 11/14/2011 4:37:55 PM PST by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

It will be approved right after they approve more coal fired power plants.

Pray for America


5 posted on 11/14/2011 4:38:01 PM PST by bray (Take the Cain Train off the Plantation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
Sandhill and Nebraska.
Is that an oxymoron?
6 posted on 11/14/2011 4:40:24 PM PST by JimmyMc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.; All
I haven't followed this much,so I have a question.

Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

7 posted on 11/14/2011 4:44:12 PM PST by mdittmar (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
No where could I find how much this pipeline could handle.

Keystone’s stagnation, though, is good news for Houston-based Enterprise Product Partners, which has teamed with Canada’s Enbridge to build its own Alberta-to-the-Gulf network.

Enbridge already has lines to move oil from Alberta to Chicago – avoiding the need for State Department approval – and from there to Cushing, Okla.

Enterprise’s proposed Wrangler line would transport the oil from Cushing to the Houston area.

“Wrangler becomes the only game in town if Keystone’s going to be pushed back a year,” said Jeff Dietert, an analyst with Houston-based Simmons & Company International. “Producers and shippers are going to be interested in moving crude sooner than that.”

8 posted on 11/14/2011 4:53:19 PM PST by Recon Dad ("The most important rule in a gunfight is: Always win and cheat if necessary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Why don't we just run it to Sweet Grass, Montana?

For some weird reason, the shippers, the producers of the oil, want it shipped to a customer. The customers are, or were, refineries on the gulf coast.

But, hey, that's ok. PM Harper is discussing oil sales with the Chinese PM as we speak. They will just build an All-Canadian pipeline to Prince Rupert, B.C., and then on to tankers bound for Dalian, China.

All that oil and jobs that would have gone to the US is going to go to China because that's the way the President of the United States wants it. Can anyone make any sense of this?

9 posted on 11/14/2011 5:04:15 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

800,000 barrels a day.


10 posted on 11/14/2011 5:05:35 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, or the jobs that go with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Sandhill and Nebraska. Is that an oxymoron?

???

The Sandhills make up a very large portion of Nebraska.

11 posted on 11/14/2011 5:11:40 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian

I guess oil can’t be put in a ship at a port and moved somewhere.


12 posted on 11/14/2011 5:11:52 PM PST by mdittmar (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
But but but - the poor caribou and grizzly bears!

Oh wait. that was the awful alaska pipeline...the one the grizzes use for a highway - cause it's warm on their toes - and the momma caribous choose to have their calves under because of the warmth and green ribbons of grass - and the improved survial of their new-borns.


13 posted on 11/14/2011 5:12:27 PM PST by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

the refineries are in Texas

14 posted on 11/14/2011 5:15:07 PM PST by maine-iac7 (ALWAYS WATCH THE OTHER HAND)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Sandhill [sic] and Nebraska. Is that an oxymoron?

??? No, they really are hills with a lot of sand.

I've been in the Sandhills a number of times, and it's no more environmentally sensitive than any other place. Yes, it's a wetland (what isn't?), and it has a variety of uninteresting flora and fauna. I also don't think it's a very attractive place, but that's a matter of opinion as I know some people love the area. I think we need to ask the environmentalists where it's OK to drill or lay down a pipeline. I think the answer is that anywhere is fine as long as the capitalist US isn't benefiting.

15 posted on 11/14/2011 5:16:01 PM PST by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Former Proud Canadian
Why don't we just run it to Sweet Grass, Montana? For some weird reason, the shippers, the producers of the oil, want it shipped to a customer. The customers are, or were, refineries on the gulf coast.

Why don't we run it to Montana, Wyoming and now Colorado?

Montana and Wyoming have existing refineries, and Colorado just announced a huge oil discovery.

It's a lot closer to Canada than the Gulf.

16 posted on 11/14/2011 5:16:04 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER ( Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc
Sandhill and Nebraska. Is that an oxymoron?

Obviously, you're not familiar with the area.

The entire western half of Nebraska, north of the Platte, is composed mostly of sandhills.

Not dunes. Sandhills. They're covered with grass and, thus, stabilized.

17 posted on 11/14/2011 5:26:17 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JimmyMc

i grew up in the sandhills of nebraska

and i can tell you emphatically:

they suck.


18 posted on 11/14/2011 5:26:55 PM PST by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
Why couldn't the pipeline just go from Canada to Washington State?

The source of the oil is Northern Alberta.

There is not enough refinery capacity in Washington State to absorb the Athabascan oil. There is in Texas.

Moreover, most of the system has already been built. Phases 1 and 2 built from Manitoba to Steele City, NE then branches to the Wood River, IL refinery complex and the pipeline terminal at Cushing, OK. Phase 3 will be from Cushing to Texas. Phase 4 is the environmentally "sensitive" project -- a cut-off directly from Alberta to Steele City, NE.

This cut-off would not only increase capacity, it would also serve the Bakken field with a terminal in Baker, MT.

This project has been in the works for a long time. It's only at the last moment the enviros and the Obama administration have seen fit to blow the whistle.

19 posted on 11/14/2011 5:33:47 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
I guess oil can’t be put in a ship at a port and moved somewhere.

Sure it can.

And if the Keystone XL isn't built, the Canadians will build a pipeline to the West Coast -- not to Washington State, but to Prince Rupert, BC -- and sell the oil to the Chinese.

20 posted on 11/14/2011 5:36:24 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson