# How Every Senator Voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline



## SeaBreeze (Jan 30, 2015)

Here's how they voted.  http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/29/senator-voted-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill.html


ALABAMA  Sessions (R), Yes; Shelby (R),Yes.

ALASKA Murkowski (R), Yes; Sullivan (R), Yes.
​ARIZONA Flake (R), Yes; McCain (R), Yes.

ARKANSAS Boozman (R), Yes; Cotton (R), Yes.

CALIFORNIA Boxer (D), No; Feinstein (D), No.

COLORADO Bennet (D), Yes; Gardner (R), Yes.

CONNECTICUT Blumenthal (D), No; Murphy (D), No.

DELAWARE Carper (D), Yes; Coons (D), No.  

FLORIDA Nelson (D), No; Rubio (R), Not Voting.

GEORGIA Isakson (R), Yes; Perdue (R), Yes. 

HAWAII Hirono (D), No; Schatz (D), No.

IDAHO Crapo (R), Yes; Risch (R), Yes.

ILLINOIS Durbin (D), No; Kirk (R), Yes.

INDIANA Coats (R), Yes; Donnelly (D), Yes.

IOWA Ernst (R), Yes; Grassley (R), Yes.

KANSAS Moran (R), Yes; Roberts (R), Yes.

KENTUCKY McConnell (R), Yes; Paul (R), Yes.

LOUISIANACassidy (R), Yes; Vitter (R), Yes.

MAINE Collins (R), Yes; King (I), No.

MARYLAND Cardin (D), No; Mikulski (D), No.

MASSACHUSETTS Markey (D), No; Warren (D), No.

MICHIGAN Peters (D), No; Stabenow (D), No

.MINNESOTA Franken (D), No; Klobuchar (D), No.

MISSISSIPPI Cochran (R), Yes; Wicker (R), Yes.

MISSOURI Blunt (R), Yes; McCaskill (D), Yes.

MONTANA Daines (R), Yes; Tester (D), Yes.

NEBRASKA Fischer (R), Yes; Sasse (R), Yes.

NEVADA Heller (R), Yes; Reid (D), Not Voting.

NEW HAMPSHIRE Ayotte (R), Yes; Shaheen (D), No.

NEW JERSEY Booker (D), No; Menendez (D), No.

NEW MEXICO Heinrich (D), No; Udall (D), No.

NEW YORK Gillibrand (D), No; Schumer (D), No.

NORTH CAROLINA Burr (R), Yes; Tillis (R), Yes.

NORTH DAKOTA Heitkamp (D), Yes; Hoeven (R), Yes.

OHIO Brown (D), No; Portman (R), Yes.

OKLAHOMA Inhofe (R), Yes; Lankford (R), Yes.

OREGON Merkley (D), No; Wyden (D), No.

PENNSYLVANIA Casey (D), Yes; Toomey (R), Yes.

RHODE ISLAND Reed (D), No; Whitehouse (D), No.

SOUTH CAROLINA Graham (R), Yes; Scott (R), Yes.

SOUTH DAKOTA Rounds (R), Yes; Thune (R), Yes.

TENNESSEE Alexander (R), Yes; Corker (R), Yes.

TEXAS Cornyn (R), Yes; Cruz (R), Yes.

UTAH Hatch (R), Yes; Lee (R), Yes.

VERMONT Leahy (D), No; Sanders (I), No.

VIRGINIA Kaine (D), No; Warner (D), Yes.

WASHINGTON Cantwell (D), No; Murray (D), No.

WEST VIRGINIA Capito (R), Yes; Manchin (D), Yes.

WISCONSIN Baldwin (D), No; Johnson (R), Yes.

WYOMING Barrasso (R), Yes; Enzi (R), Yes.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

It really doesn't matter... It will be vetoed..  9 dems plus 53 Reps  makes 62...  5 short of  2/3 Majority needed to over-ride a presidential veto.


http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/29/senate-passes-keystone-xl-votes-override-obamas-veto.html

After nearly a month of debate and amendments, the Senate passed the bill authorizing the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The vote was 62-36 in favor of the bill. Republicans remain five votes short of the number required to override President Obama’s veto.


----------



## darroll (Jan 30, 2015)

We don't want no stinkin jobs, man


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

I guess this means it will be built.  Unless, I think someone mentioned, that Obama can veto it.

I read this thing, and saw some photos of train crashes and fires that transport oil.  I imagine there are plenty of the same for trucks that transport it.  I guess that would be a good reason for it to go through as there would be less of that happening.  Although, I don't really know.  I do NOT believe places (people's property, towns etc.) should be forced to have something like that running through but it seems like money (once again) rules.

