Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Obama rejects Canada-Texas oil pipeline - for now

January 18, 2012

Advertisement

— Raising the stakes on a bitter election-year fight with Republicans, President Barack Obama on Wednesday rejected a Canadian company's plan to build a U.S.-spanning, 1,700-mile pipeline to carry oil across six U.S. states to Texas refineries.

Though the project promises thousands of temporary jobs for the recovering U.S. economy, Obama said a February deadline set by Congress would not allow for a proper review of potential harm from the $7 billion Keystone XL project.

"As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama said.

The plan proposed by Calgary-based TransCanada would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to Texas, passing through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma.

Republicans assailed Obama's decision as a job-killer and said the fight wasn't over.

And the State Department said the decision was made "without prejudice," meaning TransCanada can submit a new application once a route through environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska is established.

Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer, said the company plans to do exactly that. If approved, the pipeline could begin operation as soon as 2014, Girling said.

Republicans were not assuaged.

Newt Gingrich, campaigning for the GOP presidential nomination in South Carolina, called Obama's decision "stunningly stupid," adding: "What Obama has done is kill jobs, weaken American security and drive Canada into the arms of China out of just sheer stupidity."

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., has said of the Canadian crude oil: "It's going to go to China if we don't build it here."

But Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada Corp.'s president for energy and oil pipelines, said last week the company soon will have a new route through Nebraska "that everyone agrees on."

For now, though, Mitt Romney, the Republican nomination front-runner, called Obama's decision "as shocking as it is revealing," adding that it "shows a president who once again has put politics ahead of sound policy."

House Speaker John Boehner said Obama was breaking his promise to create jobs.

"This is not the end of this fight," said Boehner, R-Ohio. He called the pipeline good for the U.S. economy and a major job creator.

The pipeline proposal has forced the White House to make a politically risky choice between two important Democratic constituencies. Many labor unions back the project because of the prospects of new jobs in a fragile economy. Environmental groups fear the pipeline could lead to an oil spill disaster.

Some liberal donors threatened to cut off funds to Obama's re-election campaign to protest the project, which opponents say would transport "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract.

Obama said his decision was not based on the pipeline's merits but on what he called an arbitrary Feb. 21 deadline set by Republicans in Congress. GOP lawmakers set the deadline as part of a tax bill that Obama signed into law just before Christmas.

"I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil," Obama said.

Under his administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down, Obama said.

"In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security," Obama said.

To underscore the point, Obama signaled that he would not oppose development of an oil pipeline from Oklahoma to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico. TransCanada already operates a pipeline from Canada to Cushing, Okla.

Refineries in Houston and along the Texas Gulf Coast can handle heavy crude such as that extracted from Canadian tar sands — the type of oil that would flow through the Keystone XL pipeline.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he was profoundly disappointed that Obama turned down the pipeline.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said he doesn't believe the Keystone XL is a dead project. He said the Obama administration did not have enough time to review the project, given the Republican-imposed timeline.

"I don't believe this is the end of the story," Conrad told The Associated Press. "My personal view is that it should be constructed. It's clear Canada is going to develop this resource, and I believe it is better for our country to have it go here rather than Asian markets."

Bill McKibben, an environmental activist who led opposition to the pipeline, praised Obama's decision to stand up to what he called a "naked political threat from Big Oil." Jack Gerard, the oil industry's top lobbyist, had said last week that Obama faced "huge political consequences" if he rejected the pipeline.

"It's not only the right thing, it's a very brave thing to do," McKibben said. "That's the Barack Obama I think people thought they were electing back in 2008."


Associated Press writers Dina Cappiello, Ben Feller and Laurie Kellman in Washington, Shannon McCaffrey in Warrenville, S.C., and Ramit Plushnick-Masti in Houston contributed to this story.

Comments

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 11 months ago

Wise decision. But you rightwingers will still get your way. Busine$$ alway$ win$ and if it causes pollution to air, soil, and water, who cares? We're only passing it on to our children.

Seriously, the US is still your country. The rest of us just meekly live in it.

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 11 months ago

I know what work is. Never received one handout in my life. Now, if I were GE, I'd not have to pay taxes and receive handouts.

