Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 110

Thread: Keystone Pipeline

  1. #1

    Default Keystone Pipeline

    The Keystone Pipeline never seems to come up here. But other Republicans always want to talk about it. Do people here have any thoughts about it or care either way?

    I know it's mainly just a talking point. But it seems like we ought to have something to contribute to the discussion.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    I don't really know much about it. What are they talking about? Are they talking about the government building a pipeline, or allowing a private developer to do so?

    I'm all for drilling here in the US, and all against statism. Beyond that, I don't know what my POV is.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I don't really know much about it. What are they talking about? Are they talking about the government building a pipeline, or allowing a private developer to do so?

    I'm all for drilling here in the US, and all against statism. Beyond that, I don't know what my POV is.
    It's about allowing a private developer too.

    But of course it's not that simple. It's a huge project running North-South through the country, so obviously government would be heavily involved, including seizing a lot of peoples' property by eminent domain most likely.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    It's about allowing a private developer too.

    But of course it's not that simple. It's a huge project running North-South through the country, so obviously government would be heavily involved, including seizing a lot of peoples' property by eminent domain most likely.
    Then what's the debate? Every libertarian should be against it, in that case.

  6. #5
    Member Keith and stuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Live Free or Die state
    Posts
    9,480
    Blog Entries
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    The Keystone Pipeline never seems to come up here. But other Republicans always want to talk about it. Do people here have any thoughts about it or care either way?
    It seems to be mostly good. IMO, though, since it requires the use of Eminent Domain to steal property for the benefit of a private foreign company, it violates the US Constitution. The SCOTUS disagreed in the Kelo Vs. New London case. Though, I feel the Supreme Court was wrong, just like the Texas law that allows the Keystone Pipeline. It's for the greater good perhaps, but anti-liberty. I wouldn't have a problem with it if eminent domain wasn't used, but it's already too late for that

    On the plus side, it is good for the US economy. Though, if there is a pipeline bust, that could cause some major problems within several miles of the bust.
    Last edited by Keith and stuff; 02-12-2014 at 09:16 AM.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Then what's the debate? Every libertarian should be against it, in that case.
    What else is involved though? Why is the federal government standing in the way of their building it in the first place? What law allows them to do that? And is that a good law? What does the legislation that the GOP supports have in it? Is eminent domain actually part of it, or just an expected consequence of passing it? And would that eminent domain happen at the state level or the federal?
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    It seems to be mostly good. IMO, though, since it requires the use of Eminent Domain to steal property for the benefit of a private foreign company, it violates the US Constitution.
    Does it actually require that? I know the private company behind it is pushing for that. But is that an actual part of the federal legislation?

    What do you mean when you say that it's already too late for that? The pipeline still hasn't been approved.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  9. #8
    Member helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Absorb thoroughly. Twist.
    Posts
    5,378

    Default

    Those for it are for it for the right reasons: let business do business, stop being enviro-whacky-mental cases. Those against it are against it for the wrong reasons: Oil is Satan, let's tap into the power of a nationwide tree hug.

    So I would be hesitant to oppose it too loudly, unless I had an audience with sufficient time and interest that I could go into the subtleties. Subtlety is usually lost on most people on such topics. And I don't see it as a major issue. So I pretty much keep my mouth shut and ignore it, and leave the opinion-making on this topic to Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Donnell.
    Download hundreds of Ron Paul songs: by Torrent or Dropbox

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    What else is involved though? Why is the federal government standing in the way of their building it in the first place? What law allows them to do that? And is that a good law? What does the legislation that the GOP supports have in it? Is eminent domain actually part of it, or just an expected consequence of passing it? And would that eminent domain happen at the state level or the federal?
    I have no idea. Those are good questions that I can't really answer. I think Justin Amash had the right idea with voting "present" unless and until I learn enough to say that he was wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Those for it are for it for the right reasons: let business do business, stop being enviro-whacky-mental cases. Those against it are against it for the wrong reasons: Oil is Satan, let's tap into the power of a nationwide tree hug.

    So I would be hesitant to oppose it too loudly, unless I had an audience with sufficient time and interest that I could go into the subtleties. Subtlety is usually lost on most people on such topics. And I don't see it as a major issue. So I pretty much keep my mouth shut and ignore it, and leave the opinion-making on this topic to Bill O'Reilly and Rosie O'Donnell.
    Yeah, there's that too. I've always said, and I still do, that America should drill its own oil. HOW is another question.

    I don't know if eminient domain is part of the bill or not, but I think at some point that does have to be addressed, though.

  11. #10
    Member Keith and stuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Live Free or Die state
    Posts
    9,480
    Blog Entries
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Does it actually require that? I know the private company behind it is pushing for that. But is that an actual part of the federal legislation?

    What do you mean when you say that it's already too late for that? The pipeline still hasn't been approved.
    It's already been partially built. ED has already been used. This has already been talked about on RPFs before.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Those for it are for it for the right reasons
    What makes you think that?

    To me it smells like a wag the dog situation. Nobody would even be talking about it if it weren't for someone who stands to make big profits from it pushing it as an issue. And the people who seem to be the most zealously for it are the Republican establishment.

    I don't know enough to be decided on it. But I am inclined to distrust the whole thing. I just want to make sure I have my ducks in a row before I start telling people they should oppose it.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith and stuff View Post
    It's already been partially built. ED has already been used. This has already been talked about on RPFs before.
    Got a source?