I remember living up near Portland and there was this beautiful, old home on Farmington Road, near Aloha.  They were widening the road, and it would cut off almost all of their beautiful, front yard.  I asked them about it and they said they didn't have a choice, except to move because it was for the good of the people.  Something like that.  I thought it stunk, and I still think things like that stink.  I mean if it saved lives or something, yes, that would be the only reason I would say yes to it.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 30, 2015)

Notice how many Republicans voted no?  Democrats voting yes 9.  Talk about party line voting.  I have stated before when it comes to party voters, it's Republicans that vote as a block, Democrats vote all over the board.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Notice how many Republicans voted no?  Democrats voting yes 9.  Talk about party line voting.  I have stated before when it comes to party voters, it's Republicans that vote as a block, Democrats vote all over the board.



And also... there are some pretty significant law suits that were filed lately by landowners challeging the right of a foreign company claiming eminant domain on AMERICAN land owned by AMERICANS.. to move foreign oil, that will not even be used in the US..  That in of itself will tie it up for years.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/20/3613050/two-new-keystone-xl-lawsuits/




> The lawsuits, filed last week, represent Nebraska property owners’ second attempt to challenge the constitutionality of a law that gave the Keystone XL pipeline a legal route through the state and, by extension, their property. The landowners claim that TransCanada — the Canadian company that wants to build Keystone XL — made direct threats to use eminent domain and seize their land if they did not consent to having the pipeline run though it.





> “We stand with landowners to protect property rights and a constitutional pipeline routing process,” said Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska, a group that has been at the center of the state’s Keystone XL opposition movement. “While we fight to ensure TransCanada and the state of Nebraska do not run roughshod over farmers and ranchers, we also call upon President Obama to reject Keystone XL now.”


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

darroll said:


> We don't want no stinkin jobs, man



Yeah... those 35 permanent jobs are REALLY going to make the unemployment numbers plunge!


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

darroll said:


> We don't want no stinkin jobs, man



LOL Darroll  I know what you are saying too, I mean, it would supply jobs.  Sometimes I forget about that.  I guess bottom-line, if I can figure out what is really the best thing for America's people, then that's what I will vote for and stand for


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

:lofl:


----------



## BobF (Jan 30, 2015)

nwlady, you pointed out one of the safety reasons for having the pipeline from Canada to where ever it will end up.    How many hundreds of tanker trucks will this pipeline remove from our highways if it gets built.   Also, some of the areas this pipeline will be placed is just paralell to an existing pipeline.   Not sure about some areas as it may be all by itself.   Much of the US is covered by many pipelines for gas, oil, chemicals, water, and few problems because of them.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

You mean that a pipeline is safer then the trains and trucks right?  I would hate like hell for anyone to lose their job, I mean the true working men/women in this country, but safety is a huge issue as well.  The one video I saw was horrible, I mean I think it wiped out a town.  I'll see if I can find it again.

PS You really have to list the pros and cons of this stuff, and our reps in WA need to be doing that as well.  What is really best for the people, does anyone up there truly care.  I wonder.

Ok, here's just one:


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 30, 2015)

I always thought the pipeline was good for the economy, and safer than transporting it by rail.  I admit I don't know all the current details regarding the project, but I understood it would create jobs, although maybe not permanent, and it would cause little if any harm to the environment.

Edit: http://mikerussoexpose.com/?p=1170


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I always thought the pipeline was good for the economy, and safer than transporting it by rail.  I admit I don't know all the current details regarding the project, but I understood it would create jobs, although maybe not permanent, and it would cause little if any harm to the environment.



Is it OK with you for a foreign  corporation to seize land owned by Americans without their consent in order to build it?


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

Seabreeze,

I hope whoever is trying to find other alternatives to oil/gas will keep up their work.  There's so much wrong with even using oil  I know money is at the center, like "money rules".  I can still hope.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I always thought the pipeline was good for the economy, and safer than transporting it by rail.  I admit I don't know all the current details regarding the project, but I understood it would create jobs, although maybe not permanent, and it would cause little if any harm to the environment.
> 
> Edit: http://mikerussoexpose.com/?p=1170



I believe you are right on Seabreeze, it's really like the lesser of two evils anymore.  Like I mentioned about weighing the pros and cons.  I think a lot of folks are right, it's just getting to some "happy medium" if one exists out there.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Is it OK with you for a foreign  corporation to seize land owned by Americans without their consent in order to build it?



No.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> No.



This is what the lawsuits are about.

http://www.dominalaw.com/Investigations/TransCanada-Keystone-XL-Pipeline.aspx

In addition there is a question of who would bear liability if there was an accident.. Could TransCanada hold landowners culpable for an accident.. IE... you drove your combine over the easement and perhaps you caused the spill..   Do you think that would be implausible?


----------



## BobF (Jan 30, 2015)

I think this discussion has been going on for years now, maybe over 10 years, and still always something or someone messing up the details for this or that situation.   At one time Canada was going to sell it's oil to China if we did not allow it to be in the US.   Not sure where that argument is these days.   I believe we have use pipelines for many many years with no big problems from somewhere in Alaska, across Canada, into the US to where ever.   Those folks have some concerns with property rights but I feel pipelines have really shown their safety and value already.

