I can't tell if it's an outright rejection or if it's a rejection of the current proposed route.

So if TransCanada already agreed to a new route, and a new route means delays, then how is this surprising (from TransCanada's perspective, I mean)? Am I missing something here?

An outright rejection would be principled. A stalling tactic would raise my cynicism level to high.

I agree. I'm just wondering if there was ever going to be an outright rejection or if it will be rejected solely based on the current route, leaving open the possibility of approval if the route is altered.

Speaking of cynicism: The cynic in me thinks he will reject it no matter what, or at least attempt to delay a decision until after the election. He needs those lolenvironmentalists to get re-elected. He has more to lose by them staying home in November than he has to gain by potentially getting votes because he approved the pipeline. I would guess that most of the people who want the pipeline but weren't planning on voting for him aren't going to change their minds based on this one issue.

Obama had the Republican Governor of Nebraska, Nebraska's legislature, and Nebraskans protesting this pipeline and passing legislation barring the construction of this pipeline over their vital water and agricultural resources. The Gov sent a letter to Obama and Sec of State stating his and his state's opposition to the XL pipeline permit as proposed.

This was a no-brainer, except for the GOP and the oil industry. Even if Obama approved the permit, Nebraska would have been in Federal Court the same day.

The tar sand oil pits in Alberta will not even be capable of producing enough oil to fill all of their proposed pipelines for another decade or 2. But that's another story. The non-building of this pipeline will have no impact on crude prices and will actually keep them from rising in the Midwest where farmers need cheap fuel to produce cheap food.

The GOP and others are just butthurt that they lost, again. Oil companies know how this stuff works and the timeframes they are looking at. This is standard business. They thought they could get the GOP to help them make an end-run around common sense.

lol whose ass did you pull this out of?

lol, nh

i'm guessing that this will be the case. leave the door slightly open for hte future. prob good politically and pragmatic as well.

Michelle Bachman's LDO. Or maybe her hubby's.

Yeah, I missed that he said a month. That's def a bet worth taking.

I figured he meant like $4 gas sometime in the future, in a year or 2. Which, yeah, when they build the pipeline and start diverting crude for export, yeah, pump prices will rise.

It looks like oil's price is down slightly today, and gas futures are where they were 5 days ago, even after the pre-announcement of the permit denial.

I'm reading he is rejecting it on the proposed route. They can still come back with a new route but will have to go through the process they did before (environmental studies, state issues, etc.).

Seems like this would be a huge win for the states' rights crowd around here

nm:

Here is an interesting presentation on the Canadian tar sands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

light sweet crude is up approximately 7 percent over the last 30 days. how dare i think it could go up another 15 percent over the next 30 days!

Gas prices here are up 20 cents per gallon since New Year's Day and Michelle Bachmann's promise of $2/gal gas if elected is out the window so we're clearly ****ed.

I'm sure he was just as pissed when GWB invaded Iraq and the price of gas actually did shoot up.

Shouldn't you have lou or mike or yonkers or something in your username?

I'm sure just like samsonh you'll keep us informed of the price of oil throughout this process (as long as it doesn't drop).

lol Neil Cavuto is such a fool.

I'm watching him on FOX spew his densetard nonsense about the pipeline.

He's got Montana's Gov Schweitzer, a Dem, on now. Schweitzer approved the pipeline, so Cavuto really is at a loss given that Nebraska's Gov, a Repub, denied it.

Then Schweitzer is trying to explain to Cavuto how the permit process in DC and the states works. Cavuto just keeps saying it Washington's fault. Schweitzer says, "Nope, Nebraska shut this down"

Cavuto has no clue how to handle Schweitzer. I've always liked Schweitzer.

LOL FOX-GOP

States' rights would be leaving the decision to the states completely. No decision for the feds to make.

Obama made the decision. Regardless of which way he decided, or whether the states agree or disagree with what he decided, he still got to decide. So this has nothing to do with states' rights.

And apparently Obama hates jobs.

You make it too easy. Posting this after the one above it was just perfect.

hint: a state didn't want it and the decision was forced onto him

Reality has no bearing on the right blaming Obama for anything and everything.

Didn't want to make the decision.

Irrelevant to a discussion about states' rights.

<3 boa

i hate that misguided rhetoric (on both sides) is going to dominate news for the next way too long period of time

Correct.

Obama made it clear that it was rejected on procedural rather than substantive grounds and that the pipeline company can reapply when it's actually chosen a route. As I noted earlier itt, as of right now, there's not even a route to be approved.

Would a skyscraper get a building permit without a blueprint?

Yes, unless you hate jobs and hate America.