    Are you maybe talking about the part of it that's in Canada?
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    I have no idea. Those are good questions that I can't really answer. I think Justin Amash had the right idea with voting "present" unless and until I learn enough to say that he was wrong.
    Thanks for mentioning Amash. I found his statement defending his vote, and it looks good.
    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/repjustinam...57041991001878

    This was his same reasoning when he opposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  15. #14

    Default

    @erowe1- Well, most conservatives I know personally think its ridiculous that the US constantly has to deal with OPEC in order to get oil when we can just drill our own oil. Some of them even recognize that the War in Iraq was at least in part for oil, and they think that we should have drilled our own instead. They're mad at environmentalist wackos who don't want to drill American oil because "oh the horror, the environment." That, to me, says their hearts are in the right place. The ED issue rarely even gets discussed.

    Its possible, probable, that the developer who is pushing for it has poor intentions. I know FedGov has poor intentions. But the average person on the street, at least in my experience, who supports it does so for good reasons.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Thanks for mentioning Amash. I found his statement defending his vote, and it looks good.

    https://www.facebook.com/repjustinam...57041991001878

    This was his same reasoning when he opposed the defunding of Planned Parenthood.
    I'm glad I was able to read that again, I had read it awhile back. Amash seems to know what he's doing.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    But the average person on the street, at least in my experience, who supports it does so for good reasons.
    The average person on the street wouldn't know the first thing about it if the issue weren't being pushed by someone. They're just repeating after whatever conservative talking head they listen to. It's like the jedi mind trick.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    The average person on the street wouldn't know the first thing about it if the issue weren't being pushed by someone. They're just repeating after whatever conservative talking head they listen to. It's like the jedi mind trick.
    Yes, this is probably true. As Helmuth_hubener said, most people who support this just support the idea of drilling local oil and not wanting to be tied down by the middle east or environmentalist wackos. They don't know the nuances like we do, or like Justin Amash does.

  19. #18

    Default

    i had a farm and i know i would not want it going thru my land .

    there is no way this is going to help america except for the short time jobs to build it . once the oil ( if thats what people call it ) gets to texas refinery the products will be shipped over seas .

    the price we pay for gasoline will go up at least 50c a gallon because the refineries will be doing the tar sands then shiping it overseas .

    if it was such a great deal for america why don't they build refineries up north .

    more than anything i want america to get off arab oil and getting gi's killed over it . natural gas is our only near term answer .

  20. #19
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    19,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFanatic View Post
    Yes, this is probably true. As Helmuth_hubener said, most people who support this just support the idea of drilling local oil and not wanting to be tied down by the middle east or environmentalist wackos. They don't know the nuances like we do, or like Justin Amash does.
    Do you consider Canada tar sands to be "local oil"? Tar sands oil requires lots of refining and the places to do that are mostly in Texas and Louisiana so they want to build a pipeline all the way from Canada down to there- instead of either building a refinery closer or using trains to transport the oil. Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  21. #20
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,850
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    I am strongly opposed to the eminent domain aspect of the pipeline.

    IMHO, it would be better to build a refinery closer to the oil fields, rather than piping the oil across the country, and then trucking the gasoline back. Of course the crony government/oil company partnership makes sure that no new refineries can be built.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  22. #21
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,850
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Supposedly, the tar sands oil is much harder to push through the pipes, and it may erode the pipes from the inside. How much energy will it take to pipe the oil across the country?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Without government help, a private company can't get all the continuous land needed to build a pipelline.
    If stands to be that profitable, I bet they could.

    But that's a good point. How much of this is all about eminent domain?
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  24. #23
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,850
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Forum hiccup.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    and then trucking the gasoline back.
    I imagine that there would end up being more trucking of the gasoline to America if the refinery were in Canada than there will be trucking it to Canada from a refinery in Texas.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  26. #25
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,850
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i had a farm and i know i would not want it going thru my land .

    there is no way this is going to help america except for the short time jobs to build it . once the oil ( if thats what people call it ) gets to texas refinery the products will be shipped over seas .

    the price we pay for gasoline will go up at least 50c a gallon because the refineries will be doing the tar sands then shiping it overseas .

    if it was such a great deal for america why don't they build refineries up north .

    more than anything i want america to get off arab oil and getting gi's killed over it . natural gas is our only near term answer .
    Yep, one of the major reasons that the oil companies push the pipeline "solution" is so that they can export refined products out of the country via the Texas ports. CEOs have publicly stated that it is a big problem that oil in the US is too cheap, and it needs to be exported so that they can drive the price up.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  27. #26

    Default

    ..
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  28. #27
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,850
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I imagine that there would end up being more trucking of the gasoline to America if the refinery were in Canada than there will be trucking it to Canada from a refinery in Texas.
    It's about refining the oil closer to where it is used. One huge central refining hub in Texas requires more trucking of gasoline. Adding regional refineries cuts down on distance to pipe oil and distance to truck gasoline. There are already plenty of pipelines. Oil does not have to be solely refined in either Canada or Texas.

    The Keystone XL is just a new express pipeline extension from Canada to Texas.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  29. #28
    Site Staff - Moderator Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,850
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Some of the currently existing pipelines:



    The planned Keystone XL Express:

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    It's about refining the oil closer to where it is used. One huge central refining hub in Texas requires more trucking of gasoline. Adding regional refineries cuts down on distance to pipe oil and distance to truck gasoline. There are already plenty of pipelines. Oil does not have to be solely refined in either Canada or Texas.

    The Keystone XL is just a new express pipeline extension from Canada to Texas.
    But the company must stand to profit from this pipeline, or at least they're willing to bet that they will. If that's the business model that they want to put their own money on, why should the government tell them that some other one is better.
    I知 not a libertarian. I知 not advocating everyone run around with no clothes on and smoke pot.

  31. #30
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    19,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Yep, one of the major reasons that the oil companies push the pipeline "solution" is so that they can export refined products out of the country via the Texas ports. CEOs have publicly stated that it is a big problem that oil in the US is too cheap, and it needs to be exported so that they can drive the price up.
    I would rather see refineries built closer to the source.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast




View discussion threads with similar topics:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •