PDA

View Full Version : Senate approves Keystone XL pipeline




Natural Citizen
01-29-2015, 04:09 PM
http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/37/93/70/00/senate-approves-keystone-pipeline.si.jpg
A depot used to store pipes for Transcanada Corp's planned Keystone XL oil pipeline is seen in Gascoyne, North Dakota November 14, 2014. (Reuters/Andrew Cullen)

The Republican controlled Senate passed a bipartisan bill approving construction of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline, prompting a showdown with President Barack Obama, who has promised to veto the legislation.

In a 62-36 vote, Republicans were able to peel away multiple Democrats from President Obama’s position on the pipeline, ensuring easy passage for the bill once it cleared a filibuster. If Obama vetoes the bill as promised, however, supporters do not have the 67 votes need to override his decision.

Both the House and Senate are expected to reconcile any outstanding issues quickly, meaning that the bill could land on Obama’s desk within days. The White House insists it will veto construction proposals until an ongoing review process by the State Department is completed



Continued - Senate approves Keystone XL pipeline (http://rt.com/usa/227639-senate-approves-keystone-pipeline/)



Previously - Sioux Tribe: Passing Keystone Pipeline ‘An act of war" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?463427-Sioux-Tribe-Passing-Keystone-Pipeline-‘An-act-of-war-quot&p=5706805&viewfull=1#post5706805)





https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422503916&v=s6N8ZIk22rg&x-yt-cl=85027636

“We’re going to do everything within our powers to protect our homelands, our people, and as I said, our children and grandchildren – your children and your grandchildren,” he said.

“The House has now signed our death warrants and the death warrants of our children and grandchildren,” Scott said following that vote.

“The Rosebud Sioux Tribe will not allow this pipeline through our lands,” said Scott. “We are outraged at the lack of intergovernmental cooperation. We are a sovereign nation and we are not being treated as such. We will close our reservation boarders to Keystone XL. Authorizing Keystone XL is an act of war against our people.”

He added that the Rosebud Sioux had been protesting in a spirit camp for seven months and they are protecting the land in South Dakota.

“Most of all, people don’t understand the Ogallala Aquifer is the second biggest water aquifer in the world,” Scott said. “It supplies five or six states with water in the United States, and its level in some places is only six feet underground.”

The Keystone XL pipeline will be buried underground at depths of four feet, and there are concerns about the pipeline springing leaks. Scott says it is not a question of if it breaks it is a question of when it breaks.

“The aquifer collects three percent of all rainfall. Every hundred gallons of tar sand oils is going to take a couple hundred gallons of chemically treated water in that pipe to come down – and when that break happens we are going to receive three percent into the aquifer, and it is going to poison your children and our children,” said Scott.




Aside - Eminent Domain defined (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain)

invisible
01-29-2015, 04:40 PM
Is a list of the roll call available anywhere? I'd be really interested in seeing who voted against it, I suspect they're unfortunately all democrats. Hopefully at least one or two Republicans had the guts to vote against it. If this makes it to obomba's desk, and he vetoes it, that might actually be the first thing he does right after all his time in the oval office.

Natural Citizen
01-29-2015, 06:04 PM
Is a list of the roll call available anywhere? I'd be really interested in seeing who voted against it, I suspect they're unfortunately all democrats. Hopefully at least one or two Republicans had the guts to vote against it. If this makes it to obomba's desk, and he vetoes it, that might actually be the first thing he does right after all his time in the oval office.

It'll get a veto. I'm more interested in the critters who support it to reserve time to justify their subsequent support for the tyrannical outlying factors that come with it. My guess is that they won't touch them with a ten foot pole until they're forced. And that will have to come from alternative media, for sure. There just isn't any accountability any more from these people. I think they're just looking to get paid. All of them. They'll sell the people out in a country second if their hopeful doners have stake in some of these foreign ventures.

moostraks
01-29-2015, 06:49 PM
Is a list of the roll call available anywhere? I'd be really interested in seeing who voted against it, I suspect they're unfortunately all democrats. Hopefully at least one or two Republicans had the guts to vote against it. If this makes it to obomba's desk, and he vetoes it, that might actually be the first thing he does right after all his time in the oval office.

I was just thinking I cannot believe my hope is on Obama right now. Really? Geesh. My T&P are with the Sioux Tribe on this one.

moostraks
01-29-2015, 06:50 PM
It'll get a veto. I'm more interested in the critters who support it to reserve time to justify their subsequent support for the tyrannical outlying factors that come with it. My guess is that they won't touch them with a ten foot pole until they're forced. And that will have to come from alternative media, for sure. There just isn't any accountability any more from these people. I think they're just looking to get paid. All of them. They'll sell the people out in a country second if their hopeful doners have stake in some of these foreign ventures.