Business doesn't drive me. I drive me. No, somebody has to pay for all the unscrupulous One percenters who love this country so much, they cheat it every chance they get, and it's those like yourselves that adore them. And then when I real man like Warren Buffett calls them on their lack of patriotism, they back down just like you know they would.

It makes me laugh every time I think of it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 11 months ago

"Business drives this country."

And their present destination is right off a big cliff.

David Reynolds 2 years, 11 months ago

This pipe line & environmental impact was all studied & approved prior to moving forward.

This is just a political ploy by president Obama. He knows the unions won't abandon him, but the environmentalists will.

It is all political theatre.

The real issue is 2 fold: 1) Employment, 2) US Security & energy independence.

There are ways to deal with this issue if Obama was willing to seek real compromise.

blindrabbit 2 years, 11 months ago

Great move! Shipping dirty Canadian oil sand oil to be processed in the US is very risky. Those crudes carriy lots of abrasives (in the form of suspended sands) which would internally erode the pipeline (the Alaska Pipeline oil is relatively clean compared and even that is eroding that Pipeline). Also, transporting the Canadian oil across the environmentall sensitive High plains aquifer is an accident waiting to happen. Why ship this material especially if the recent finds of cleaner oils in North Dakota and Texas would be much easier to produce.

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 11 months ago

Just like Sunflower out in Western Kansas, it's only a matter of time before blindbusiness wins over all. This is only a delay, right?

blindrabbit 2 years, 11 months ago

commonsenseanymore and others of his ilk to follow: Show some real arguments for the pipeline construction other than politics and a few temporary jobs. As Thomas Dolby sang "She Blinded me With Science". but in this case do you science first!

Steve Jacob 2 years, 11 months ago

Not so much the jobs, the oil. It's not a good sign for summer when gas is $3.15 a gallon in January. Not to mention we maybe stop buying Iran's supplies.

blindrabbit 2 years, 11 months ago

False: If I'm not mistaken, it is Bushes 41 and 43 that are beholding to the Saudis; you might want to do a little web checking. Their cozy history goes back a long time with several generations.

Sean Livingstone 2 years, 11 months ago

Right... Bush did something... so you can claim it's his fault... right or wrong. Well, GOPers claim Obama's faults in everything, yet GOPers also said Obama doesn't do anything... so how does doing nothing lead to doing wrong in everything? Your math doesn't add up...

Fred Mertz 2 years, 11 months ago

So instead of the US having a supply of non-Middle East oil, that oil will go to China.

Yes, the GOP will make a campaign issue out of this and right they should. Obama's worst nightmare - continued high unemployment and $5 gallon gasoline in 2012.

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

Since Nebraska didn't want the pipeline going through a certain area, and the company hadn't come up with a new route yet, he made the only responsible decision.

Note it is "without prejudice", and so the company can re-apply once they've plotted out a new route that Nebraska is ok with.

The Republicans forced him to make a quicker decision, and this is the one he made. If they hadn't done that, we'd still be in the process of deciding.

Fred Mertz 2 years, 11 months ago

Are you sure about the NE issue? I thought it was resolved.

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

Just heard it this afternoon on the radio.

Fred Mertz 2 years, 11 months ago

So why couldn't he approve knowing that the states control where it goes in their state and it is not going through NE until they pick a suitable route?

jafs 2 years, 11 months ago

I don't know.

Perhaps he wants to know what the route is through the entire country before deciding whether or not to approve it.

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

This oil, like all oil, goes to the world market, and goes to the highest bidder. The Canadians could certainly build their own refineries on the coast and then tank the stuff wherever. They will sell it to whoever pays them the most. Tar sands oil is extremely environmentally damaging to produce. The proposed route crosses the aquifer that provides water to a good portion of the country. Potable water, breathable air, and unpoisoned soil to grow food are necessary for survival.

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 11 months ago

Stop producing facts! Stop thinking! Especially, stop reading. And stop using reasoning, at least on this board! Nobody drinks water anymore, anyway. Monsatan et al will make our food. But what about the air? Hmmm... .... Got it!

