iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Keystone Pipeline: Senate To Vote On Competing Plans

Posted: 03/ 7/2012 11:13 pm


* Senator says exports of oil, fuels could hurt U.S.

* Competing Republican amendment would approve Keystone

* Both amendments face uphill battle to pass

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON, March 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate could vote as early as Thursday on competing plans for the future of the Keystone XL crude oil pipeline as part of a highway funding bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday.

Reid, a Democrat, said he reached an agreement with Republican leaders in the Senate that will allow debate on a Republican bill to approve TransCanada's $7 billion project to bring Canadian oil sands to Texas refineries, along with a Democratic plan to ban exports from the pipeline.

The Keystone amendments are two of 30 measures that could be voted on in coming days as the Senate pushes to renew funding for highways and other infrastructure projects, slated to run out at the end of March.

Both amendments face an uphill battle attracting the 60 votes that Reid said would be required for their passage in the 100-member Senate. But they will provide a chance for fresh debate on the controversial project, which President Barack Obama put on hold pending further environmental review.

Republicans have sought to make the Keystone delay an issue in the November presidential election, and the recent increase in U.S. gasoline prices has bolstered arguments by pipeline supporters that oil coming from Canada would bolster U.S. energy security.

The pipeline would carry crude from Canadian oil sands to Texas refineries, and would also pick up U.S. crude from North Dakota and Montana along the way.

A Republican amendment, championed by Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, would sidestep the need for presidential approval and allow Congress to approve the project. But any bill containing such a measure would still require Obama's signature.

Last year, U.S. exports of refined products like diesel exceeded imports of such fuels for the first time since 1949, the U.S. government said, crediting strong world demand and increased supplies from Canada and North Dakota.

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden proposed an alternative on Wednesday that would ban exports of oil from the pipeline as well as refined products made from the oil.

Wyden said he believed booming U.S. oil and gas production gave the United States a competitive advantage that could be lost if exports were allowed without more analysis.

"I am increasingly concerned about the export of American energy," Wyden told Reuters. "We have seen this dramatic shift in our energy policy and it's kind of like we're on autopilot to start exporting," he said in an interview.


PUTTING TEETH INTO ENERGY SECURITY CLAIMS

Wyden said his amendment "puts teeth" into claims the pipeline would boost U.S. energy supplies.

"You see all over television, commercials and enormous sums of money spent by the advocates who constantly keep talking about how this is going to strengthen domestic energy security," Wyden said. "This amendment guarantees that."

The vast majority of the fuel made from Keystone oil would stay in the United States, said Ryan Bernstein, an aide to Hoeven, who said the Democratic proposal would be a setback for the pipeline, if it passes.

Some refined products such as high-sulfur diesel and petroleum coke need to be sold outside the country, where there are markets for them. Keeping them inside the United States would increase the costs of the project and could lead to higher gasoline prices, Bernstein said.

Wyden said his amendment would allow for broad presidential waivers for exports in cases where they were truly needed.

It would also require that U.S. iron and steel be used in the pipeline to create more U.S. jobs.

His plan would keep the presidential permitting process, rather than handing the authority to Congress, but would add a 90-day deadline for a decision on the pipeline once all environmental reviews were complete.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have passed the energy portion of their transportation bill, which would grant Keystone a permit. A similar proposal for a ban on oil and fuel exports failed in the House.

TransCanada Corp has said it will split the $7 billion project in two and build the southern leg between the Cushing, Oklahoma storage hub and Texas refineries.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

