President Obama pushes pipeline... How do the Democratic faithful feel about it ?

[cbelt3]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/22/politics/o...index.html
"The president announced Thursday he was using his executive authority to order federal agencies to expedite the approval process for large-scale infrastructure projects like oil pipelines. More specifically, he ordered the portion of the Keystone XL pipeline running from Cushing to the Gulf to be placed at the top of the list.

"We're making this new pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf a priority," Obama said to cheers, later adding that "as long as I'm president, we're going to keep encouraging oil development and infrastructure and we're going to do it in a way that protects the health and safety of the American people. We don't have to choose between one or the other. We can do both.""

- - -
Of course we are still protecting those Canadian environments, but all of your loyal Democratic voters in Oklahoma and Texas are going to be up in arms.... Both of them ? :biggrin:

Welcome to the real election.. most voters are in the middle, and want jobs and cheap(er) gasoline. Fortunately for the Democratic Party, the Republican candidates are still off playing in the (right) wingtips.

[hal]

I don't like it. Environmental considerations aside, any time the gov't spends billions to facilitate large corporations making billions, I object.

This will result in lower gas prices? How does that work? Of course the answer, "dude, MORE OIL - duh!" is wrong, but the it takes a sentence or two to counter it. The public doesn't have the attention span for that...

But this was a predictable move - the repubs were getting ready to grill him on this one...

Assuming that environments are protected, I wouldn't object to the project IF the oil industry was nationalized. Since it isn't - let Exxon pay for it since they will be the chief beneficiaries...

[Grace62]

and then the article says:

"While federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior have some involvement in the approval process for the domestic portion of the pipeline, the federal government has relatively little control when compared to the absolute say it holds over the portion that crosses the international border with Canada.

The ultimate decision-making authority for the pipeline's domestic route lies mainly with the states it crosses, prompting Republicans to question whether the president can actually claim any credit for speeding the project along.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters Thursday that Obama was claiming credit he didn't deserve on the southern leg of the Keystone pipeline while continuing to prevent construction on the northern leg from Canada."


So it sounds as though this was a done deal having little to do with the feds and it's not a reversal on the Keystone policy, so, OK.

I don't see any indication of any change in the President's energy policy,.

[MacArtist]

No proof the pipeline will lower gas prices.

Will it create greater refining capacity, efficiency? Who knows.

It's an election year. Gas prices are hitting people where there isn't a lot of extra $ to cover things.

I think he's trying to show that he's not an obstructionist. And playing to the middle is nothing new.

I don't understand why Canada doesn't build their own Trans-Canadian pipeline to the their west coast and build a refinery there.

[OWC Jamie]

The lower portion of the pipeline likely would have been built anyway.
If it moves the blob of oil the current pipeline leaves in the center of the country to the Gulf that doesn't change the price of gasoline. If anything they might go up in the heartland. Sorry Heartland.

The price of that oil isn't miraculously devoid of speculator trading.


We will be exporting the gasoline from the tar sands to Mexico. The contracts are already on the table. That's why the pipeline needs to reach the Gulf refineries.


If anything gas prices here will go up.

[$tevie]

Obama always ends up compromising (read: giving in). Here we go again.

[Acer]

I don't understand why Canada doesn't build their own Trans-Canadian pipeline to the their west coast and build a refinery there.

That is very much the "Plan B." Though as I understand it, where it reaches the coast, there is not a sufficient port or refineries. It would all have to be built. There's a lot of local resistance. And if it DOES go to the Canadian coast, it would likely end up straight in Asian markets. Yes, oil is fungible etc., but a Canada port means no chance for an American middle man to make a buck.

[(vikm)]

I think hal pretty much nailed it.

[davester]

hal wrote:
I don't like it. Environmental considerations aside, any time the gov't spends billions to facilitate large corporations making billions, I object.

This will result in lower gas prices? How does that work? Of course the answer, "dude, MORE OIL - duh!" is wrong, but the it takes a sentence or two to counter it. The public doesn't have the attention span for that...

But this was a predictable move - the repubs were getting ready to grill him on this one...

Assuming that environments are protected, I wouldn't object to the project IF the oil industry was nationalized. Since it isn't - let Exxon pay for it since they will be the chief beneficiaries...

:agree:

Exactly! This is purely a campaign move so that the president can appeal to those who are buying the republican propaganda that he's not letting anybody drill or otherwise develop american petroleum.

I hate it that he wastes our time and money pandering to the republicans but if that's what it takes to beat them at the polls then I guess it's not the most harmful way of going about it.

I call bullshit to cbelt3's claim that there is such a thing as a "democratic faithful". The republican party demands loyalty and lockstep policies. In comparison, making the democrats all go the same direction is like herding cats.

[cbelt3]

Sadly the Republican faithful appear to be a lot like brain damaged cats... Bill the Cats.