Get the GOP to forge a company to fit each of us with our own mandated air masks, we can get on to gettin' the oil while the oil is good!!!! Why, these jobs'll pay good too!!!!!!

Yeeeeehaaaaaaawwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

"The two most recent leaks to the existing 2,143-mile pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta to Cushing, Okla., were much larger than the nine earlier ones that Girling described. On May 7 near Millner, N.D., the pipeline spilled about 21,000 gallons of oil and on May 29 in Atchison, Kan., it leaked about 420 gallons." http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/06/us-canada-keystone-pipeline-hits-bumps/1

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 11 months ago

Stop producing facts! This is not what a true American Patriot does! A true patriot believes what he is told! And stop citing sources from communist sources like usatoday! It's an Obamanation!

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

" Regarding economic, energy security, and trade factors, the economic analysis in the final EIS indicates that, over the remainder of this decade, even if no new cross-border pipelines were constructed, there is likely to be little difference in the amount of crude oil refined at U.S. refineries, the amount of crude oil and refined products such as gasoline imported to (or exported from) the United States, the cost of crude oil or refined products in the United States, or the amount of crude oil imported from Canada. . . .

The analysis from the final EIS, noted above, indicates that denying the permit at this time is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment, economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term."

http://thinkprogress.org/tag/keystone-xl/

Jeff Kilgore 2 years, 11 months ago

No, the standard for "worst president" was set by W, and this inability is as unapproachable as DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak. We aren't likely to see that amount of corruptable incompetence in this century.

blindrabbit 2 years, 11 months ago

Why would the Canadians want to build coastal refineries with the potential for coastal pollution if they could ship crude to the US through overland pipelines. They are a little more environmentally aware than us in the US, let us take the risk . Remember the Exxon Valdez and it's approximation to Canada. Maybe a visit to coastal British Columbia including Vancouver Island would convince anyone who wanted to be-foul their pristine coastlines.

On a recent drive-through to the most remote areas of B.C. and the Yukon, it was expained to me that both areas are so minerally/oil rich that if Canada wanted to exploit them they could flood the world market. Environmental concerns and lack of transportation routes (especially no rail in Yukon) for now are controlling these issues.

beatrice 2 years, 11 months ago

January 20, 2017, and the swearing in of President Hillary Clinton.

beatrice 2 years, 11 months ago

Only decision he could make.

Remember, at one point someone in Japan thought it a really good idea to build a nuclear power plant in Fukushima near the coast. I'm sure it created many jobs, too.

A pipeline carrying tar sands oil from Canada all the way to Texas is not the type of thing you just jump right into simply because it will create jobs. It might also create a lot of government jobs -- workers needed to clean a massive spill or engineers to figure out how to extract the oil from an aquifer.

If it is built, we should at least insist that the company guarantee that a large portion -- lets say 50% -- of the oil, once refined, stays in America. Boeing's recent departure from Witchita is an example of why the government shouldn't just make provisions to companies without guarantees in return.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 11 months ago

"Only decision he could make." Well, the only decision that will go over well with the big-money Hollywood greenies he's depending on to finance his campaign. He's thrown the union workers under the bus. I hope they remember that in November. Meanwhile, drive 90 and freeze a Yankee!

Shane Garrett 2 years, 11 months ago

Was there not a three year environmental impact study already completed!?

beatrice 2 years, 11 months ago

Yes, and it determined that the route needed to be changed. Where is the study on the new route? Better yet, where is the new route?

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

Hey folks, wake up! Haven't you noticed that this region has cheaper gas than pretty much every other sector of the country? Ever wonder why? It's because we've had a glut of refineries and crude to refine. This has already been extended by the existing Keystone pipeline, which dead-ends in Cushing, Oklahoma. That means we still have a glut of oil in the area, which translates to cheap prices at the pump.

What do you think will happen if the XL expansion pipeline gets built from Cushing to the Gulf? Say bye bye to the regional glut, say hello to higher gas prices. Say gee, what were we thinking? And we did this for what reason again? The jobs to build the pipeline through Kansas have already come and gone, folks. And our brilliant legislators gave 10 year tax abatements so no county it goes through is collecting tax revenues from the pipeline, to boot.

