Decision delayed on Keystone pipeline

[desrt]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Decision-delayed-on-Keystone-pipeline-5414172.php

"The Obama administration on Friday said it was giving eight federal agencies more time to weigh in on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a move almost certain to delay a final decision on the controversial project until after the Nov. 4 midterm elections.

That timeline spares President Obama from making a politically difficult decision that would either anger environmentalists or jeopardize some Senate Democrats seeking re-election in red states.

But Friday's move alienated stakeholders on all sides of the issue, including oil-industry allies who accused the White House of playing politics and environmentalists who want Obama to swiftly reject the project they say would exacerbate climate change..........."

[teko]

Good questions. Maybe this will answer the first one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH7BRgQu6fg

So no, it was not overturned, however what they did do, was to add an ammendment to defund it. I know! shocked right?

This was the latest info I could find, and the oil lobbyists and such really pushed to get this thru. Whether it passed both the house and the senate and was signed by the president? Im not sure.

[R Glass]

“In 2007, President Bush signed into law Section 526 of the Energy Independence and National Security Act of 2007. It prohibits the US government, which is the largest single fuel purchaser in the U.S., from using taxpayer dollars to purchase fuels that have a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil.”

I have several questions,
Was Section 526 overturned?
Are Tax Dollars going to be used to Purchase the Crude Oil?
Are Tax Dollars going to be used to build The Keystone Pipeline.
How would the Pipeline be protected from Terrorist?
How much impact would Keystone have on our dependency on foreign oil?

Most of the information I have found is conflicting and/or outdated.

[teko]

I never did think it was a good idea personally. I dont think its worth the risk of the environment and as far as jobs go, their is plenty to be debated there too. I think the politicians are on board with it and therefore pushing it but many of the people who will have it in their backyard are not thrilled, understandably so. I also understand that the landowners have no cover if something did happen on their land and could end up carrying the responsibility. Too many unanswered questions, but my guess is that in the end it will be allowed. I will however, still be against it.

[desrt]

I'll put aside the whole 'climate-change-leave-it-in-the ground-it's-damaging-to-the-environment-just-to-extract-it' issue just for a moment.
The project benefits so few Americans  --  unless you own stock in Canadian oil or pipe manufacturing in India  --  that 'NO' should be a no-brainer. The fact that this is even debatable shows you how deeply a very, very tiny number of people have their talon$ so very, very deeply sunk into the politicians on both sides.

[teko]

Nah, they just need more time to beat them landowners into submission, that refuse to give access on their land is all.

[brice1967]

Potential money on either side of the equation.  Gotta be careful and do a good head count before pulling the lever.

[R Glass]

I guess asking Obama to lay Politics aside and “Grow a Pair” is out of the question.

[Barb135]

Makes sense that Obama wouldn't want to make decision on this.  It's all political.. what else is new?  Business as usual.