I grew up in Ohio and lived a block or so from the tracks.   One evening some cars came off the tracks and a couple oil tankers caught fire.   Of course we were ordered out of the house and the fire burned well into the morning hours.   Nobody hurt, no houses lost, but they sure are scary things to see.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> No.



Hi Seabreeze,

I've read some on eminent domain and there have been some times in our history when it's been a very, good thing.  I am undecided on this pipeline, I don't know enough about it in the long run.  The safety issue alone could be well worth the building of it.  The best thing that could happen would be the discovery of "hot air" taking the place of anything else toxic.  We have so much of that to share with the world

PS oh, I also read that the foreign country can't just do it themselves, it takes the State (US) and other people in the US to ok it, but yes, the owner of the property may have no say.  Maybe I'm wrong, because lots of times I misread things.


----------



## Debby (Jan 30, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And also... there are some pretty significant law suits that were filed lately by landowners challeging the right of a foreign company claiming eminant domain on AMERICAN land owned by AMERICANS.. to move foreign oil, that will not even be used in the US..  That in of itself will tie it up for years.
> 
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/20/3613050/two-new-keystone-xl-lawsuits/




That oil might be occurring in foreign soil but your own illustrious Koch brothers are leasing about 2 million acres of that land and taking it out of the ground so while the pipeline might be built by a Canadian company, it's for the benefit of at least a few Americans too.  Plus don't they also own the refinery at the Gulf of Mexico end?  So it's not like this story is all about Canada and our 'avarice' is it?

Also taking oil out of the ground are Exxon Mobil and Chevron and Connoco Phillips, three more American companies.

I wonder how our First Nations people who live in the vicinity of those tar sands feel when they think about them Americans coming to their neighbourhood and causing environmental pollution?

Besides, you mention that the oil won't even be used in the US.  Well we don't even get the benefit of having an in house source of oil as in cheaper gas.  My mom used to drive across the border quite regularly for years, because even though we produce the stuff that becomes gas in our country, your prices were still cheaper than ours.


----------



## Debby (Jan 30, 2015)

BobF said:


> I think this discussion has been going on for years now, maybe over 10 years, and still always something or someone messing up the details for this or that situation.   At one time Canada was going to sell it's oil to China if we did not allow it to be in the US.   Not sure where that argument is these days.   I believe we have use pipelines for many many years with no big problems from somewhere in Alaska, across Canada, into the US to where ever.   Those folks have some concerns with property rights but I feel pipelines have really shown their safety and value already.
> 
> I grew up in Ohio and lived a block or so from the tracks.   One evening some cars came off the tracks and a couple oil tankers caught fire.   Of course we were ordered out of the house and the fire burned well into the morning hours.   Nobody hurt, no houses lost, but they sure are scary things to see.




I think you might be thinking of an agreement that Canada's government was trying to sign with China to allow them access to those tar sands.  The problem that the people of Canada had with what was being proposed was that it contained a clause that would have prevented us from restraining any polluting activities of the Chinese company.  If we had tried to halt what they were doing, they would have been within their rights (according to the Conservatives contract) to sue us.  Can you imagine?  It's like not being able to stop that visitor that comes to your house from spitting on the furniture or all over your carpet!  We would have had no rights in 'our own home'.  I think also at the time, there was such a howl of protest across the country that the agreement was discarded.  But I'm sure good ole Stevie boy will be looking for some other underhanded way of resurrecting that rotten deal under a new name and behind more tightly closed doors!

You mentioned that rail car fire that you saw...well you can imagine then how the folks of Lac Magantic felt when the oil cars crashed into their town and exploded and killed dozens?  I think 47 people were killed.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 30, 2015)

Debby said:


> That oil might be occurring in foreign soil but your own illustrious Koch brothers are leasing about 2 million acres of that land and taking it out of the ground so while the pipeline might be built by a Canadian company, it's for the benefit of at least a few Americans too.  Plus don't they also own the refinery at the Gulf of Mexico end?  So it's not like this story is all about Canada and our 'avarice' is it?
> 
> I wonder how our First Nations people who live in the vicinity of those tar sands feel when they think about them American Koch brothers coming to their neighbourhood and causing environmental pollution?



Of course the Koch brothers are dirty fricken elbow deep in this mess... and they stand to make a fortune at the expense of our environment.. Why do you think Republicans are fighting so hard for this?  They owe the Kochs BIG TIME... this is just one of the debts... 

So if it's true that the Koch Brothers are planning to spend over $1 BILLION dollars in 2016 to get Republicans elected can you just imagine what the price of the payback will be?   I can't... but you can bet it will be huge.. and you can bet the the average American will get shafted.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 30, 2015)

That's interesting Debby, I was wondering about Montana, and even surprised it had a Republican Rep.  I guess I assumed it was a democratic majority up there.  It makes sense though, with all that land (still plenty of new territory you might say) that someone with dough (like the Kochs) might buy up bunches of it.

Oh, and I think you nailed a super point with your post  If Canada is building something, Americans gave it to them, why blame them, geesh.  I see that a lot though, people don't want to take responsibility, pass the buck, or blame someone else.