No tax revenues. No jobs. Higher gas prices. C'mon, folks, do your homework!

blindrabbit 2 years, 11 months ago

rockchalk: Quick read this then turn on CNN, Piers Morgan is interviewing Jimmy Carter tonight! Although maybe too much logic for the typical dittoheads brainwashed by the likes of M. Reagan and Limberger. Wonder if you got your wisdom on the variety of Obama rants from the no-longer postings of Tom Shewmon, the sage of Linwood/Tongie. Interestinly, according to you, everything went to hell in a handbag the day Obama was sworn in, to the very, exact day!!!

tomatogrower 2 years, 11 months ago

So instead of paying truck drivers to haul the crude oil, which means a lot of jobs for the whole time the oil lasts, they want to build a pipeline, which will create jobs for the construction, then lay off a whole bunch of people, and just have a skeleton crew to hopefully keep it repaired. But I doubt if they'll even do that. Why not poison the farmers water supply? All they do is grow food. And no one lives in Western Kansas anyway. Right?

Create jobs. Train and hire truckers to haul the crude. Lots of people working. Even build a highway, that would put a lot of people to work too. More than a pipeline. Or maybe build some oil refineries in Canada. Duh!

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

I'm sorry, but you'd rather have trucks hauling all that oil to all the way to the coast???? The math is mind boggling, but don't really need to add it up to understand how silly that is.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 11 months ago

The main argument for the pipeline is (a highly exaggerated) claim that it will create jobs. So that makes tomatogrower's argument a quite compelling counterproposal.

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

No it doesn't!!! First of all, we have more than 200,000 miles of pipeline running in the U.S. already and we rarely hear of any spills. Pipelines are much safer than any other type of transportation. Second, the proposed output is more than a half million barrels per day; the sheer number of tankers it would take to haul that much oil every single day and the environmental impact that many semis would have --- every single day --- makes his argument downright silly, particularly for someone supposedly so environmentally conscious.

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

Yes, they did, though they were relatively very small spills (21,000 gallons is about the size of a backyard pool) And they were due to shoddy valve gaskets that cracked due to vibration. Supposedly those problems have been addressed. Fact remains that transporting by pipeline is by far the safest and environmentally sound method. Heck of a lot better than having 2500 semi's transport 500,000 barrels a thousand miles every single day, then drive the thousand back.

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

Build the refineries in Canada. If the Canadians insist on despoiling their country by extracting the tar sands in the first place, they can build their own refineries and despoil their own coast as well. After all, the oil will be sold on the world market anyway. China, I'd guess, is closer to BC than it is to TX.

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

Would you think they were small spills if the oil were poured on your property?

rhd99 2 years, 11 months ago

Hey, that's why Solyndra failed miserably, because Obama sent those energy jobs to China on OUR tax dollars. Hope China's happy (NOT)!

Fred Mertz 2 years, 11 months ago

I really don't know the answer to this, but I keep hearing about the risk of contaminating the aquifer. The Ogalalla (sp?) has very little recharge meaning that rain does not go back into it. So if rain water cannot enter it then what is the likelihood that oil is going to contaminate it?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 11 months ago

Recharging the aquifer requires literally trillions of gallons of rainwater in regions where there isn't all that much rainfall.

Contaminating it can be accomplished with a very small fraction of that volume of the oil and other toxic chemicals that would go through that pipeline.

rtwngr 2 years, 11 months ago

Build the pipeline. Drill in the Anwar. Remove restrictions on building refineries. These three steps would remove our dependence on oil from the middle east. Vote for "Anybody But Obama."

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

Most of Anwar oil will go to asia. Refineries are not a bottleneck to domestic oil production. These, along with the pipeline won't even touch our dependence on oil from the middle east; it might reduce the slope of the declining curve of domestic oil production for a few years. Do your homework, guy.

Mike Ford 2 years, 11 months ago

no ones reads national geographic? especially not fox educated kansans.... see the moonscape lands near the Athabasca River up there. Read about the Cancer clusters and the displaced first nations. read about how this oil has three times the carbon dioxide and causes global warming faster not to mention the oglallah issue. naw...I won't read....Fox network tells me all I need to know....those darn readers don't know nothin... turn squidbillies on....