Well said!

tony m
01-29-2015, 07:45 PM
It'll get a veto. I'm more interested in the critters who support it to reserve time to justify their subsequent support for the tyrannical outlying factors that come with it. My guess is that they won't touch them with a ten foot pole until they're forced. And that will have to come from alternative media, for sure. There just isn't any accountability any more from these people. I think they're just looking to get paid. All of them. They'll sell the people out in a country second if their hopeful doners have stake in some of these foreign ventures.

Good.

Natural Citizen
01-29-2015, 09:42 PM
I was just thinking I cannot believe my hope is on Obama right now. Really? Geesh.

I know, right? http://spiritcompanion.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/surprised.gif

Scwewy, for sure.

Zippyjuan
01-30-2015, 02:57 AM
Roll Call Votes: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-roll-call-vote-keystone-xl-pipeline-28592511

No Republicans voted against it. Marco Rubio didn't vote.


The 62-36 roll call Thursday by which the Senate passed a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Act.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill.

Voting yes were 9 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

Voting no were 34 Democrats, 0 Republicans and 2 independents.

Democrats Yes

Bennet, Colo.; Carper, Del.; Casey, Pa.; Donnelly, Ind.; Heitkamp, N.D.; Manchin, W.V.; McCaskill, Mo.; Tester, Mont.; Warner, Va.

Democrats No

Baldwin, Wis.; Blumenthal, Conn.; Booker, N.J.; Boxer, Calif.; Brown, Ohio; Cantwell, Wash.; Cardin, Md.; Coons, Del.; Durbin, Ill.; Feinstein, Calif.; Franken, Minn.; Gillibrand, N.Y.; Heinrich, N.M.; Hirono, Hawaii; Kaine, Va.; Klobuchar, Minn.; Leahy, Vt.; Markey, Mass.; Menendez, N.J.; Merkley, Ore.; Mikulski, Md.; Murphy, Conn.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Peters, Mich.; Reed, R.I.; Schatz, Hawaii; Schumer, N.Y.; Shaheen, N.H.; Stabenow, Mich.; Udall, N.M.; Warren, Mass.; Whitehouse, R.I.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Reid, Nev.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Collins, Maine; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Enzi, Wyo.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; Lee, Utah; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Paul, Ky.; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

Republicans Not Voting

Rubio, Fla.

Independents No

King, Maine; Sanders, Vt.

moostraks
01-30-2015, 08:09 AM
Just saw this and wanted to share in this thread:http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/10/28/money-koch-bros-stole-tribes-could-swing-mid-term-elections-157542


...The quantity of the oil was measured by gauging the depth of the oil in the producer’s tanks before any was pumped out, the depth of the oil after the tank was pumped and the temperature of the oil to account for expansion or contraction. A fourth measurement determined the quality of the oil. “Koch gaugers were instructed to misstate each of these elements in the company’s favor and fraudulently report their phony measurements on the run tickets.” A gauger who reports that the company took more oil than it paid for was said to be “long” or “over.”

Comparing Koch Oil’s data with that of 30 other natural resource companies, which represented 80 percent of all gas and oil production on Indian lands, the committee determined that “Koch’s data during the last three years was consistently ‘over’ each year, acquiring $31 million more oil than it paid for…. The records indicated that about one-quarter [emphasis added] of Koch’s 1988 profits in crude oil can be attributed to obtaining oil it did not pay for.” In 2000, CBS 60 Minutes reported that Bill Koch estimated profits from the oil stolen from American Indian and other federal lands would total at least $230 million...

Koch Oil CEO and Chairman of the Board Charles Koch, while admitting under oath in testimony before committee investigators that the company was taking more than copy0 million a year in oil it did not pay for, said “[Oil measurement] is a very uncertain art … And you have people [measuring] who aren’t rocket scientists … [No] one can ever make an exact measurement … There is a lot of uncertainty … and you [have] got tremendous variations.”

However, the committee examined the records of comparable companies including Sun, Kerr-McGee, Phillips and Conoco and found their measurements were accurate, without significant overages or shortages and “they did not acquire a significant amount of crude oil without paying for it.”...

So where did all this money now being used to manipulate the outcome of U.S. elections come from? In the whistleblower trial Koch Industries admitted it had taken copy70 million worth of oil from American Indian and other federal lands without paying for it, AP reported. The eventual “price” of that oil was the $25 million fine.

invisible
01-30-2015, 08:41 AM
Thanks, Zippy. Interesting to see that the worst Senators we have are the ones that voted correctly on this. It's very weird to see the role of the "good guys" and "bad guys" completely reversed here. With the oil price collapse, the whole project has become a boondoggle. It's also interesting to see that most of the democrats who voted for it come from states with lots of fracking activity, and that no one from a state that the proposed pipeline will pass through voted against it. And how disgusting to see wankford and cotton now listed in the roll call as Senators. Ugh. Sad to see that the only Republican who at least had the backbone to not vote for it was the rube - or was he simply MIA that day and skipped the vote?

