Posted on 12/17/2014 5:41:54 AM PST by mac_truck
The new Republican-controlled Senate's first act in January will be approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday.
McConnell told reporters that the bill would be based on a measure that failed in the Senate last month that was co-sponsored by North Dakota Republican John Hoeven and Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu.
"It'll be open for amendment," McConnell said. "I will hope that senators on both sides will offer energy-related amendments but there'll be no effort to try to micromanage the amendment process."
Landrieu pushed for a Keystone vote in November in a last-ditch effort to persuade voters in energy-rich Louisiana to re-elect her to a fourth term.
But her gambit fell just one vote short of Senate passage despite winning significant support from Democrats. Landrieu was solidly defeated in a Dec. 6 runoff election by Republican Representative Bill Cassidy, setting the Senate's final post-election split at 54 Republicans to 46 Democrats.
But even with Senate control, Republicans still may find it difficult to win the 67 votes needed to override a veto from President Barack Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Sorry, folks, but I see Obama’s agenda rolling on unabated. A Republican majority in both houses doesn’t mean squat.
There ya have it in a nutshell.....
I'm not 100% sure he will...but a veto threat shouldn't stop Congress from debating/voting on the legislation.
“Won’t matter. With oil sitting at less than $60 a barrel...zero chance they will build the sands pipeline.”....
I tend to agree. Noticed an article earlier today that these low prices are definitely hurting the fracking industry. Definitely NOT good for the local area economy since our part of Wisconsin is a MAJOR supplier of frack sand. There are a number of plants that have already scaled back on production. Is this all by design? Perhaps.
Not by design...just a consequence of the US not buying off the int’l market. It’ll rest at $60-$70 for the next eighteen months. If the fracking guys edge back...we will start to buy again off the world market, until the price hits around $90...then restart the whole thing again, and six months later see it drop down again. Cycling will be popular for the next decade. Hurts the Mideast and Russia as much as it hurts us.
Mitch = Trent Lott Redux.
Is McTurd-le going to override the clown’s veto?
The push to get the Keystone built is because oilsands production is "shut in" to a certain extent because it cannot get to market. Northern Alberta is awash in the stuff, hence there is a huge discount from WTI or Brent.
Yep, leave it to the GOP to focus on last year’s issues instead of today’s.
Seems fair < /sarc >
The first important job is repeal (forget replace- just repeal) obamacare. I expect that duty to be totally neglected.
Republicans feel deep in their bones that the Democrat Party is the natural ruling class in America and that Republicans just exist to iron out the rough spots in Democrat policies. Even in the majority the Republicans tend to act as if the Democrats are in the majority and, while trying to “rationalize” past Democrat enactments, will try to appease and “get along” with their Democrat big brothers.
Thanks mac_truck.
Compared to giving away the power-of-the-purse for the next 2 years via the CR, Keystone is just a shiny object.
I disagree, the construction of the pipeline is about LOWERING the shipment cost to get it to refiners. Therefore, increasing the price FOB Alberta once the pipeline is done. Keep in mind, Alberta is landlocked. You have to pump the oil to Vancouver to load it on a boat now. Then it has to travel through the Panama canal to get to TX or LA. I do not know what this costs/barrel, but I am sure the pipeline will lower it substantially. They calculated the return on investment based on what the pipeline company gets/barrel to pump the oil. So, as the price of the commodity decreases, the incentive to lower fixed costs goes up.
The Sands folks have been heavily using Canadian railway and US rail companies...to move it around. For most of 2014, I made a fair amount of growth/profit from my investments in Canadian railways. In the last four weeks? I’ve lost most of my profits...less usage and traffic coming from the oil being moved that way.
” Mitch = Trent Lott Redux.”
No difference, both whores.
Coal companies should be able to soak up any excess rail line capacity created by a drop in shale oil production, at least in the western United States.
Shipping oil by railcar is probably the last resort for bulk transport. Shipping by pipeline is the least expensive followed by supertanker. You can not load a super tanker in Vancouver or ship one through the Panama canal.
Think of how expensive to unload a train of 100+ tanker cars at the refinery. Each one has to hooked up unloaded. The spot for the cars on the rail siding probably only hold 20 cars at a time, if that. Logistically it is a lot easier for the refinery to offload a boatload than it is a trainload one car at a time. This costs money too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.