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 11 months ago

I'd like to thank the Republicans for giving Obama the political cover to do the right thing with regards to this pipeline.

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

"Obama said a February deadline set by Congress would not allow for a proper review "

How much time do they need, for crying out loud?

Not sure how to look at this because I've heard sound arguments on both sides. But one of the arguments being perpetuated on this string is that the pipeline would lead to higher prices for the Midwest. To that I say: tough noogies. A ten to twenty cent increase for an area that's paying much less per gallon than most of the rest of the country ain't earth shattering, besides the fact that it's inevitable whether they build it or not. The main reason they want to build it is because of the oversupply in the Midwest and getting the excess out will enable TC to sell their crude at international prices, doubling their profit. They are going to find a way to get it out of the Midwest one way or the other. And pipelines are far and away the easiest and safest way to transport it.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

TransCanada hasn't even come out with an alternate route yet, let alone given anyone a chance to study that route which supposedly avoids the Ogalalla aquifer. There's no way they can pull it together in this short of a time, and nobody's going to trust them enough to write a blanket OK.

beatrice 2 years, 11 months ago

How about until they have an actual route designated, for starters?

However, I suspect that it will eventually happen. Money will make it so.

Any reason you can think of as to why we can't make the oil company guarantee that a certain percentage of the oil stay in the good old U.S. of A.?

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

That's why I asked 'how long does it take'? Haven't they been working on it since the beginning of November?

As for making them guarantee us oil, I nor anyone here has any knowledgeable idea of what has been exchanged between TC and our government in regards to the pipeline, but I'm sure there's something in it for us.

beatrice 2 years, 11 months ago

I guess environmental studies take some time. Was it somewhere here that I read the past one took three years?

Jay, you always are so trusting of our government. : )

Are you really so sure there is something in it for the U.S. beyond the largely temporary labor jobs? I'm not so sure. Let's ask the good folks in Wichita about the deal made between the state of Kansas and Boeing for a potential example.

If there is a guarantee in there, I'd like to know about it. It would be wise for the Republicans to tell us so, or at least make a deal now that they can later promote. I mean, I'm an environmentalist and all, but if you can get me $1.50 gallon of gas, go ahead and rape the heartland.

(kidding of course)

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

I imagine some studies take a while, but what don't they know already? Ya know? If it's going around the aquifer and the rest of the route's cool........?? I don't know, not my area. I'm just always suspicious of bureaucracy and the role it plays in delaying everything.

I'm fairly confident there's got to be some sort of significant exchange of ........whatever. Whether it adds to our security reserve (which I think I've heard it does), opens up or increases production of more refineries (which will all be permanent jobs, not to mention maintenance crews for the whole pipeline, don't know why everyone thinks there's only temp jobs), plus oil, plus there has to be some sort of "rent" for having a huge tube run through our whole country, plus some kind of diplomatic or economic exchange, and/or some combination of the above or unmentioned. I can't see our government w/ their hands in our pockets at every turn not getting theirs from this.

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

I happen to live next door to someone whose family farm is crossed by the first keystone line in Nebraska.They didn't want it on their land. The right of way was dug through the middle of the field rather than along an edge. It was buried and now is the responsibility of the farmer to monitor. There are no maintenance crews coming along checking it. Here's a map of the spills on the new line that have occurred already. http://dirtyoilsands.org/pipelinespills

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

Not a fan of eminent domain, but sometimes it's necessary.
As to the spills, of course we'd rather not have any. But it's funny that a nation so addicted to oil is always up in arms about the chance for pollution here. Let that be another country's problem, we just want the juice. And like I said, the biggest spill was about the size of a backyard pool. Not that much. We have 200,000 miles of pipeline running around this country every day and that's not a problem. But another 1000 miles is an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen? Please.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

What's in it is the big Gulf Coast refineries, some owned by Koch Brothers, are chomping at the bit to get their hands on the high profit margins involved in refining bitumen into gasoline. So what's in it for us? Refineries get very rich, we get more expensive gas, the gov't get's more tax dollars on each gallon of gas we buy.