Mr.NoSmile
01-30-2015, 09:20 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/29/1361002/-Nine-Democrats-join-53-Republicans-in-approving-Keystone-XL-President-Obama-s-veto-certain


So the Cory Gardners can't be talking about how banning fracking will cost 100,000 jobs in Colorado or whatever he claimed.
But the Dems seem to reflect all the worst of the US government, a bunch of special interest groups vying for their private agenda - without the fascist bent of the Republicans holding them together.

Oh, so this is how Democrats react when their politicians don't vote the way they want them to on a single issue. Nice to see the similarities line up.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 05:51 AM
House approves Keystone XL pipeline despite veto threat (http://rt.com/usa/231491-house-passes-keystone-pipeline/)





565639929930465283

In a 270-152 vote led primarily by Republicans, the House passed the same bill that the Senate itself approved last month. The pipeline was first proposed in 2008 and would carry oil 1,179 miles from Canada’s tar sands to Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing pipeline and continue traveling south.

While the bill easily sailed through the House, President Obama has maintained that he will veto the measure in order to let a federal review of the issue play out. If Obama does veto the measure, neither the House nor the Senate have the votes needed to override his decision. It would be only the third time in his presidency that Obama has vetoed a bill.

Native American tribes have also spoken out against the pipeline, since it would cut through Native land in Nebraska in order to connect with an existing pipeline.

Supporters of the bill have pointed to the economic advantages of the pipeline, noting that construction would add billions of dollars to America's GDP and create thousands of jobs. However, only 35-50 people would be required to maintain the pipeline after it is completed, making opponents question its long-term benefits.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 08:26 AM
Is the only reason why people here are opposed to the pipeline is because of concerns of private property abuses? I mean, we already have pipelines that go all across the United States. Should all of those pipelines be abolished? Should we have no way of transporting oil across the United States?

William Tell
02-12-2015, 08:47 AM
Is the only reason why people here are opposed to the pipeline is because of concerns of private property abuses? I mean, we already have pipelines that go all across the United States. Should all of those pipelines be abolished? Should we have no way of transporting oil across the United States?
2 wrongs don't make a right. You shouldn't use an appeal to precedent. You can justify anything bad that way. I can see how its a tough vote though.

Besides, private property concerns are not the only reason. Justin Amash explained why he voted "present" on Keystone on facebook.


I voted present on H R 3, Northern Route Approval Act. The Keystone XL pipeline is a private project owned by TransCanada Corporation. This bill improperly exempts TransCanada Corporation—and no other company—from laws that require pipeline owners and operators to obtain certain government permits and approvals.


I support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and holding it up for over four years (with no end in sight) for political reasons is wrong. It's improper, however, for Congress to write a bill that names and benefits one private project, while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that allowed such delays to occur. The Constitution gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," but the Rule of Law requires that legislation be of general, not specific, applicability. A proper bill would address the circumstances that allow *any* such project to be held up for political reasons, not just Keystone XL.


As F.A. Hayek explained in The Constitution of Liberty: "It is because the lawgiver does not know the particular cases to which his rules will apply, and it is because the judge who applies them has no choice in drawing the conclusions that follow from the existing body of rules and the particular facts of the case, that it can be said that laws and not men rule. Because the rule is laid down in ignorance of the particular case and no man's will decides the coercion used to enforce it, the law is not arbitrary. This, however, is true only if by 'law' we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody. This generality is probably the most important aspect of that attribute of law which we have called its 'abstractness.' As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons."


My commitment to my constituents when I took office was that I may vote present on legislation in three extremely rare circumstances (this is the 12th present vote out of nearly two thousand votes in Congress): (1) when I could otherwise support the legislation, but the legislation uses improper means to achieve its ends, e.g., singling out a specific person or group for special treatment; (2) when Representatives have not been given a reasonable amount of time to consider the legislation; or (3) when I have a conflict of interest, such as a personal or financial interest in the legislation—a circumstance that hasn't happened yet and I don't anticipate happening.


H R 3 uses improper means to accomplish its laudable goal by singling out TransCanada Corporation and its Keystone XL pipeline for special treatment.
It passed 241-175-1.



https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/557041991001878?fref=nf

William Tell
02-12-2015, 08:55 AM
That post above by Justin was from 2013, here's his post from yesterday. He voted NO this time:


The latest ‪#‎KXL‬ (https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/kxl?source=feed_text&story_id=846639612042113) bill combines the cronyism of previous bills—specially exempting one private company from the laws and regulations that apply to all other companies—with new, unrelated sections empowering the EPA and the federal government with respect to local energy efficiency. I voted no.


https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash/posts/846639612042113

Brett85
02-12-2015, 01:01 PM
Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it. I wouldn't say that opposing the Keystone Pipeline is clearly the libertarian position. It seems to be an issue that libertarians are divided on. Arguably the small government position would be to vote "yes."

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 03:06 PM
Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it.

