Dave Heineman, Nebraska Governor, Supports Keystone XL Pipeline Approval

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman says the entire Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast should be approved quickly, not just the southern section.

Heineman reiterated his support for the entire TransCanada pipeline after President Barack Obama said last week he would urge fast approval of the section between Oklahoma and Texas.

Heineman's spokeswoman Jen Rae Hein says the governor believes approving the entire pipeline would create jobs and reduce America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Obama rejected the overall pipeline in January because a Congressional deadline for its approval didn't allow enough time for a new route through Nebraska to be developed and evaluated.

TransCanada agreed to change the route through Nebraska after concerns were raised about the economically fragile Sandhills region and the Ogallala aquifer.

Comments

[realityCheckInTheMail]

06:43 PM on 04/01/2012

This issue isn't going away. Expect Heineman to campaign alongside Romney on this one.

Despite the underlying economic drivers, the voters don't like the combo of high oil prices and blocked oil investments.

[Florian EngageAmerica]

03:06 PM on 03/29/2012

This Keystone Piepline issue will not budge as there are too many pieces that are moving which are each a crucial factor in our economic recovery. in our case the need for job creation and oil are both dire. We need to be realistic about what our actual needs are so that we can use a project like this to our advantage. If done correctly we can supply jobs to middle class and blue collar workers now while also building a bridge to future endeavors in clean energy (http://bit.ly/ytP77z). Again, it is maybe not the most ideal of situations starting off but it would be well worth it down the line to invest in a project like this.

[javadawg]

08:27 AM on 03/27/2012

Why are conservatives so blind on this issue. It is a pipeline to the coast - a place where it can easily be loaded onto ships and sold to other parts of the world. As long as there is no pipeline, the oil is trucked to the nearest refineries and the price of gas goes down in that area. Taken to the coast, it could go to India, or China or elsewhere - but NOT to us.

[Savinien]

11:15 AM on 03/28/2012

They're blind because the GOP rhetoric recipe of fear, nationalism and everyone-just-look-out-for-themselves has found it's way into their DNA. It's ridiculous that a state governor, or any high political official for that matter, not know the facts about an issue as well publicized as this one (unless they are spouting the party line or running a smokescreen on purpose). His stated reasons for approval were jobs and a reduced dependency on Middle East oil, both reasons that have been repeatedly shown as being fallacies. All the U.S. is going to get out of this is another environmental/terrorist risk and a few right of way and leasing dollars mostly going into the pockets of those already rich or powerful enough to demand them.

[sandiegomike]

09:47 PM on 03/26/2012

It should be noted that Governor Heineman spent over a year lobbying the State Department and the President NOT to approve the original route through his state (for good reasons). It was just November that TransCanada agreed to change the route. With the new route comes a new Environmental Report for that section. The Governor now wishes to circumvent the process to save face with his Republican colleagues.

[artleads]

07:27 PM on 03/26/2012

Even if every voting person in Nebraska petitions for the pipeline, it fails to negate the most important opposition to it. The main opposition to it goes beyond Nebraska.

The best judgement of climate science is that any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond 350 parts per million (ppm) will be beyond the bad outcomes that will arrive no matter what. So we are in for violent weather no matter what we do. But scientists believe that keeping ppm at 350 or below gives us a better prospect for survival than having higher ppm. We are currently at 392 ppm, and sure to rise exponentially as the developing world comes on board the fossil fuel economy. If Alberta tar sans were to be burned all at once, it would put the global CO2 count at 600 ppm. Unleashing the tar sands into global atmosphere would be radical and irresponsible beyond description.

Nebraska's support, based on its self-interest, would be nice. What's bad for the global is often bad for the local. But if Nebraska won't stand up for itself, there is the rest of the world to consider.

[simonsez2]

02:23 PM on 03/27/2012

You will have to park airplanes to change CO2 in the atmosphere. Thats how it got there.

[artleads]

05:25 PM on 03/27/2012

I once sat beside a pilot in cabin on a flight, and he argued tooth and nail that planes don't pollute. but I didn't believe him. He was also a climate-change denier.