----------



## AZ Jim (Jan 30, 2015)

darroll said:


> We don't want no stinkin jobs, man



Those jobs are for today, the pipeline is forever.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 30, 2015)

This Canadian oil has been moving to our refineries in Texas for the past several years.  Our refineries are equipped to process this "heavy" oil, whereas the Canadian refineries, and those in most of the world, can only handle the "light" crude.  Presently, this oil is moved mostly by rail tanker, and given the sorry state of some of our rail lines, and bridges, there is a fair amount of risk for derailments, and fires which could soil the environment with a substantial amount of pollution.  Underground pipelines are a far safer way to move this stuff, and we currently have over 180,000 miles of similar pipelines moving hazardous/flammable liquids/gasses, with little or no problems.  

Some are "concerned" about "eminent domain" issues, but this pipeline will be built in rural agricultural areas, and the farmers will be well compensated for any losses they may suffer during its construction.  After it is built, they can go right back to farming over the top of it, as it will be buried several feet deep.  

There is no perfect solution to the processing and use of fossil fuels, but we are locked into them for the foreseeable future, so it only makes sense to move this oil in the safest manner.  This Oil WILL be processed...the arguments against this pipeline are based more on political bias, than sound common sense.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 31, 2015)

Will the president veto the bill? He said he would. Will the senate get enough votes to override a veto? It could happen.


----------



## Debby (Jan 31, 2015)

nwlady said:


> That's interesting Debby, I was wondering about Montana, and even surprised it had a Republican Rep.  I guess I assumed it was a democratic majority up there.  It makes sense though, with all that land (still plenty of new territory you might say) that someone with dough (like the Kochs) might buy up bunches of it.
> 
> Oh, and I think you nailed a super point with your post  If Canada is building something, Americans gave it to them, why blame them, geesh.  I see that a lot though, people don't want to take responsibility, pass the buck, or blame someone else.




I think in this day and age of corporate supremacy, that there is blame for all and no 'borders' involved in a sense.  American, Canadian, Chinese, British, French.....corporations!  And they win, the environment is an afterthought and we the people are at their mercy (which they have very little of).


----------



## BobF (Jan 31, 2015)

This is a long series of wild comments about our use of our environments gifts to make life better for the people.   Right now we have coal and oil to help us along into better lives.   I believe the last I saw the oil will go for about another 100 to 200 years then be gone.   Our coal will last us much longer than that and today, in the US, we have pretty much shut down our use of coal.   A real shame.   So far our use of wind and solar energy has been so expensive and so undependable that we still must use coal and oil or gas to keep our energy working full time.    So much better for all than those places that can only provide help for the people a few hours a day, if at all.

In the US we have lots of our scientist and engineers working to develop other safer and more productive ways of creating power with out creating poison wastes.    This may not happen any time soon.   But there are some that really do not want the better ways of life for the millions that now live here.

Too bad the so called climate change has not been proven real yet, and likely won't be proven to be out of the range of previous periods of warm and cool cycles of the world over our past history that has been discovered so far.   Prior to our current government, with both Republican and Democrat governments, we did not get so involved with this current worry about warming about 0.02 difference in temps up or down with no real knowledge of how things were thousands of years in the past.

For now we really need to use what nature has given us in the earth, or just let the lives of millions be lost.   What drives our planes, which give so many with money, the opportunity to go half way around the world to vacation, visit mom, or do business.   Take away the oil and all hell will break loose.   Then the earth will really become a wild place to attempt to live on.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 31, 2015)

rkunsaw said:


> Will the president veto the bill? He said he would. Will the senate get enough votes to override a veto? It could happen.



Only if they can talk FIVE more Democrats to vote for it... So doubtful.


----------



## BobF (Jan 31, 2015)

Debby said:


> I think in this day and age of corporate supremacy, that there is blame for all and no 'borders' involved in a sense.  American, Canadian, Chinese, British, French.....corporations!  And they win, the environment is an afterthought and we the people are at their mercy (which they have very little of).



This idea of corporate supremacy as a way of putting blame is not very smart.    Many smart folks that see how to derive new or better things can also see the cost.   So they start mergers till enough money and specialties have been brought together to do the job.   They do these things ever much better than any government in the world can do them so they are our best source for the future.   The environment is not an afterthought for all.   Many problems are found during the development of an industry and then get taken care of.   There is no reason for trying to put all the blame on individuals and industries for their efforts to try to make things better for the masses if possible.   It is the goal of such to make things better for all and they are willing to take the chance with their money and intelligence to do so.   Yes,  their goal is to do what they are doing successfully and do so on the winning side of the equation.   But they do have more ability than most countries can put together into a successful business or efforts.    Sometimes they do need watched but mostly the population gains from their efforts and they do learn from their efforts.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 31, 2015)

Don M. said:


