Trump signs executive orders restarting two major pipeline projects

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Trump signs executive orders restarting two major pipeline projects



In a highly anticipated move, President Donald Trump has officially signed executive orders designed to restart construction of both the Keystone XL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline, according to multiple reports.

Both projects had been stalled under the Obama administration, as environmental activists brought tremendous pressure to bear during an election year, and made support for the oil projects untenable for Democrats. Trump sharply criticized the Obama administration’s handling of both issues on the campaign trail and promised that, if elected, he would press to move both projects forward immediately.

According to Fox News, President Trump issued a statement this morning promising that after the executive orders, the contracts for construction would be open to renegotiation. It was not immediately clear what was meant by this statement.
 
black dog

black dog

Free America
America depends on a network of more than 207,800 miles of liquids pipelines, over 300,000 miles of gas transmission pipelines, and more than 2.1 million miles of gas distribution pipelines to safely and efficiently move energy and raw materials to fuel our nation's economic engine.

Just build the goddamn pipeline. :patriot:
 
Lurk

Lurk

Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
You all realize that this must feel like "Death from a thousand cuts" to the Kenyan. Trump needs to do this every day of the week, twice on Sundays. It's Obongo's legacy after all.
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
A couple of points:

- Mandating US-manufactured steel only ends up increasing prices for the taxpayer and ultimately the end consumer. The announcement is a feel-good thing and makes headlines, and it may in fact create some jobs in the short term. But over the longer haul it only ends up making for a less competitive US and and stifles growth.

- I don't see either pipeline being worth the price of construction with sub-$100 oil, which is where I expect it to stay for a while. Look what's happening to oil-related employment in New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming. The investors in these projects understand this and they understand it will never be built under these conditions.

Ergo, this is a terrible idea. Not for environmental reasons, but for economic ones.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Kev_Russell said:
A couple of points:


- Mandating US-manufactured steel only ends up increasing prices for the taxpayer and ultimately the end consumer.
Click to expand...

Unless I missed something, this pipeline is private venture :shrug: how does this involve 'tax payers'

- I don't see either pipeline being worth the price of construction with sub-$100 oil, which is where I expect it to stay for a while.
Click to expand...


well the OIL is being shipped by rail car now, so it makes economic sense to someone to bring the OIL in .... companies don't generally do something that isn't profitable
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Kev_Russell said:
A couple of points:

- Mandating US-manufactured steel only ends up increasing prices for the taxpayer and ultimately the end consumer. The announcement is a feel-good thing and makes headlines, and it may in fact create some jobs in the short term. But over the longer haul it only ends up making for a less competitive US and and stifles growth.

- I don't see either pipeline being worth the price of construction with sub-$100 oil, which is where I expect it to stay for a while. Look what's happening to oil-related employment in New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming. The investors in these projects understand this and they understand it will never be built under these conditions.

Ergo, this is a terrible idea. Not for environmental reasons, but for economic ones.
Click to expand...

I might agree that mandating US Steel may raise the price, but I remember back before the election one of the democrats talking points was that he did not use US Steel in his buildings. I imagine if he hadn't mandated it here they would he crying again. Either way he cannot win with the lefties, no matter what he does.
 
Gilligan

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Kev_Russell said:
A couple of points:

- Mandating US-manufactured steel only ends up increasing prices for the taxpayer and ultimately the end consumer. The announcement is a feel-good thing and makes headlines, and it may in fact create some jobs in the short term. But over the longer haul it only ends up making for a less competitive US and and stifles growth.

- I don't see either pipeline being worth the price of construction with sub-$100 oil, which is where I expect it to stay for a while. Look what's happening to oil-related employment in New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming. The investors in these projects understand this and they understand it will never be built under these conditions.

Ergo, this is a terrible idea. Not for environmental reasons, but for economic ones.
Click to expand...

That's a remarkably disingenuous post; simply put, if either pipeline was a terrible economic idea, they would never be built. Duh.
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
GURPS said:
well the OIL is being shipped by rail car now, so it makes economic sense to someone to bring the OIL in .... companies don't generally do something that isn't profitable
Click to expand...

Canada could ship the oil to their own west coast for shipment to china. It's a globally traded commodity. There's no economic incentive to build a pipeline with oil <$100/bbl. Extracting oil from tar sands is expensive.
 
O

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Kev_Russell said:
Ergo, this is a terrible idea. Not for environmental reasons, but for economic ones.
Click to expand...

How about you leave that decision up to the investors in those projects?

I doubt the Keystone XL will be built under the current market conditions. The DAPL otoh is 3/4 done and once the politally motivated holdup in the permits is remedied, it will be completed in short order.

One of the reasons production in the Bakken dropped with the low oil price is the difficulty of moving product to market. Warren Buffets railroad eats a big part of the
profit on the product that can't be moved through the existing pipelines or refined locally.
 
Last edited:
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
Unless I missed something, this pipeline is private venture :shrug: how does this involve 'tax payers'
Click to expand...

Well, if you believe the talk about the Dakota pipeline their choice of route runs them through an area where a large and heavily depended upon aquifer is very close to the surface. So if there were a leak, and it were in that area, the government would be stuck with the bill for fixing the water situation.
 
Clem72

Clem72

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
70 miles west of water resources .....
Click to expand...

That's an alternate fact. No seriously, other sources claim other distances for tributaries and boundaries. But as I said in my post, it's only an issue if you believe their claims. Guess we will see.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Clem72 said:
That's an alternate fact. No seriously, other sources claim other distances for tributaries and boundaries. But as I said in my post, it's only an issue if you believe their claims. Guess we will see.
Click to expand...

:yay:

a line item I saw on reddit mentioned the current water source was near the pipeline, but that has been slated to be moved for a while now ...
a fact conveniently left out by the natives and their partners in the press
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/24/t...ls-are-a-win-for-the-economy-and-environment/

For Keystone XL, the Obama administration’s own State Department reviewed the project multiple times and concluded that the pipeline would pose negligible environmental risk and not contribute significantly to global warming—a big sticking point and one of the reasons former President Barack Obama rejected the application.

The State Department’s final environmental impact statement concludes that Canadian oil is coming out of the ground whether Keystone XL is built or not, so the difference in greenhouse gas emissions is miniscule.

Despite environmental activist fearmongering, the State Department also determined that the project poses minimal environmental threat to soil, wetlands, water resources, vegetation, fish, and wildlife.

But instead of listening to sound science and technical analysis, support from unions, and the majority of the American people, Obama capitulated to his environmental activist base.

Even Obama’s first secretary of energy, Steven Chu, called the debate over the pipeline what it was, saying, “The decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one and not a scientific one.”

The same disregard for the rule of law and scientific analysis holds true for the Dakota Access pipeline. Despite the protests and opposition from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, the federal government completed an extensive, thorough environmental review.
 
Bird Dog

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Kev_Russell said:
Canada could ship the oil to their own west coast for shipment to china. It's a globally traded commodity. There's no economic incentive to build a pipeline with oil <$100/bbl. Extracting oil from tar sands is expensive.
Click to expand...

So you're saying the people who are building it are stupid......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top