And they were both, in my view, acting recklessly in doing so. That pipeline will run right through the second largest aquifer in the world. The largest in the U.S.

Numerous states are dependent upon it.

And that is aside from other issues that have previously been mentioned.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 04:44 PM
And they were both, in my view, acting recklessly in doing so. That pipeline will run right through the second largest aquifer in the world. The largest in the U.S.

Numerous states are dependent upon it.

And that is aside from other issues that have previously been mentioned.

But what's the libertarian reason for voting against it? Aren't libertarians generally supposed to support getting the government out of these issues? And wouldn't the small government/anti government intervention position on this issue be that the government shouldn't stand in the way of a corporation that wants to transport oil across the United States?

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 04:49 PM
But what's the libertarian reason for voting against it? Aren't libertarians generally supposed to support getting the government out of these issues? And wouldn't the small government/anti government intervention position on this issue be that the government shouldn't stand in the way of a corporation that wants to transport oil across the United States?

Perhaps. I don't care about any of that, TC. The human position is that you don't drop a foreign (or any) tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S. That is reckless on so many levels. Eminent Domain and all of that aside.

What we have here is Growth vs Survival 101.

William Tell
02-12-2015, 04:53 PM
But what's the libertarian reason for voting against it? Aren't libertarians generally supposed to support getting the government out of these issues? And wouldn't the small government/anti government intervention position on this issue be that the government shouldn't stand in the way of a corporation that wants to transport oil across the United States?
I already pointed out that this is favoritism to a specific company. This is favoritism. It gives a certain company exclusive treatment.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 04:59 PM
I already pointed out that this is favoritism to a specific company. This is favoritism. It gives a certain company exclusive treatment.

Favoritism is sugar coating it. It's mercantilism. Period.

William Tell
02-12-2015, 05:04 PM
Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it.
Yeah, and I still love both of them.


I wouldn't say that opposing the Keystone Pipeline is clearly the libertarian position. Why? there is nothing libertarian about it. You are just using an appeal to authority and "the ends justify the means" to justify a bill that is not libertarian.


It seems to be an issue that libertarians are divided on. Arguably the small government position would be to vote "yes." Just because some libertarians are not pure on an issue does not mean that it is debatable from a perspective of libertarianism itself.

donnay
02-12-2015, 05:10 PM
How many peoples property will be gobbled-up by this pipeline. Kelo Vs. New London.

muh_roads
02-12-2015, 05:44 PM
What is the big deal with a pipe going thru lands? Just let them open more legal casino's as reimbursement.

Contaminating water I think is overblown.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 05:47 PM
I already pointed out that this is favoritism to a specific company. This is favoritism. It gives a certain company exclusive treatment.

My preference would be to pass the bill first and then go back and pass another bill after that which would allow the other companies to build pipelines as well and treat everyone more equally.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 05:48 PM
How many peoples property will be gobbled-up by this pipeline. Kelo Vs. New London.

I think the issue should be decided by the corporations and the land owners with the courts acting as the arbitrator. I don't see why Congress should be involved. I don't see where Congress even gets the Constitutional authority to prevent a pipeline from being built.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 05:50 PM
Why? there is nothing libertarian about it. You are just using an appeal to authority and "the ends justify the means" to justify a bill that is not libertarian.

It's libertarian to get the government out of the way, which is what this bill does.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 05:53 PM
The Keystone Pipeline isn't libertarian?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVDbkp-a4_g

Working Poor
02-12-2015, 05:56 PM
Perhaps. I don't care about any of that, TC. The human position is that you don't drop a foreign (or any) tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S. That is reckless on so many levels. Eminent Domain and all of that aside.

What we have here is Growth vs Survival 101.

This is the reason I am against too. Water is far more necessary than oil.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 05:59 PM
The Keystone Pipeline isn't libertarian?



It's irrelevant.

You don't drop a tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S.

What part of that don't you get?

Would you like specific examples of why that isn't a very good idea?

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 06:04 PM
This is the reason I am against too. Water is far more necessary than oil.

Seems like they want to avoid that issue in favor of presenting a half baked political debate. I don't get people. I really don't.

And beyond that, the people don't benefit in any practical or meaningful way having this foreign pipeline dropped on their lands.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 06:05 PM
It's irrelevant.

You don't drop a tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. And again, the largest in the U.S.

What part of that don't you get?

Would you like specific examples of why that isn't a very good idea?

I'm not sure if that's necessarily true or the case. I would imagine that there's a counter argument to your claim.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 06:09 PM
I'm not sure if that's necessarily true or the case. I would imagine that there's a counter argument to your claim.

Well, I certainly welcome one. The terms of controversy need to be debated accordingly and a counter argument is just the ticket to get that rolling. And not relative to some libertarian this or that nonsense. What you are doing is you're introducing a libertarian position as a stalking horse. Look that up, btw. There is a wiki page. I made sure of it.

Slave Mentality
02-12-2015, 06:09 PM
Favoritism is sugar coating it. It's fascism. Period.

