Skip to comments.BREAKING: Governor approves new oil pipeline route (Keystone)
Posted on 01/22/2013 9:06:01 AM PST by Zeneta
BREAKING: Governor approves new oil pipeline route.......
LINCOLN Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman has approved the rerouted Keystone XL oil pipeline path through Nebraska, putting the final decision squarely in the lap of President Obamas administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at watchdog.org ...
His decision came after reviewing a 2,000-page state report on the new route through Nebraska found that controversial Keystone XL pipeline could have minimal environmental impacts in Nebraska, according to Nebraskas environmental regulatory agency.
zero is more flexible now. zero chance he approves it.
Watch for Obama to put the kibosh on it with some Executive Order (it is Obama’s divine right to rule by decree, you know because he’s both God and King rolled up in one).
The big 0 seems to pick his battles.
Colorado passes law that violates federal law.
Nebraska, jumps through hoops to please the Gov’t,and finds a solution.
Colorado, It’s OK, they just want to get stoned.
Nebraska, big problem, they want to create jobs and reduce energy costs.
Just build the pipeline and tell Obama to stuff it. He operates with no rule of law so why should they?
Watch for Obama to us approval of the Keystone pipeline as a bargaining chip in his budget negotiations with the Reps.
Build it !!!
Make them send in Federal troops to stop them.
And when it’s done, I want to see the Governor stand up and say:
I BUILT THAT !!!
Just build it? Why would anyone sink money into it and face not being able to use it? The most critical part of the pipeline is the section crossing the international border with Canada. The State Department is holding it up pending the results of its study scheduled for release in the next two months.
The only way Odumbo will approve the Keystone line will be if the “money cart” diverts through his bank account.
Help me out here.
Is the section that crosses the border the one that is pending the study results ?
Is the study looking at multiple sites ?
If so, I agree with you.
"In areas of northern Nebraska where the soil is susceptible to erosion, the pipeline company, TransCanada, would use special procedures to build the pipeline.
TransCanada also agreed to 57 special conditions governing the pipelines construction, operation and maintenance which would be enforced by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The DEQ said in the event of an oil spill, the impact on the aquifer should be localized and TransCanada would have to pay for cleanup. TransCanada agreed to carry at least $200 million in liability insurance to cover sudden and accidental pollution incidents from Keystone XL Pipeline in Nebraska.
TransCanada first applied for a federal permit to build the pipeline in 2008, but ran into stiff opposition in Nebraska. In late 2011, TransCanada agreed to reroute the pipeline around the Sandhills, but the project still faces considerable opposition in the state, where about 800 people showed up for the final DEQ public hearing on the project in December."
Yes, I got that, it’s from the article.
Your suggestion that the State Dept. is waiting for study results, and in particular, the border crossing is something I’m not aware of.
He may incur the wrath of the environazis, but he can mitigate that by pushing a climate change agenda including cap and trade, which will raise more revenue.
"In a letter to the State Department explaining his decision, Heineman cited the points made in the state Department of Environmental Quality report, which said the new route avoids the ecologically fragile Sandhills but still crosses portions of the Ogallala Aquifer but that any oil spill should be localized and TransCanada would be responsible for any cleanup. He noted construction of the pipeline is expected to create $418 million in economic benefits, according to the $5 million DEQ study, which was largely paid for by TransCanada."
Again, “crossing the border” ?
The State Department is doing its own evionmental impact statement along the entire route of the pipeline. The Nebraska portion has always been the most controversial and the reason for the State Department's involvement environmentally. Environmental groups have been challenging the route for the get-go.
As far as crossing the border is concerned, what good is the pipeline if you can't connect it to the source of oil in Canada? Why do you think TransCanada is building it?
was there a lot of oil pollution from the current pipelines in the Ogallala aquifier areas?
EPA etc keeps moving the goal posts; it’ll never be approved by them or 0scumbag.
This is the same Governor who just proposed the end of income taxes for individual and corporations in Nebraska.
I have been thru Nebraska on horseback, on the Pony Express Trail. It is a very nice state. Had the best beef there I have ever eaten.
I hope there is no delay in this Governor’s proposals, because that would mean that the portion of the pipeline built in Nebraska would not have income taxes charged on that labor!!!!
If public enemy #1 (obozo) where to permit the pipeline he would first have to negotiate with fellow travelers like Warren Buffett as WB is making millions off his holdings in railroads which are now carrying oil which should have been going through that pipeline.
If this were really an environmental issue then the pipeline would win hands down over train transportation as the spill rate is, I believe, about 37 times greater by train than pipeline.
No, this is about lining the pockets of ilk like Warren Buffett AND most importantly, starving the American economy of needed energy at every turn. Obozo firmly believes he can make the brown people of the world rich by making us poor. I use only his words in forming that opinion.
Are you saying this Administration is involved in “Crony Capitalism”?
WOW, that should piss off his base.
Whether it gets connected to Canada or not.
While they are at it, they should get GE to build a “Solar Farm” along the same path.
Throw in a few windmills, and this thing is almost paid for.
