March 8th, 2012
06:13 PM ET

Senate rejects GOP measure to build oil pipeline

The Senate narrowly rejected a Republican-sponsored measure Thursday that would have bypassed the Obama administration's current objections to the Keystone XL pipeline and allowed construction on the controversial project to move forward immediately.

Fifty-six senators voted in favor of the amendment - four short of the 60 required for approval. Eleven Democrats joined a unanimous Republican caucus in backing the plan.

The proposed 1,700-mile long pipeline expansion, intended to carry crude oil from Canada's oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast, has become a political lightning rod. Supporters, including the oil industry, say it's a vital job creator that will lessen the country's dependence on oil imported from volatile regions.

Opponents say the pipeline may leak, and that it will lock the United States into a particularly dirty form of crude that might ultimately end up being exported anyway.

FULL STORY
soundoff (23 Responses)
  1. AMERICA 1st

    If could create jobs, why not? As far as oil leaks, hire workers to patrol the length of it to repair any potential leak. Thatd create more jobs and help to lower gas prices. Thats my opinion, the way i see it!

    March 8, 2012 at 6:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • leftydf1970

      Being Canadian, I totally understand the concern with running a massive pipeline of oil for such a long distance, with potential for leaks along the way. Seems to me however, everyone is forgetting the massive spill from the BP gulf incident that if the pipeline was completed, that pipe couldn't produce that much environmental impact, no matter what the leak. You can't continually complain about Mideast oil imports and prices, and then in the same breath, complain about imports from Canada.

      March 8, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • KillingFloor

      It will not create many permanent jobs, mostly short-term construction jobs. So if a pipeline bursts and destroys water sources for our farmers in the heartland, no big deal right AMERICA?

      March 9, 2012 at 7:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • KillingFloor

      Lefty since you are in Canada and not concerned about the environmental impact, why not pipe it from Canada to the refineries in the Northwest US instead of all the way to Texas??? That would only require half the distance. ANSWER: Canada doesn't want to risk their own land along that route.

      March 9, 2012 at 7:56 pm | Report abuse |
  2. AMERICA 1st

    And as far as the epa, who needs that bunch of radical tree huggers? Theyre a bunch of loonytoons!

    March 8, 2012 at 6:58 pm | Report abuse |
  3. chrissy

    The information on this both pros and cons needs to be more public. And the American voters should have a say!

    March 8, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
  4. High Hopes (if not for you)

    Good idea, Chrissy!

    My vote:

    Not in your life... or mine.

    I'd rather spend the money on light rail and alternative transit systems. Sooner or later we're going to have to say no to the Arabs and the oil companies who support them. Now is as good of a time as any. Remember this is Canadian oil being transported because they don't want the pollution of having refineries. Well, neither do we. Mass transit systems help the problem until we can perfect alternatives that will be pollution free.

    Long-term thinking goes a long way!

    March 8, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      here, here!

      March 8, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Scottish Mama

    Without EPA we will need more Erin Brockovich's, they will poison more of us.

    March 8, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Report abuse |
  6. Scottish Mama

    @High hopes -they are closing refineries and that is another reason gas is up.

    March 8, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • High Hopes (if not for you)

      That's a good thing, right?

      πŸ™‚

      But, we don't want this big old pipeline running the length of our country... we deserve clean air, too. Ever been to southern Texas? Not a pretty sight… refinery after refinery, fire burning day and night!

      Thanks, but, no...

      March 8, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Jeff Frank (R-Ohio) "On The Lunatic Fringe"

    Maybe thier waiting on Iran to poop out a NukeMobile running on thier signature "yellow cake" power pellets.

    March 8, 2012 at 8:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • High Hopes (if not for you)

      πŸ˜€

      Yummy!

      We can eat on the go!

      March 8, 2012 at 9:44 pm | Report abuse |
  8. saywhat

    @ America 1st

    Are you sure you are o.k?

    @ chrissy. Yes. The public needs to know more and not just go along with politicians who are driven more by greed and self serving agenda than the interests of the country or its people.

    March 8, 2012 at 9:38 pm | Report abuse |
  9. leeintulsa

    @america 1st: i'm glad you sound like a moron. otherwise someone might listen

    March 8, 2012 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse |
  10. High Hopes (if not for you)

    Hi, Lee, Say What and everybody!

    Glad to see noone got hit by those radical balls
    flying into our atmospheric abode.

    πŸ˜‰

    March 8, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • leeintulsa

      hi, hopes πŸ˜‰ hehe.. you said 'balls'.. hehe..

      March 8, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Scottish Mama

    @America 1st- 3x's more greenhouse gases per barrel than regular oil, it will increase greenhouse emissions by 38 million tons, equivelent to 6 million new cars on the road-Houston Chronicle
    Air Alliance houston says that it causes more emissions of sulfur dioxide and particle matter(bad for people with alergies)
    Tom Rudolph, a farmer from Circle Mont. in directly affected land, says, the oil companies are lacking a spill response plan.
    Canada- Texas route passes thru some of the most valuable agricultural land in the United States. The area is also home to the giant Ogallala Aquifier, which provides drinking water and irrigation for the high plains.

    March 8, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • High Hopes (if not for you)

      Wow...Mama won my respect!

      Great Post...

      πŸ™‚

      Gotta run, gotta date and can't be late...

      Amazing Mama!!!

      March 8, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Report abuse |
  12. hamsta

    i love how the green energy whackos use the global warming myth to block progress on energy independence.provide alternate energy first then make us stop using oil.doing it backwards is only destroying jobs and destroying the economy.but hey maybe thats what socialist obama wants.maybe hes intentionaly turning the united states into a third world country.he did say he wants to fundamentally change america-and made it quite obvious he meant socialism.

    March 10, 2012 at 6:51 am | Report abuse |
  13. O

    Damm straight its blocked! How many union jobs do we need? Its already a strian on our country. Plus this country is done being built

    March 10, 2012 at 7:19 am | Report abuse |
  14. RUFFNUTT (( 1/2 5th level magic-using kender ,1/4 illusionist ,1/4 warrior ))

    it will create jobs... rail road jobs... they'll ship the stuff by rail now..

    March 10, 2012 at 8:55 am | Report abuse |
  15. bl4ck0utsUn

    Momma! Such a great argument! If they want to create jobs, get some people to put up wind turbines in the heartland! I'm from the midwest. They started putting them there, (half of them don't work now) finish the job! Instead of giving every American a $40 device to pickup digital TV signals (agenda so wifi would have to be paid for instead of free), give them a $40 device to convert their gas guzzling vehicles into hydrogen (water) burners (agenda, Oil backs the US dollar). Poisoning the enviroment and people is more lucrative then doing whats right!

    March 10, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Report abuse |