FTFY

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 06:17 PM
FTFY

Yes, that too. But when the actual people have their sovereignty wrecked by way of government intervention on behalf of the financial interests of a multinational or domestic corporation/industry it's mercantilism 101. And those government officials need to be voted out of office if they participate in the skullduggery.

If their doners/corporate beneficiaries of this pipeline want a pipeline then fine. Don't drop it on the largest aquifer in the nation (because that is just plain freaking stupid) and don't attack the sovereignty and property rights of those that you made an oath to represent (because that is treason. Tyranny at the very least).

Brett85
02-12-2015, 06:24 PM
Yes, that too. But when the actual people have their sovereignty wrecked by way of government intervention on behalf of the financial interests of a multinational or domestic corporation/industry it's mercantilism 101.

But it isn't "government intervention." It's just getting the government out of the way.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 06:29 PM
But it isn't "government intervention." It's just getting the government out of the way.

Your killin me, TC. Yer freaking killin me here, man.

You don't drop a tar sands pipeline on the second largest aquifer in the world. I don't care if it's government doing it, a multi-national corporation or whomever. It's freaking reckless. Whatsamatter wit you?

And I just expalined what mercantilism is. Goshdarn hardhead.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 06:29 PM
http://keystone-xl.com/the-facts-on-keystone-xl-and-the-ogallala-aquifer/


When pipelines are your business, you pride yourself on ensuring the safest delivery through the communities you operate in.

TransCanada happens to be in that business, and we are using the latest in pipeline technology to make sure we live up to that expectation.

One of the realities of transporting energy across the continent is that our pipelines will have to cross bodies of water. A considerable amount of the media attention regarding the path of Keystone XL concerns the Ogallala Aquifer.

The Ogallala Aquifer provides drinking water to millions of people, plants and animals in the region. Some estimates say that the total amount of water in the aquifer could cover the continental United States in water two feet deep. The Ogallala is incredibly important to the people of the Midwest. We know this because our friends and families live and work up and down Keystone route too. We take special care building our pipelines; that’s why we’ve voluntarily agreed to add 59 additional safety and maintenance conditions. Keystone XL will be the safest and most technologically advanced pipeline built in the United States.

Our opponents would have you believe that the Keystone XL pipeline would risk this entire resource. This is not true, nor is it supported scientifically.

Dr. Jim Goeke, a research hydrologist and professor emeritus at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has studied the Ogallala Aquifer for four decades.

According to Goeke, his 40 years of research and study of this unique structure have demonstrated repeatedly that the water in the Ogallala Aquifer follows gravity, and thus flows west-to-east. Take a look at the pipeline route below.

Keystone XL’s path is east of more than 80 per cent of the Ogallala Aquifer. Impact modelling conducted by the State Department and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has shown that in the very unlikely event of an incident, impacts would be localized to as little as tens of feet. That’s because the Ogallala Aquifer is a very large rock formation with layers and layers of sands, soils and rock layers. These thick layers offer a natural protection for the water below. For context, water travels through the Aquifer’s densely packed layers at a rate of two to three feet a day.

In the New York Times Professor Goeke, gives a number of explanations as to why Keystone presents minimal risk; highlighting that the depth of the water along much of the alignment of the pipeline is between 50 and 300 feet deep. Keystone would be buried four feet deep.

Any claim that the drinking water for the entire region would be affected is a gross exaggeration of the risks

And in areas where the water table sits closer to the planned pipeline depth? TransCanada has already pledged to utilize waterproof coverings on the pipeline and cement jackets during construction. Remotely operated shutoff valves will be spaced closer together and can stop the flow of oil in minutes.

Further to that, TransCanada uses high-quality carbon steel, capable of withstanding the 3.5-inch teeth from a 65-ton excavator. We also use a corrosion-resistant, fusion-bonded epoxy coating. In order to further shore up the integrity of our pipelines, we attach cathodic protection to our infrastructure. This is the same technique used on bridges, boats and cars to prevent rust from occurring.

Our safety procedures and pipeline paths are based on scientific evidence. Support from in-state academics like Prof. Jim Goeke gives us the confidence to know what we are doing is safe. The support of more than 60% of the American public gives us the support to know what we are doing is in the best interest of the country.

The Keystone XL Pipeline, when complete, will be over 2,000 miles (3,462 km) long.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 06:33 PM
Ah, bullshit. I want to hear the position on "science" from these people who are voting for this thing. That's what I'd like to know. I'd like for them to stand up there, tell us their position on science and then tell us how they'd lead given it's impact on legislation that affects the American people. I don't want to read some sales product pitch or PR page from the very company who is the culprit. And if the representative will not or is incapable of providing a position on science and chooses to simply repeat the company's officialdom then he or she isn't qualified to hold any kind of political office of representation in the modern world in my view. He or she should be expected to be competent to hold a position on science as a whole in way that demonstrates the ability to decipher it from industry rhetoric. And in many cases, those same companies are directly affiliated with the very doners who are affiliated with our representatives and whom spend hundreds of millions of dollars toward political pacs in return for favors so it is monumental that they are competent and willing to provide their personal position on science to the American people instead of just forwarding PR from special interests. Maybe they can explain what they know about how an aquifer works. Why it is important to humanity. From the politicians mouth. Based upon his or her scientific position. I don't want to hear special interest's scientific scribbles. They don't represent me. You think maybe?