* Senator says exports of oil, fuels could hurt U.S. * Competing Republican amendment would approve Keystone * Both amendments face uphill battle to pass B...
* Senator says exports of oil, fuels could hurt U.S. * Competing Republican amendment would approve Keystone * Both amendments face uphill battle to pass B...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 26
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
RickInMichigan
Gravity rules!
06:00 PM on 03/08/2012
Well how about republicans, you ok with banning the selling of this oil supply and the resulting gasoline to anyone but Americans?
photo
hail
'You work three jobs?' Bush, 2/4/05
05:03 PM on 03/08/2012
Having the dubious distinction of living on 40 acres in bayou country (where our country gets most of it's oil and natural gas from) I can say, if I had a say on the Keystone pipeline it would be no! I just love all the conservative senators like Rubio from states like Florida, who don't want this filthy business in their backyard. Heaven forbid if Florida or the East Coast should allow drilling offshore. Just check out what goes through Port Fourchon near where I live and watch the documentary film Gasland! If you're ever have the misfortune to be traveling through the area and have to drive across the bridge crossing Mississippi between East and West Baton Rouge, you're eyes will probably tear up. It's just like driving outside Houston and driving through Texas City or Baytown. They don't call it cancer alley for nothing! My wife first got lymphatic cancer at 20, and it runs rampant in our area!
04:54 PM on 03/08/2012
Too bad all the GOP supporting residents of all the conservative states it would pass through are opposed to it. Oh wait it's only Obama who is opposed right?
photo
Plastic7
Kosher Pickle Blesser
04:16 PM on 03/08/2012
This is what fox news had to say about oil, a few short years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o&feature=share
Drive smaller cars!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BeckyJustice
Stop the frickin Fracking. NOW!
02:48 PM on 03/08/2012
I am very, very disappointed in Senator Ron Wyden. We do NOT want the Pipeline, PERIOD!
You figure if you can't beat em, join em? Ignore the FACT that this pipeline is going to destroy the envoronment all along the route, everytime there is a leak., and there will be leaks. This Company's first pipeline leaked 12 times in one year, including into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan.

http://www.onearth.org/article/tar-sands-oil-plagues-a-michigan-community

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/canada-rainforest/barcott-text

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2dN16NO0v4

The idea seems to be, hey people, we need to get every last drop of dirty oil from the ground, even though it is going to take a great deal more money, not to mention wholesale destruction of the environment, than it would take to just start switching to green energy. After all, if we switched to renewable energy, we wouldn't be able to charge you ridiculous prices that are going to keep going up and up, as it becomes harder and harder to obtain those last drops.
01:44 PM on 03/08/2012
BTW I live in the HEART of the BAKKEN (williston, nd) and they plan on picking up 80,000-100,000 barrels of oil from our region.... that is how much NEW production comes on-line EVERY MONTH here, meaning where/how is the next 11 month's of production go? The oil coming out of the ground here os SOOOOOO SWEET that in some cases you the rifining process is amost complete right at the well location. LETS REFINE THAT STUFF IN AMERICA NO CANADA(where most if it goes by rail)
04:55 PM on 03/08/2012
Go talk to all your fellow republicans who don't want it running through their land.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eyelashviper
In wilderness is the preservation of the world
01:33 PM on 03/08/2012
ANYONE supporting the Keystone pipeline is either a corporate stooge, an ignoramus, or both.

The pipeline will be carrying very thick, toxic sludge, not liquid oil, and will experience far more stress than oil carrying pipes. And did I say that the sludge is toxic, very toxick??

The goop is headed to refineries in Texas and LA, THEN will be shipped to India and China.

The direct route to the pacific from the tar sands is very short, but it seems clear that Canada does not want to spoil the beautiful Rockies or their pristine shorelines with pipelines, refineries, and oil tankers. Send em here, what's a little more pollution, cause the Big Energy corporations need more millions for their CEO's to spend on vacation homes, private jets, and mega yachts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Too Handsome
Conservatives work, liberals are the entertainment
04:03 PM on 03/08/2012
If it is so toxic we should move as much of it from the ground as possible as quickly as possible to save the environment.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eyelashviper
In wilderness is the preservation of the world
04:12 PM on 03/08/2012
It is toxic because it is concentrated...try to do a little reading and thinking vbefore commenting
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skull splittrz good beer
12:45 PM on 03/08/2012
The Republican party platform:

1. Corporations are people.
2. Gays aren't.
3. The only way your laying pipe in God's country is if its full of oil.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy Callas
Keep calm and Obama on.
11:54 AM on 03/08/2012
Senate about to vote on Keystone pipeline, or better said, Senate about to see if lobbyists have given them enough money to put the desires of the Canadian oil producers to use our country to get their sand/oil to the gulf for sale on the world market DESPITE the probability that such route will cause damage to our land and the gulf, again. Transparent m effers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:01 PM on 03/08/2012
is it just me, or does it seem that those in power seldom care about where they lay their pipes?
just askin'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy Callas
Keep calm and Obama on.
12:19 PM on 03/08/2012
Very indiscriminate bunch when it comes to laying pipe.
fuzzychickens
The higher the power, the bigger the lies
12:42 PM on 03/08/2012
This is the definition of fascism.