[WESTistheman]

05:53 PM on 03/26/2012

The vast majority of Americans want this pipeline, it is just the radical extremists that are fighting it. All for a green energy utopia that doesn't exist and European countries are now getting away from.

[javadawg]

08:34 AM on 03/27/2012

I'd be all for it if the pipeline went to our refineries as it is doing now. Evidently you're not smart enough to see that sending it to the Texas coast is NOT in our interest. You don't load it onto tankers to ship it to the east or west coast - it is a commodity sold on the open market. As long as they have to truck it to the nearest refineries, the gas prices in that region reflect the lower cost. What makes you think that selling it to China or India will have any real effect on our prices? Do a little research - we have everything to lose and almost nothing to gain - but it seems that you conservatives are to busy swallowing the right wing diatribe to actually think for yourselves.

[WESTistheman]

11:04 AM on 03/27/2012

What makes you think having less oil to sell in the global market and ends up in India and China is going to decrease prices? Please name any product that is in demand, that decreases in price as less of it is available.

[Savinien]

11:30 AM on 03/28/2012

The vast majority? I see, and you speak for them, do you? You're either a crackpot, or your the most presumptuous narcissist on the planet. Why would you think for one second that the "green energy utopia" couldn't exist if we, as a species, put our minds to it? Your attitude is the very heart of the problem that man has had since he became agrarian. I've got news for you West, you're definitely NOT the man.

[WESTistheman]

01:42 PM on 03/28/2012

No I don't, but according to every poll done except polls done by the green energy utopian extremists. This gallup poll has twice as many are for it compared to against it. We don't need green energy. There is plenty of coal, oil and gas, especially now that the Global Warming hoax has been exposed. So let the free market look for a cheaper alternative rather than the govt using our tax dollars for their experiments, theories, and agenda.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153383/americans-favor-keystone-pipeline.aspx

[daqbet]

03:28 PM on 03/26/2012

The best way for this to be stopped is for Obama to say “YES!” and the Republicans bent on never giving him credit will scream “He’s doing it wrong” and kill it.

[artleads]

07:05 PM on 03/26/2012

Innovative. :-)

[Linus521]

02:57 PM on 03/26/2012

So, they may not damage the fragile Sand Hills but what of the rest of our ecosystems? All ecosystems are all integrated, so what you do to one, impacts the other. Are they saying the construction of this pipeline is going to save Earth or is it just going to kill that much more of the planet.

[anothervoter]

02:35 PM on 03/26/2012

Show me where increased oil production lowers gas prices?

And this pipeline would take how many years to complete? They way they talk, you would think it's overnight.

If and when it's finally completed, my bet is that most of that oil will go to the highest bidder. That should lower gas prices considerably.

[WESTistheman]

05:51 PM on 03/26/2012

" Show me where increased oil production lowers gas prices? "

Show me where decreased oil production lowers gas prices. As a matter of fact, show me that reducing supply of ANY product that is in demand lowers the price.

" And this pipeline would take how many years to complete? They way they talk, you would think it's overnight "

This is the argument that the left and statists have been making for 30 years. Think how different things would be if they allowed even half of the projects to start that they have stopped with this argument over the 30 years.

[Savinien]

11:35 AM on 03/28/2012

Yeah, think about how much renewable and sustainable energy we could be enjoying right now if people like you had not stopped it's progress 30 years ago.

[olitenup]

02:22 PM on 03/26/2012

Koch bros must have given him a call.

[artleads]

07:07 PM on 03/26/2012

Or some other offer he can't refuse.

[Savinien]

11:35 AM on 03/28/2012

Bingo!

[satyrday]

02:18 PM on 03/26/2012

He's a repub...of course he supports higher oil company profits.

[cdhj12000]

01:53 PM on 03/26/2012

Not a good idea. They know more about the damages this thing could do than most Americans and they still want to allow it. I imagine they have a large storage of water or something just in case. Not sure if that will make a difference when a whole lot of people are thirsty and the only source of water tastes like tar sand, or just go to the govs house!