I'll give it to you, though. You are a persistent one. I'm going to go watch cartoons. I need a break from this place. Maybe scribble up an op-ed or something productive. Or something...

Working Poor
02-12-2015, 07:06 PM
Well, Rand and Thomas Massie both voted for it. I wouldn't say that opposing the Keystone Pipeline is clearly the libertarian position. It seems to be an issue that libertarians are divided on. Arguably the small government position would be to vote "yes."

If destroying the largest aquifer in our country is a libertarian stand than I renounce it right now. Water is way more necessary to life and health I don't care who looses money. Go Obama veto that crap.

donnay
02-12-2015, 07:38 PM
I think the issue should be decided by the corporations and the land owners with the courts acting as the arbitrator. I don't see why Congress should be involved. I don't see where Congress even gets the Constitutional authority to prevent a pipeline from being built.

What a tangled web...the corporations want congress involved, they have paid them handsomely to help them out. The bottom line is the fifth amendment be damned.

donnay
02-12-2015, 07:45 PM
Refinery Operators Make Big Contributions

Senators voting for the bill got 10 times the amount, at an average $236,544, than those who voted against it ($22,882). Democratic senators who voted for the bill, even though Obama had indicated his opposition, received 3.2 times as much as the Democrats who voted against it ($73, 279 vs. $22,882). Sen. John Hoeven, the Republican from North Dakota who sponsored the legislation, received $275,998.

The contributions happened between Oct. 1, 2012 and Sept. 30, 2014. To say that more money caused the vote is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. It could be that the industry donated more heavily to candidates predisposed to support the bill. But the contributions did happen over a time that was of particular importance to political support of the bill.

Gulf Coast refinery operators have contributed heavily to generally lobbying Congress and federal agencies. Since Jan. 1, 2013, the following top five spent $58.8 million (although there is no way to know what percentage was focused on the pipeline question vs. other topics):

ExxonMobil (XOM) — $26,070,000
Shell (RDS-A) — $17,280,000
Phillips 66 (PSX) — $7,420,000
Marathon Petroleum (MPC) — $5,800,000
Valero (VLO) — $2,180,000

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2015/02/12/keystone-xl-votes-big-oil-contributions-connected/?a_dgi=aolshare_email

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 07:52 PM
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2015/02/12/keystone-xl-votes-big-oil-contributions-connected/?a_dgi=aolshare_email

Some interesting players in the Canadian oil fields. Haven't mentioned them here yet. You know the ones. Koch Brothers are cashing in on a great deal of land relative to tar sands holdings while continuing to fund a political army within government to legislate their products and interests domestically as well as abroad. I wonder how much of their money has gone toward the so called representatives who passed this thing. I had a list around here some place. It was huge. As was the list of political organizations.

And I won't even get into the many political organizations that have been created under the illusion of liberty in order to disillusion the people as to what is really happening here. Going to have to put a lasso on that stalking horse, for sure.

Here is just one example... Koch Brothers Cashing In 220,000 Acres of Tar Sands Holdings (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120919/koch-brothers-industries-canadian-tar-sands-properties-keystone-xl-pipeline-alberta-dilbit-climate-skeptics)

William Tell
02-12-2015, 10:02 PM
The Keystone Pipeline isn't libertarian?

Lol! Ron said let the market deal with it and let the states deal with it. Here we are talking about a specific bill, I don't object to pipelines. I object to pipelines that are crony deals that lead to violating property rights.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 10:04 PM
If destroying the largest aquifer in our country is a libertarian stand than I renounce it right now. Water is way more necessary to life and health I don't care who looses money. Go Obama veto that crap.

Did you see the link I posted? There's no threat to the water aquifer from the pipeline being built.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 10:05 PM
Lol! Ron said let the market deal with it and let the states deal with it. Here we are talking about a specific bill, I don't object to pipelines. I object to pipelines that are crony deals that lead to violating property rights.

I think Ron was pretty clear in what he said that he would support a bill that would allow the Keystone pipeline to be built. Ron wasn't just referring to pipelines generally, but said specifically that he was in favor of allowing the Keystone Pipeline to be built.

kpitcher
02-12-2015, 10:09 PM
It's libertarian to get the government out of the way, which is what this bill does.

Aren't there issues of eminent domain being used which puts the government back in charge of doing the bidding of corporate interests?