> This Canadian oil has been moving to our refineries in Texas for the past several years.  Our refineries are equipped to process this "heavy" oil, whereas the Canadian refineries, and those in most of the world, can only handle the "light" crude.  Presently, this oil is moved mostly by rail tanker, and given the sorry state of some of our rail lines, and bridges, there is a fair amount of risk for derailments, and fires which could soil the environment with a substantial amount of pollution.  Underground pipelines are a far safer way to move this stuff, and we currently have over 180,000 miles of similar pipelines moving hazardous/flammable liquids/gasses, with little or no problems.
> 
> Some are "concerned" about "eminent domain" issues, but this pipeline will be built in rural agricultural areas, and the farmers will be well compensated for any losses they may suffer during its construction.  After it is built, they can go right back to farming over the top of it, as it will be buried several feet deep.
> 
> There is no perfect solution to the processing and use of fossil fuels, but we are locked into them for the foreseeable future, so it only makes sense to move this oil in the safest manner.  This Oil WILL be processed...the arguments against this pipeline are based more on political bias, than sound common sense.




I guess "SAFE"  is a relative word in your world.. 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/26/yellowstone-oil-spill-missing-from-keystone-xl/202266

*Yellowstone Spill Threatened Health Of Residents Near Keystone XL's Proposed Path*

*Oil Pipeline Leaked 50,000 Gallons Of Crude Into Yellowstone River.* On January 17, an oil pipeline owned by Bridger Pipeline Co. spilled 1,200 barrels of crude oil -- or about 50,000 gallons -- into the Yellowstone River, prompting the governor to declare a state of emergency. Reuters reported:A small but heavily subscribed pipeline that transports 42,000 barrels a day of crude oil from North Dakota's Bakken region is expected to remain closed on Tuesday after a weekend breach that spilled 1,200 barrels of crude into the Yellowstone River near Glendive, Montana.
[...]
Montana Governor Steve Bullock declared a state of emergency in the state's eastern Dawson and Richland counties on Monday while towns and cities downstream, including Williston, North Dakota, are monitoring their water systems in case of contamination. 
However the water supply of Glendive, the town of 5,000 about 10 miles (16 km) downstream of the spill, has already been tested and found to have elevated levels of hydrocarbons. Water intakes in the river for the city have been closed, according to the EPA. The company, EPA and other agencies are trying to get other drinking water supplies for Glendive, the EPA's Mylott said. [Reuters, 1/20/15]

The proposed -- and controversial -- northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline would be three times the diameter of the breached Bridger pipeline, and pump more than 34 million gallons of oil per day through the Dakotas down into Nebraska and into the southern leg in Oklahoma and Texas. Many landowners and local residents are concerned about what a potential spill would mean for critical watersheds and aquifers -- not to mention what subsequent increased tar sands oil production means for Canadian watersheds.​


----------



## BobF (Jan 31, 2015)

Yes SAFE is a RELATIVE word.    Pipelines are much safer than having thousands of trucks hauling the oil on the highways.   Pipelines are safer than having trains carrying long streams of tankers on the rails.

Why did the pipeline fail?   That would be the concern.    Faulty pipe line section?  Faulty construction?     Faulty installation?  The pipeline must be monitored to have found it so quickly.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 31, 2015)

Underground oil and gas pipelines have proven to be Far Safer than moving these hazardous chemical via truck or rail.  There is NO guarantee that moving this stuff will always be trouble free, but pipelines present the Best option.  

One can always find some obscure Partisan Blog to support their fixed opinions, but there have been several truck and train accidents that have received coverage in our more traditional media outlets...here are just a couple.

http://www.npr.org/2014/10/13/35452...railments-prompt-calls-for-less-flammable-oil

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/va-oil-train-derailment-is-latest-wakeup-call-expert/

If those who are against the XL Pipeline did some unbiased homework, they might understand the advantages of this pipeline over moving oil by rail, etc.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 31, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Underground oil and gas pipelines have proven to be Far Safer than moving these hazardous chemical via truck or rail.  There is NO guarantee that moving this stuff will always be trouble free, but pipelines present the Best option.
> 
> One can always find some obscure Partisan Blog to support their fixed opinions, but there have been several truck and train accidents that have received coverage in our more traditional media outlets...here are just a couple.
> 
> ...



Yes... don... the bloggers just made up the 50,000 gallon spill into the Yellowstone river...


----------



## Don M. (Jan 31, 2015)

These Partisan Bloggers can always find some incident to support their position.  However, anyone who is smart enough to look at the broader picture will usually come to a different conclusion.  In this particular case, just search on "Oil Spills" and begin reading.  Perhaps the most complete listing of spills, worldwide, over the past couple of decades, is this listing on Wikipedia.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

If one takes the time to go through this list, it quickly appears that moving oil via pipeline offers far less risk than any mode of above ground transportation.  

Moving hazardous materials is NOT a Liberal or Conservative "thing"...and only those whose opinions are already "fixed" have trouble recognizing that.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 31, 2015)

It really is moot... The Pipeline will be vetoed.... There are not enought votes to override it.. AND the law suits will keep it tied up for years...