How dense are you? Why would any private company fund and build a pipeline that can't be connected to the source of oil, which is in Canada. It was a Canadian firm, TransCanda, that is funding the construction.
Are you suggesting that public funds should be used to build a "bridge to nowhere?" Unless the pipeline can connect to the oil in Canada, it makes absolutely no sense to build it.
Did he get approval from his prairie dog constituency???
First of all.
Stop taking my statements out of context.
I never suggested Public funds.
I suggest the inevitability of this project and the fact that TransCanada and their partners are also aware of this fact.
If this project, can be started with a compromise by the addition of so called “green energy”, then why not.
Just because it may not make its way to Canada, there is nothing to keep this from connecting to other pipelines.
The Bakken fields need more than one pipeline.
Don’t be so shortsighted or defeatist.
That is not the way the private sector works. Do you really think the Board of Directors of TransCanada would use their funds on pure speculation base on the "inevitability" of the project. If they did, they would be fired.
If this project, can be started with a compromise by the addition of so called green energy, then why not.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a fine time we would have. Green energy costs money. Who foots the bill and who says they will get the needed return on their investment? You can dream up all the scenarios you want, but we have to deal in reality. Building it now is just nonsense.
Just because it may not make its way to Canada, there is nothing to keep this from connecting to other pipelines. The Bakken fields need more than one pipeline. Dont be so shortsighted or defeatist.
LOL. Defeatist? It is not my decision or my money. TransCanada or some other company would have to make that decision based on good business practices. They must look out for the interests of their shareholders. You are living in a fantasy world.
You have no clue.
How much money do you think TransCanada and their partners have invested to date ?
I am not suggesting “pure speculation”.
Do you think that they might be smart enough to know they may run into regulatory issues ?
Or, do you think they put all of their money on this one possibility? That’s pure speculation.
And yes, to have an overriding belief in the inevitability of moving oil to Cushing, is worth the risk of exploring all the possible ways to make it happen.
These guys, the private sector, know the issues better than those that regulate them. And they know that they know this.
It seems as though you have lost your faith in the creativeness of business.
BTW, I’m done with you.
As I said, you have no clue.
Get real. TransCanada will make whatever decision it thinks is in its best interests and those of their stockholders. Do you think that they are capable of making such decisions or do you have some incredible insight that you will share with them to change their minds?
Do you think that they might be smart enough to know they may run into regulatory issues ? Or, do you think they put all of their money on this one possibility? Thats pure speculation.
All what money? They haven't constructed Phase 3 and 4 of the US portion of the pipeline yet. They are funding the environmental studies, but the bulk of the funding has not been invested. They are awaiting our decision before proceeding any further. They are not just going to build it (Phase 3 and 4) in the hope that it is approved.
Deliveries to Wood River and Patoka began in the summer of 2010, and deliveries to Cushing began in February of 2011. The pipeline system currently has the capacity to deliver up to 590,000 bpd of Canadian crude oil into these important North American refining markets.
It seems as though you have lost your faith in the creativeness of business. BTW, Im done with you. As I said, you have no clue
I have run a small business. What I do know is that TransCanada will not risk its capital to build something that doesn't have the approval of the USG to connect it to the oil terminal in Canada in Hardesty. Look at the map you had in your post #28. Do you really think TransCanada would build the Hardesty to Steele City link without some assurance that it would be approved by the USG?
FYI: In the fall of 2010, TransCanada went to the market with a proposal to move Bakken crude oil production by constructing a receipt facility at Baker, Montana. The open season was successful, allowing TransCanada to sign firm term contracts for 65,000 bpd of crude oil transportation from the Bakken to key U.S. refining markets. The open season for this project closed on November 19, 2010.
The Bakken Marketlink project will provide receipt facilities to transport up to 100,000 bpd of crude oil from the Williston Basin producing region in North Dakota and Montana, to Cushing, Oklahoma and the U.S. Gulf Coast using facilities that make up part of the Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Keystone XL).
TransCanada intends to proceed with the necessary regulatory applications for approvals to construct and operate the required facilities and to provide transportation services.
Keystone XL and the Bakken Marketlink Project are expected to be in service by the end of 2014, subject to the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals.
Most of what I have been reading, says that Obama is planning to approve the new re-routed pipeline. The Toronto newspaper even stated that the predicted approval of the pipeline by Obama was the reason that Lisa Jackson resigned as head of the EPA and was going to be replaced by Christine Gregoire (which is now in doubt).
Anyway, the Keystone pipeline has lost some of its urgency for the Canadians as well as some of the opposition from the Obama administration because Canada is already exporting its tar sands oil through the transmountain pipeline south leg, out of VanCouver BC and if Obama gets his sub bituminous coal port built in Whatcom County, they could also ship the tar sands oil through that port since the pipeline already crosses the border and goes right past the proposed dock. You see, it was never about exporting the oil or routing the pipeline, it was about selling the oil to China instead of Europe.
I should add that there is some question as to whether oil and sub-bituminous coal can be shipped from the same dock, as coal bulkers are not even re-fueled at the coal dock - too dangerous, but China has already applied to double the amount of oil that is carried by the southern leg of the transmountain pipeline.