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 10:09 PM
I think Ron was pretty clear in what he said that he would support a bill that would allow the Keystone pipeline to be built. Ron wasn't just referring to pipelines generally, but said specifically that he was in favor of allowing the Keystone Pipeline to be built.

What did Ron say about putting it on the world's second largest aquifer? Oh...that's right...nobody asked that question. Right? What did he say with regard to Eminent Domain? Nothing? What?...nobody asked about that? Well put me in polkadots and call me Suzy. Whoda thunkit. We ask, you decide, is it?

I wonder if Rand would respond to those questions. You know...if anyone had the sense to maybe ask him in front of a genuine journalist's camera. Hm. Someone maybe needs to help that along.

donnay
02-12-2015, 10:26 PM
Some interesting players in the Canadian oil fields. Haven't mentioned them here yet. You know the ones. Koch Brothers are cashing in on a great deal of land relative to tar sands holdings while continuing to fund a political army within government to legislate their products and interests domestically as well as abroad. I wonder how much of their money has gone toward the so called representatives who passed this thing. I had a list around here some place. It was huge. As was the list of political organizations.

And I won't even get into the many political organizations that have been created under the illusion of liberty in order to disillusion the people as to what is really happening here. Going to have to put a lasso on that stalking horse, for sure.

Here is just one example... Koch Brothers Cashing In 220,000 Acres of Tar Sands Holdings (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120919/koch-brothers-industries-canadian-tar-sands-properties-keystone-xl-pipeline-alberta-dilbit-climate-skeptics)




Koch Industries 2014
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000186&year=2014

Total Lobbying Expenditures: $13,800,000
Subtotal for Subsidiary Koch Industries Public Sector: $13,800,000



Role in Keystone XL tar sands pipeline:

Koch Industries has been involved in tar sands operations for half a century (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120510/koch-industries-brothers-tar-sands-bitumen-heavy-oil-flint-pipelines-refinery-alberta-canada). Koch refines 25% of tar sands crude oil entering the U.S. and operates a terminal at the proposed pipeline's origin in Hardisty, Alberta. Koch Industries has repeatedly denied (http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/category/Keystone/) any financial interest in TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. After 6 months of public insistence that Koch Industries had nothing to do with Keystone XL, news emerged that Koch's wholly-owned subsidiary Flint Hills Resources told Canada's Energy Board it has "direct and substantial interest (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20111004/koch-brothers-koch-industries-flint-hills-financial-interest-canada-energy-board-keystone-xl-pipeline)" in a government filing. Flint Hills owns Koch's Pine Bend refinery in Rosemont, Minnesota, which can process 339,000 barrels (http://pinebendrefinery.com/about-us/) of oil per day, and "is among the top processors of Canadian crude in the United States (http://www.fhr.com/refining/minnesota.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1). Koch has continued (http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/category/Keystone/) to deny any financial link to TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, although Americans for Prosperity (which was founded by the Kochs, chaired by David Koch and funded by over $5.6 million from Koch foundations) bussed pipeline supporters (http://www.thenation.com/article/165621/plains-rare-chance-trans-partisan-politics) to testify at State Department Hearings in Nebraska.
http://www.polluterwatch.com/koch-industries

invisible
02-12-2015, 10:34 PM
But it isn't "government intervention." It's just getting the government out of the way.

If government forces someone to sell their property through eminent domain, it is not getting out of the way. Supporting that sort of thing can in no way be construed as a libertarian position.

Natural Citizen
02-12-2015, 10:44 PM
Koch has continued (http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/category/Keystone/) to deny any financial link to TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, although Americans for Prosperity (which was founded by the Kochs, chaired by David Koch and funded by over $5.6 million from Koch foundations) bussed pipeline supporters (http://www.thenation.com/article/165621/plains-rare-chance-trans-partisan-politics) to testify at State Department Hearings in Nebraska.


Yeah, aside from the ones they have in political office running interference for them, they have a rather large PR mechanism out in the public...




Cato Institute, Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, Citizens for a Sound Economy 2, Environmental Literacy Council, George Mason’s Mercatus Center, Property and Environment Research Center, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Center for Equal Opportunity, Heritage Foundation, Institute for Energy Research, Institute for Humane Studies, Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Bill of Rights Institute, Ethics and Public Policy Center, Youth Entrepreneurs of Kansas, Citizens for Congressional Reform Foundation, Institute for Justice, Frontiers of Freedom Institute, Reason Foundation,Texas Public Policy Foundation, National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship,The Phillips Foundation, Federalist Society,John Locke Foundation, Institute for the Study of Human Origins,Fund for American Studies, American Enterprise Institute & Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, James Madison Institute, Manhattan Institute, John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Washington Legal Foundation, Young America’s Foundation, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Leadership Institute, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment, American Council on Science & Health, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Laffer Center for Global Economic Growth, National Center for Policy Analysis, Association of Private Enterprise Education, American Legislative Exchange Council, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Capital Research Center, Center for Independent Thought, Tax Foundation,National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Legal Foundation, Independent Women’s Forum, Carbon Dioxide & Global Change Center, International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics,Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Acton Institute, Market Based Management Institute, Fraser Institute, Media Institute, Pacific Research Institute, Heartland Institute, American Council for Capital Formation, Goldwater Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, Libertarian Review Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, Students in Free Enterprise, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, Center for Excellence in Education, Center for Freedom & Prosperity Foundation,Ayn Rand Institute, National Tax Limitation Foundation,International Policy Network, North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Free Enterprise Education Institute, Atlantic Legal Foundation, South Carolina Policy Council for Political Economy, Center for Individual Rights, Media Research Center, Texas Justice Foundation, Future of Freedom Foundation, Foundation for Economic Education, Pacific Legal Foundation, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, Foundation for Human Development, Institute for Policy Innovation, American Spectator, Critical Review Foundation, Galen Institute, Hudson Institute