----------



## Debby (Jan 31, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Underground oil and gas pipelines have proven to be Far Safer than moving these hazardous chemical via truck or rail.  There is NO guarantee that moving this stuff will always be trouble free, but pipelines present the Best option.
> 
> One can always find some obscure Partisan Blog to support their fixed opinions, but there have been several truck and train accidents that have received coverage in our more traditional media outlets...here are just a couple.
> 
> ...




I'm pretty sure I heard an 'activist' say on a tv news bit a few months ago, that safety isn't the main concern really although it does have a place.  This person said building the pipeline would also mean that because it would become easier and (cheaper?), it would incentivise the oil companies (think greedy Koch brothers for one) to open up even more mining and destruction.  A sudden and prolonged increase.  That is also an issue, that it would result in land destruction and a significant increase in GHG in that region.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 31, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Those jobs are for today, the pipeline is forever.


If we want to just talk about jobs, the pipeline could get a lot of people back on their feet.  I'd like to hear what some of those construction folks have to say about getting a job going on at last.  There's a lot of sides to these things.  I remember watching History channel on the building of The Golden Gate Bridge (I know, maybe a totally different scenario) and the huge Dams, Tennessee Valley Authority.

I've been the "temp" job route and it's better then no job.  Also, there will be some ongoing jobs because that line has to be monitored and maintenance checks.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 31, 2015)

Ick, I really don't like this, it's a "con" to putting in the pipleline and it came from this site:  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/29/3617045/keystone-xl-amendments/

I know they made Eminent Domain "probably" because "the good of the many" on these things, and if I had a farm/home that was in the family for generations, I just can't see how it is right to seize.  But then my head goes back to "is it going to benefit the many".  I don't know, but I think this is the biggest issue I have with it, but it's been written into our countries constitution so what do we do?  I guess I'll have to look back at those that decided on adding it way back when.

[h=3]A symbolic, but ultimately useless gesture for property rights[/h] Another measure that passed was proposed by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX),  who said his amendment would seeks to protect property owners from  getting their land seized under eminent domain for the purpose of  building the pipeline. Right now, landowners in Nebraska are being served with eminent domain papers from TransCanada, the Canadian company that wants to build the pipeline. Many landowners have filed lawsuits to prevent their property from being seized. 
 Cornyn’s amendment, however, likely won’t do much to protect those  property owners from getting their land taken. The language of the  amendment states that the U.S. must “ensure private property is  protected as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” As noted in  the Daily Kos,  this isn’t really a change, because eminent domain can be used for  economic development, and the U.S. Constitution says land can be taken  if the company provides “just compensation.”
 Conversely, the Senate rejected an amendment  that actually would have prevented TransCanada from seizing property  owners’ land in Nebraska. Sen. Bob Menendez’s (D-NJ) amendment would  have ensured private property could not be seized under eminent domain  for the financial gain of a foreign-owned company.


----------



## BobF (Jan 31, 2015)

nwlady said:


> If we want to just talk about jobs, the pipeline could get a lot of people back on their feet.  I'd like to hear what some of those construction folks have to say about getting a job going on at last.  There's a lot of sides to these things.  I remember watching History channel on the building of The Golden Gate Bridge (I know, maybe a totally different scenario) and the huge Dams, Tennessee Valley Authority.
> 
> I've been the "temp" job route and it's better then no job.  Also, there will be some ongoing jobs because that line has to be monitored and maintenance checks.



It does not matter if we create jobs or not.   Obama will fix it with more benefits and bigger care checks.   He does not care about our extreme debt of over $19 trillion and willingly will add to the debt to have his way.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 31, 2015)

I know people get sick of me bringing up Joe the Plumber, but I'll just never forget that.  It sure didn't look to me like Obama gave a dam that day, with the average, or maybe below average as far as enough work.  I just put myself in Joes place that day.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 31, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Only if they can talk FIVE more Democrats to vote for it... So doubtful.



Time will tell.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 31, 2015)

My gut tells me it's going through, and it also tells me it will be because of more money.


----------



## rkunsaw (Feb 2, 2015)

Here's part of an email from Arkansas senator Tom Cotton.






Tom Cotton*Keystone XL Pipeline*
On Thursday, the Senate voted to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline after weeks of a robust and transparent debate. I was proud to sponsor this bill and happy to vote for it because this project is a win for Arkansas. The Keystone XL Pipeline will lower energy costs, create and sustain hundreds of jobs in the Natural State at Welspun Tubular, and provide our businesses much needed certainty. The final bill also contained additional measures to protect Arkansans and their tax dollars from government overreach and inefficiency.    
The fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline is now in President Obama’s hands. After six years of delays and veto threats, Arkansans and Americans are rightly tired of his weak excuses. It’s time the President put workers and families first. He should sign this bill immediately and approve the Keystone XL Pipeline


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

It's hard to say what he'll do, some people think they know, but whatever it is, I hope it will benefit all the folks involved.  I guess my biggest thing is the people that have their property seized, but that has always been a part of growth in America (good growth or bad, for each citizen to decide I guess).  I would love to see those families in need of jobs win too.  Wish it were a win/win for everyone.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 2, 2015)

nwlady said:


> It's hard to say what he'll do, some people think they know, but whatever it is, I hope it will benefit all the folks involved.  I guess my biggest thing is the people that have their property seized, but that has always been a part of growth in America (good growth or bad, for each citizen to decide I guess).  I would love to see those families in need of jobs win too.  Wish it were a win/win for everyone.