You vote someone into office and they immediately stop representing the people and bend over so the corporations can use them as puppets.

Since they are so willing to take it in the rear like this, we need to protect them from themselves by getting money out of politics, limiting terms, and kicking the lobbyists out of DC.

The improved self-esteem they'll feel should be reward enough, no need to thank the people for correcting their deviant ways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cindy Callas
Keep calm and Obama on.
01:04 PM on 03/08/2012
I could not agree with you more. I distinctly remember Bill Clinton discussing this a few years ago, and realizing that money is politics is definitely the root of the evil. That, and hypocrisy.
photo
artleads
Let's have a national retreat.
11:47 AM on 03/08/2012
This push by the GOP makes me think: high crimes and misdemeanors.
10:33 AM on 03/08/2012
I want to know a few things first.
1. Why can't they put AMERICAN made pipe in American soil? That would create more jobs, YES? I don't want cheap, inferior Chinese pipe in AMERICAN SOIL!

2. Why can't TRANSCANADA use their EXISTING pipeline routes they have already have purchased? I stake pipeline for 8 years+ and i know they only need to seperate the pipelines 5 feet apart and they purchase 50-150 foot corridors.

3. Why not tell them you must use AMERICAN made equipment on American soil? MORE JOBS....

4. Why can't we say 66% of the refined product must remain in AMERICA?

5. Show use EXACTLY where the route is! I don't get a building permit for anything i construct with out drawings so they can approve the design!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:04 PM on 03/08/2012
you make a lot of valid points, and i most agree with the latter.
show us where you want to lay your pipe!
10:09 AM on 03/08/2012
The industry’s US jobs claims are linked to a $7 billion KXL project budget.
..the budget for KXL that will have a bearing on US jobs figures is
dramatically lower—only around $3 to $4 billion…

The project will create no more than 2,500-4,650 temporary direct construction
jobs for two years, according to TransCanada’s own data supplied to the State
Department.

The company’s claim that KXL will create 20,000 direct construction and
manufacturing jobs in the U.S is not substantiated.

…—steel pipe—will not even be produced in the United States. A
substantial amount of pipe has already been manufactured in advance of pipeline
permit issuance.

The industry’s claim that KXL will create 119,000 total jobs (direct, indirect, and
induced) is based on a flawed and poorly documented study commissioned by
TransCanada..Perryman wrongly includes over $1billion in spending and over 10,000 person-years of employment for a section of the Keystone project in Kansas and Oklahoma that is not part of KXL and has already been built...

KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the
Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel
fuel. These additional costs (estimated to total $2–4 billion) will suppress other
spending and will therefore cost jobs.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf
09:41 AM on 03/08/2012
For those trying to push the pipeline who say that it is impossible for leaking oil to get in the groundwater, because oil floats on water. I challenge them to put an inch of oil on top of the water in their drinking glass, then proceed to drink.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Lee Harrington
I'd Love To Change The World..
10:23 AM on 03/08/2012
Bitumen (Tar Sand) does not float. It sinks to the bottom of a river or stream. As it cools it hardens. It is impossible to remove from the bottom of a stream (or Aquifer) without dredging the mud. The lighter elements float on the surface. It is the worst of all possible spills, as benzene (which causes cancer) is also released into the air. Air, water and ground pollution; all with one spill. Check out tar sand spills in Kalamazoo, Michigan (Enbridge) and the Yellowstone River (Exxon)
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eyelashviper
In wilderness is the preservation of the world
01:36 PM on 03/08/2012
Thank you, more of those mind boggling facts that seem to elude far too many, especially those in the Senate even considering this toxic boondoggle.
10:24 AM on 03/08/2012
I would even give them a straw.