Source: Tax records for the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, David H. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, available at guidestar.org for 2009 and compiled on Media Matters Action Network website for prior years.


USA is so freaking doomed at this rate. I'm still chuckling about the whole "Well, let's just run this tar sands pipeline through the second largest aquifer in the world and to heck with sovereignty and private property because...get this...Liberty" gag. Who the heck are these idiots?

Well...we know who is who. I suppose that what I mean is who the heck do they think they are? Gosh.

Brett85
02-12-2015, 10:47 PM
If government forces someone to sell their property through eminent domain, it is not getting out of the way. Supporting that sort of thing can in no way be construed as a libertarian position.

But it just seems like the issue should be handled between the corporation and the land owner with the courts as the arbiter. I'm not sure why Congress should vote against allowing the process to move forward, or where they even have the Constitutional authority to prevent a pipeline from being built.

invisible
02-12-2015, 11:05 PM
But it just seems like the issue should be handled between the corporation and the land owner with the courts as the arbiter. I'm not sure why Congress should vote against allowing the process to move forward, or where they even have the Constitutional authority to prevent a pipeline from being built.

The issue should be between the land owner, and anyone who wants to purchase the land. No courts, no government, no force. Courts ARE government. If someone doesn't want to sell, then someone else can't buy. That should be the end of it, right there.
Congress should vote against it, because a vote for it is a vote to force government to take someone's property through eminent domain. Perhaps it's easy for you to sit back and argue that eminent domain is a good thing, that it's for the greater good (which is a socialist argument, not a libertarian argument) because you've never had it happen to you. I have, and lost a fully paid for house taken by eminent domain. Why are you attempting to make an argument that Congress voting to authorize eminent domain is somehow a good thing? The only argument for this is a socialist argument. Or perhaps a mercantilist / fascist one.

Brett85
02-13-2015, 08:00 AM
The issue should be between the land owner, and anyone who wants to purchase the land. No courts, no government, no force. Courts ARE government. If someone doesn't want to sell, then someone else can't buy. That should be the end of it, right there.
Congress should vote against it, because a vote for it is a vote to force government to take someone's property through eminent domain. Perhaps it's easy for you to sit back and argue that eminent domain is a good thing, that it's for the greater good (which is a socialist argument, not a libertarian argument) because you've never had it happen to you. I have, and lost a fully paid for house taken by eminent domain. Why are you attempting to make an argument that Congress voting to authorize eminent domain is somehow a good thing? The only argument for this is a socialist argument. Or perhaps a mercantilist / fascist one.

That's just a straw man argument. I'm not advocating that Congress authorize eminent domain. I'm just advocating what Ron advocated, that the issue should be handled by the states and the free market.

invisible
02-13-2015, 10:08 AM
That's just a straw man argument. I'm not advocating that Congress authorize eminent domain. I'm just advocating what Ron advocated, that the issue should be handled by the states and the free market.

Please, by all means, go ahead and demonstrate that my argument is a straw man. It isn't. Saying so doesn't make it one.
You advocated that the courts should somehow be involved. Courts are government. By all means, please explain how someone being forced to sell their property the government is a free market mechanism.

Brett85
02-13-2015, 11:08 AM
Please, by all means, go ahead and demonstrate that my argument is a straw man. It isn't. Saying so doesn't make it one.
You advocated that the courts should somehow be involved. Courts are government. By all means, please explain how someone being forced to sell their property the government is a free market mechanism.

I'm saying that it should be up to the courts to rule that a private company doesn't have the right to force a landowner to sell their property. The courts should tell the Keystone company that they can only go through land where the landowner agrees to allow his land to be used for that purpose. But Congress has no Constitutional authority to prevent a company from building a pipeline. It's basically the same thing with the EPA. Libertarians don't support allowing people to pollute other people's property, but we still don't support having an agency like the EPA handle the issue. We rightly understand that the best way to protect the environment is by protecting private property rights, by allowing people to sue and go through the court system when someone pollutes their property.