Once again, it's hard to do a study on a revised pipeline route when it hasn't even been released. There's a lot of right-of-way finagling that has to be done before they can release it (read: MONEY, PLEASE).

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

Sense some bitterness there, Doug. Unless you're biking everywhere not sure it's properly placed. I mean, sure would be nice if oil could be produced, shipped, and marketed for free and all, but....

And you're getting more expensive gas one way or the other.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

Nobody has ever asked for free oil or ever received it. The big conversation around here ought to be about how Kansas has had the historically advantageous position of being geographically in close proximity to refineries and either big oil fields or a glut of oil stored, resulting in cheaper gas prices than most of the nation for as long as I can remember. This is probably going to be changing big time if this thing gets built. If it is not extended to the Gulf, these historical economic advantages would continue, at least for a while.

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

I really doubt it. Like I said earlier, the motivation behind the pipeline is to move the oversupply in the Midwest to refineries so they can sell it at international prices. It means billions per year. They're going to get it done one way or the other. Besides, the easiest and most obvious "tax" that seems inevitable to me is a hike on gas. Facing the debt we have, an increase at the pump seems a no-brainer ; it's national and indiscriminate. They don't have a lot of similar options.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

I'd have to agree that we're at the closing the door after the horses have run off stage in the game. I don't know who was paid off to get the section already built through Kansas so quietly, with no long term consequences discussed and eliminating all taxes in the all of the Kansas counties it goes through for 10 days, but it seems pretty apparent that they earned their bonuses.

jaywalker 2 years, 11 months ago

And therein lies the true problem with our "government." Things like that can be thrown by the populace like the most wicked knuckleball, there but not there, and then it's in the glove. Too late.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 11 months ago

(my comment refers to Phoenixman, not agnostik)

Gregory Newman 2 years, 11 months ago

Cronic lying Repugs!!! Ok repugs why on September 28, 2010 Senate Republicans successfully blocked the jobs outsourcing bill from coming to the Senate floor that Democrats claim would help keep American jobs from going overseas. The Democratic bill would have ended certain tax breaks for companies expanding overseas while giving new tax incentives to businesses bringing jobs home.

Then on October 6, 2010 Ron Paul and a few other Republicans called for the elimination of the Federal minimum wage yet they claim they are for the American people.

The Bible is fullfiling itself it says in the last days that there will be scoffers in the land; people would rather believe a lie than the truth.

Go ahead get a republican in there so they can implement that EB-5 visa then you will see millions of Communist Chinese nationals working your job while you are in prison for protesting.

President Obama is the buffer until you get some sense that a republican does not give a hoot about you. Quit being so racist and ignorant?

bd 2 years, 11 months ago

Geez! If all you Obomites knew what is carried in the thousands of existing underground pipelines, you would freak, gasoline, jet fuel etc.......

Build it!

Tea anyone??

bd 2 years, 11 months ago

Geez! If all you Obomites knew what is carried in the thousands of existing underground pipelines, you would freak, gasoline, jet fuel etc.......

Build it!

Tea anyone??

camper 2 years, 11 months ago

Couple of things here. Sorry for listing by number. It helps me organize my thoughts:

1) Extracting oil from tar sands is one of the most inefficient ways to produce fuel. This process takes an enourmous amount of energy. You are better off drilling for the the real stuff (excpet of course if like myself you would rather invest that energy to developing renewable fuel infrastructure).

2) The president of the Canadian company is positive about this and indicates a revised plan will be submitted. It appears that it is the politicians in Canada and the US that are up in arms.

3) While denying the pipeline seems anti-jobs, let's remember that this is a Canadian pipeline, and any job gain from this will be short-term. And since it is a Canadian company, I speculate that some of the contracting will go to Canadian companies and incidently much of the money.

4) If China gets the sand oil, so be it. This will not impact net supply and demand of oil. Ie China get more oil from Canada (+) and as a result will buy less oil from the Middle East (-).

5) Is in not wise (and conservative) to think this through and evaluate properly before proceeding?

deec 2 years, 11 months ago

Which is where it would have gone anyway. Canada can and will sell their oil to the highest bidder, cash on the barrel head. Map of pipeline spills 1990-June, 2011

Commenting has been disabled for this item.