Saturday, November 23, 2024
33.0°F

Keystone pipeline passes Congress, veto looms

by Hungry Horse News
| February 12, 2015 8:25 AM
A bill to construct the Keystone XL oil pipeline passed in the Republican-controlled Congress on Feb. 11, but President Barack Obama is expected to veto the measure.

The House passed the bill by 270-152, endorsing changes made by the Senate that stated climate change was real and not a hoax, and that oil from Canadian tar sands should no longer be exempt from a tax used to cleanup oil spills.

As proposed, the pipeline would connect Canada’s tar sands with Gulf Coast refineries that specialize in processing heavy crude oil. It could also take high quality crude oil from the Bakken fields of North Dakota at a pumping station in Baker.

Only one Republican voted against the measure, while 29 Democrats backed it. But neither the House nor the Senate has enough votes at this time to overcome a veto. Supporters were already working on strategies on how to secure the pipeline’s approval using other legislative means.

Both of Montana’s senators voted in favor of the pipeline on Jan. 29, and Montana’s lone representative voted of it on Feb. 11.

Sen. Jon Tester said earlier this month that he supported the pipeline because it would create jobs, and it was still a safer way to transport oil from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast than by truck or rail. He said it was also important for national security.

“I’d rather do business with Canada than the Middle East,” he said.

Sen. Steve Daines applauded the House passage of the bipartisan Senate legislation on Feb. 11.

“President Obama is out of excuses. It’s time for him to join the American people and approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,” he said. “The Keystone pipeline will create new opportunities for good-paying jobs, energy independence, lower energy prices and millions of dollars in tax revenue for Montana counties. This project is good for national security and our global competitiveness. Montanans have been waiting long enough — it’s time we break ground and start construction on this pipeline.”

Rep. Ryan Zinke called the pipeline project the right move for Montana and America.

“ It creates jobs, increases American energy security and helps break America’s addiction to foreign oil — all while being environmentally safe,” he said. “Yet due to political reasons, President Obama has stonewalled its construction for six years.”

Zinke said multiple studies, including those by the Obama administration, had found the pipeline project to be a safe and environmentally responsible form of transport, and an economic engine for the region.

“I commend Sen. Steve Daines for leading the fight in the Senate to build bipartisan support amongst his colleagues, just as we were able to do in the House,” Zinke said. “I urge President Obama to side with Montana and the American people and sign the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.”

For Republicans, the bill’s passage capped weeks of debate on a top priority after they took control of Congress last month. House Republicans, who have debated and passed numerous measures on the pipeline only to have them dead end in the Senate, claimed victory.

Democrats called the effort a waste of time but said the provisions on global warming and oils spills marked progress for Republicans on those issues.

First proposed in 2008, the pipeline has come to symbolize the differences between the parties on energy and environmental matters.

Republicans and the oil industry have argued the $8 billion infrastructure project is about jobs and boosting energy security — oil will be imported from a friendly neighbor and shipped to domestic refineries subject to more stringent environmental regulations.

Democrats and  environmentalists have characterized the pipeline project as a gift to the oil industry that would worsen global warming and subject parts of the country to the risks of an oil spill. They also claimed there would be little economic benefit because the oil and its refined product would be exported abroad.

A January 2014 economic analysis found that the northern Alberta tar sands would be developed with or without the pipeline, and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning oil from the tar sands would enter the atmosphere anyway.

But the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month said that analysis needs to be revisited because lower oil prices could make the pipeline more of a catalyst than the State Department initially predicted. A letter from Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. called the EPA’s assessment flawed.

]]>

A bill to construct the Keystone XL oil pipeline passed in the Republican-controlled Congress on Feb. 11, but President Barack Obama is expected to veto the measure.

The House passed the bill by 270-152, endorsing changes made by the Senate that stated climate change was real and not a hoax, and that oil from Canadian tar sands should no longer be exempt from a tax used to cleanup oil spills.

As proposed, the pipeline would connect Canada’s tar sands with Gulf Coast refineries that specialize in processing heavy crude oil. It could also take high quality crude oil from the Bakken fields of North Dakota at a pumping station in Baker.

Only one Republican voted against the measure, while 29 Democrats backed it. But neither the House nor the Senate has enough votes at this time to overcome a veto. Supporters were already working on strategies on how to secure the pipeline’s approval using other legislative means.

Both of Montana’s senators voted in favor of the pipeline on Jan. 29, and Montana’s lone representative voted of it on Feb. 11.

Sen. Jon Tester said earlier this month that he supported the pipeline because it would create jobs, and it was still a safer way to transport oil from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast than by truck or rail. He said it was also important for national security.

“I’d rather do business with Canada than the Middle East,” he said.

Sen. Steve Daines applauded the House passage of the bipartisan Senate legislation on Feb. 11.

“President Obama is out of excuses. It’s time for him to join the American people and approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,” he said. “The Keystone pipeline will create new opportunities for good-paying jobs, energy independence, lower energy prices and millions of dollars in tax revenue for Montana counties. This project is good for national security and our global competitiveness. Montanans have been waiting long enough — it’s time we break ground and start construction on this pipeline.”

Rep. Ryan Zinke called the pipeline project the right move for Montana and America.

“ It creates jobs, increases American energy security and helps break America’s addiction to foreign oil — all while being environmentally safe,” he said. “Yet due to political reasons, President Obama has stonewalled its construction for six years.”

Zinke said multiple studies, including those by the Obama administration, had found the pipeline project to be a safe and environmentally responsible form of transport, and an economic engine for the region.

“I commend Sen. Steve Daines for leading the fight in the Senate to build bipartisan support amongst his colleagues, just as we were able to do in the House,” Zinke said. “I urge President Obama to side with Montana and the American people and sign the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.”

For Republicans, the bill’s passage capped weeks of debate on a top priority after they took control of Congress last month. House Republicans, who have debated and passed numerous measures on the pipeline only to have them dead end in the Senate, claimed victory.

Democrats called the effort a waste of time but said the provisions on global warming and oils spills marked progress for Republicans on those issues.

First proposed in 2008, the pipeline has come to symbolize the differences between the parties on energy and environmental matters.

Republicans and the oil industry have argued the $8 billion infrastructure project is about jobs and boosting energy security — oil will be imported from a friendly neighbor and shipped to domestic refineries subject to more stringent environmental regulations.

Democrats and  environmentalists have characterized the pipeline project as a gift to the oil industry that would worsen global warming and subject parts of the country to the risks of an oil spill. They also claimed there would be little economic benefit because the oil and its refined product would be exported abroad.

A January 2014 economic analysis found that the northern Alberta tar sands would be developed with or without the pipeline, and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning oil from the tar sands would enter the atmosphere anyway.

But the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this month said that analysis needs to be revisited because lower oil prices could make the pipeline more of a catalyst than the State Department initially predicted. A letter from Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. called the EPA’s assessment flawed.