A couple of years ago, Conoco/Phillips laid a new pipeline through an area about 50 miles away from us.  For several weeks, farms all along that route were undergoing major disruptions to their crops.  However, the local news reported that the farmers were compensated for any/all crop losses during that year, and Conoco/Philips retains the right to go in and dig up any areas that may need maintenance, etc., in the future...AND will compensate any farmer for any losses sustained. In essence, the farmers got their crop money back in 2013 without any problems...and today, they are farming right over the top of that pipeline.  IF such a deal is set up with TransCanada for a similar compensation, the problems with imminent Domain should be temporary, and result in little or no loss to the property owners along this pipeline route.  I would think that Washington should be wise enough to find a similar solution...but then, who knows?


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

This was good to read.  I understand that farmers/property owners are to be compensated.  Not everyone is going to be happy in these things, but that's just part of life too, can't please all the people, and some are never pleased because is like their job to be displeased.  They must have to dig pretty deep trenches for those lines. Interesting, and in some places they can't go underground can they?


----------



## Don M. (Feb 2, 2015)

nwlady said:


> This was good to read.  I understand that farmers/property owners are to be compensated.  Not everyone is going to be happy in these things, but that's just part of life too, can't please all the people, and some are never pleased because is like their job to be displeased.  They must have to dig pretty deep trenches for those lines. Interesting, and in some places they can't go underground can they?



We passed by this construction a couple of times on our way to/from the city, and it looked like they were burying their pipes about 6 or 8 feet underground.  At one point, they even closed down the highway that we normally take, and rerouted traffic on about a 10 mile detour while they went under the roadway.  Today, if you pass through that area, it's as if nothing ever happened, and the only evidence is about a 100 yard stretch of the highway that shows newer pavement.  If this XL pipeline is done in a proper manner, any disruptions to the farmers, etc., should be temporary, and the end result will be a far safer and cheaper way to move this oil....AND, it WILL be moved, one way or another.  Far better to move it underground, than to risk a major accident as a train is traveling through a populated area, and derails, etc.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 2, 2015)

How do you INSPECT underground pipes?  The pipeline going under the Yellowstone was NEVER inspected... that is until it spilled 50,000 gallons of oil into the river..  So... Safer how?  Certainly not for the environment and our water.

Here's an eyeopening article on the inspection of pipelines..  

http://www.propublica.org/article/p...e-are-americas-2.5-million-miles-of-pipelines


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

I think it is way more efficient as well.  Is any of that oil being hauled by ships?  I know somewhere someone said that an oil-spill on land would be bad, but in our oceans seems way worse as far as spreading, and being carried on and on.  Lesser of two evils I suppose  I can't help but think about the jobs that will be provided, and hopefully to the right people.  A pipeline can only be as good as the people and tools that build it.  Which is going to prevent the most accidents/spills.  Lots of pros and cons, again.


----------



## BobF (Feb 2, 2015)

So Quicksilver, just how would you suggest we transport the oil in a safer way?   Or would you just suggest that we stop using oil entirely?

Let us see.   Oil is used for heat, fuel, plastics, and lots of other useful items for the health and safety of most all of us.   You must feel left out of the good side of  our use of oil and its products.

Just a question.  As I am unable to see your argument given so far.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

They must have some pretty high-tech montioring/testing equipment for "underground" pipelines, and well as electrical lines, phonelines.  They wouldn't just "dig up everything" to check.  I was looking online for their system of doing this but I think someone more knowledgeable will better post something on that  I mean if we can look inside a body with MRI's etc. we can sure look underground.

I didn't read this yet, but thought it might have some good info, looks like a decent site, but I've been fooled before

http://www.reftek.com/applications/pipeline-monitoring.htm


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

Omygosh, I didn't know how many underground pipelines there are in the US already, no one light a match  Geez, I always said we would blow ourselves up, but I thought it would be with nuclear weapon I think I'll go find a "save the planet" thread


----------



## Don M. (Feb 2, 2015)

nwlady said:


> Omygosh, I didn't know how many underground pipelines there are in the US already, no one light a match  Geez, I always said we would blow ourselves up, but I thought it would be with nuclear weapon I think I'll go find a "save the planet" thread



The last I saw, there are already 2.5 million miles of pipeline buried under our soil....and it is very rare to hear of any problems with them...certainly far less incidents than tanker trucks having a wreck on the highway, or a train derailing as it goes through some small town.  There is NO perfect solution, but so long as we need to use oil and gas, it only seems logical to move it in the safest manner.  It seems that the most common occurrence of pipeline troubles is when a contractor is digging around a natural gas pipeline and hits it with his backhoe.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

