Despite a huge push by Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who is fighting to keep her seat, the Senate by a single vote defeated a bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday evening, 59-41. All of the Senate Republicans and fourteen Democrats, including Sen. Mark Begich, voted to approve measure. Incoming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to again take up the legislation when the new Senate is sworn in, when it’s expected to easily have enough votes to pass. However, President Obama has threatened a veto.
In a statement, Sen. Lisa Murkowski seemed to blame its failure not on Democratic senators who voted against the bill, but on Obama. “The president’s foot-dragging has only deprived Americans of badly needed jobs, a stable source of energy from a close ally, and our usual reputation for a fair system in which project developers can have confidence that federal regulators are acting in good faith,” Murkowski said.
She also said that Keystone’s passage will be a top priority for her and the new majority.
Help Alaska? Not really, it provides Canada an export for heavy oil. It will go to specialized refineries
that can handle the tarry oil. Our competition is the stuff from North Dakota. When a pipeline is laid to Cherry point the Bakken will kick our economic butts. Cleaner , lighter oil that will be a true alternative.
In the big scheme of things we need to open lands up in Alaska to help our coffers. Dan and Lisa have about twenty four months to do so, before the dems sweep back in 2016. If we don’t expand our state oilfield on state land we are doomed. Political hype and rhetoric is no substitute for drill pipe digging into a new oilfield. Flamboyant flapping of jaws and feckless fantasies seem to be the answer… very sad indeed.
People can argue back and forth from an economic perspective but much more importantly anything that is bad for Barack Hussein Obama is good for Alaska and good for America.
Can someone explain to m$e why Keystone is good or bad for Alaska? Thanks.