I see your point Don, go for what's safest and best.  I didn't know the numbers of incidents/deaths/destruction of property on the pipelines in the US, comparatively speaking but I'd be interested, so I'll see what I can find, or maybe someone will post a link.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 2, 2015)

Quicksilver posted a ProPublica link a few messages up that gives a good summary of pipeline accidents over the past few years.  If you look at the details, the vast majority of these eruptions are due to either Old Age...many of these pipelines were built as long as 80 years ago...when regulations were non-existent, and/or they have not been maintained to today"s standards.  The details of this article also point out the high number of "contractor" related accidents where they hit a pipeline during other construction.  Even this article freely admits that pipelines are a far safer way to move these products, than any above ground means...even though QS would like to use this article to reinforce her position.  

Along with the many pressing Infrastructure needs of this nation...replacing some of these "ancient" pipelines should be receiving a fairly high priority from our government.


----------



## QuickSilver (Feb 2, 2015)

Don M. said:


> Quicksilver posted a ProPublica link a few messages up that gives a good summary of pipeline accidents over the past few years.  If you look at the details, the vast majority of these eruptions are due to either Old Age...many of these pipelines were built as long as 80 years ago...when regulations were non-existent, and/or they have not been maintained to today"s standards.  The details of this article also point out the high number of "contractor" related accidents where they hit a pipeline during other construction.  Even this article freely admits that pipelines are a far safer way to move these products, than any above ground means...even though QS would like to use this article to reinforce her position.
> 
> Along with the many pressing Infrastructure needs of this nation...replacing some of these "ancient" pipelines should be receiving a fairly high priority from our government.




Oh Really??    Aging infrastructure???    We never have been very good at replacing anything... What makes you believe we will start?   These pipelines will also age...  We don't inspect what we have... so what makes you believe that putting in more will be any different?


----------



## Don M. (Feb 2, 2015)

"What makes you believe that we will start?"  We will "start" when our people demand that government spends our money on rebuilding this nation, rather than policing the world, and paying people Not to work.  Given the age and condition of much of our existing infrastructure, that day may not be too far into the future.  There are hundreds of bridges, thousands of miles of roadway, water and sewer systems that are falling apart, an electrical grid just waiting to collapse, etc.,etc.  If this present deterioration continues for many more years, it will finally capture the peoples attention to the point where they will demand that Washington begin to spend some of our tax dollars on things that really matter.  

Every one of our Infrastructure items has a "life span"...and for the most part, that "reality" has been ignored.  Bridges and roads (and pipelines) don't make many Political Campaign Contributions.


----------



## BobF (Feb 2, 2015)

It seems to me that most of the items stated to be about worn out are privately owned, not government owned.   Power systems are private industry in most places I am thinking of, some might be government owned by either cities or states.   Roadways and bridges are mostly local public owned projects but a few are actually privately owned by highway projects for turnpikes etc.    Interstates are joint federal and state projects.   But many bridges are of city and/or county owned and built.   Most of our roads are owned and maintained by the city, county, or state or by joint ownership of all those folks.   Water systems are often city or private owned.   That is the way most of our US things are.   Very little actually owned by the US federal government.   Often times federal supervision of designs and approvals, but still the ownership remains with others as does the maintenance of much of it.

With the amount of debt being created and obviously left behind by our current government, how will the federals ever be able to provide improvements.    Those responsibilities will remain with the responsible agencies and the private businesses.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 2, 2015)

BobF said:


> It seems to me that most of the items stated to be about worn out are privately owned, not government owned.   Power systems are private industry in most places I am thinking of, some might be government owned by either cities or states.   Roadways and bridges are mostly local public owned projects but a few are actually privately owned by highway projects for turnpikes etc.    Interstates are joint federal and state projects.   But many bridges are of city and/or county owned and built.   Most of our roads are owned and maintained by the city, county, or state or by joint ownership of all those folks.   Water systems are often city or private owned.   That is the way most of our US things are.   Very little actually owned by the US federal government.   Often times federal supervision of designs and approvals, but still the ownership remains with others as does the maintenance of much of it.
> 
> With the amount of debt being created and obviously left behind by our current government, how will the federals ever be able to provide improvements.    Those responsibilities will remain will remain with the responsible agencies and the private businesses.



That's quite true...the Federal Government doesn't really "own" our infrastructure...maybe the Interstate Highway system would be the closest thing to Federal government "ownership".  Most of the utilities are owned by private corporations, and I would imagine that most bridges fall under the State and Local government authority.  However, both the Federal and State governments can authorize Bonds which can then be used to finance infrastructure renovations, etc.  

Rebuilding our nations aging components will be a long and very costly task, but the longer its delayed, the more it will cost.


----------



## Denise1952 (Feb 2, 2015)

That's something I hadn't thought of either (a lot I don't know or even think of) Thanks for the post Bob.


----------

