Obama faces defeat in Keystone

[HomeInspect]

York: Obama faces defeat on Keystone pipeline | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

 

[waltky]

NYT wants to keep gas prices high...

NYT to Obama: Prohibit Pipeline to Choke-Off Oil Supply
March 11, 2013 - The New York Times published an editorial on Sunday calling on President Barack Obama to prohibit construction of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would bring oil to the United States from Canada--but not to protect a fragile landscape in Nebraska or anywhere else in the United States.

The reason Obama should prohibit the pipeline, according to the Times, is to begin choking off America’s oil supply. The paper thinks this is a good thing. The Times was responding to a draft environmental impact statement on the latest version of the pipeline proposal that the State Department released a week ago. A year ago, the State Department rejected an earlier proposal from TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, because the route the company proposed at that time would have traversed the Sand Hills of Nebraska. TransCanada subsequently changed the route, and the State Department is now signaling that this new route would not cause significant environmental problems.

Under executive orders issued by past administrations, the president has assumed authority to approve pipelines that cross the international borders of the United States. The State Department carries out that authority. “The 875-mile pipeline avoids the route of an earlier proposal that traversed the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills of Nebraska and threatened an important aquifer,” writes the Times. “It would carry 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta to pipelines in the United States and then onward to refineries on the Gulf Coast.”

Citing the State Department report, the Times says that refining and using the Canadian oil the pipeline would annually carry would yield about 17 percent more “greenhouse gas emissions” than the average oil now used in the United States. “And by focusing on the annual figure, it fails to consider the cumulative year-after-year effect of steadily increasing production from a deposit that is estimated to hold 170 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered with today’s technology and may hold 10 times that amount altogether,” said the Times.

In the paper’s view, this is the real problem: The pipeline will increase the supply of oil in the marketplace. According to the New York Times, President Obama should use the force of government to stop that. “Supporters of the pipeline have argued that this is oil from a friendly country and that Canada will sell it anyway,” said the Times. “We hope Mr. Obama will see the flaw in this argument. Saying no to the pipeline will not stop Canada from developing the tar sands, but it will force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself. And that will require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent. At the very least, saying no to the Keystone XL will slow down plans to triple tar sands production from just under two million barrels a day now to six million barrels a day by 2030.”

Less oil, of course, equals higher gasoline prices. In the New York Times’s view, America’s “appetite for oil” must be curtailed--and Obama can help do that by stopping the pipeline. “In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse,” said the Times. “But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it.” When Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, the average price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline was about $1.79, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In January 2013, the average price of a gallon of unleaded was about $3.31

NYT to Obama: Prohibit Pipeline to Choke-Off Oil Supply | CNS News

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - the longer it goes, the more it gonna cost...

TransCanada: Keystone XL to be delayed
April 26, 2013 — The chief executive of TransCanada Corp. said Friday the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline will be in service months later than expected and cost more as it continues to await U.S. government approval.

TransCanada had been sticking to its late 2014 or early 2015 start-up target, but the regulatory process has dragged on. It is now looking at a mid to late-2015 start-up. CEO Russ Girling noted on a conference call with analysts detailing first quarter results that the controversial pipeline is in its 67th month of the approval process. “Unfortunately, continued delays ... have an impact on both our schedule and our costs. Based on our current assessment of timing of the permit we would currently anticipate the pipeline could become operational in the second half of 2015,” Girling said.

The Calgary, Alberta-based company said the $5.3 billion cost estimate will increase depending on the timing of the permit. The Obama administration is considering whether to approve the pipeline, which would carry 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta across six U.S. states to the Texas Gulf Coast. A decision is expected this summer.

The pipeline has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate over climate change. Republicans and business and labor groups have urged the Obama administration to approve the pipeline as a source of much-needed jobs and a step toward North American energy independence. Environmental groups have been pressuring President Barack Obama to reject the pipeline, saying it would carry “dirty oil” that contributes to global warming. They also worry about a spill. “The project very much remains in the interest of the United States and we remain of confident that it will receive regulatory approval and be constructed,” Girling said.

Obama’s initial rejection of the pipeline last year went over badly in Canada, which relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of its energy exports. The pipeline is critical to Canada, which needs infrastructure in place to export its growing oil sands production from northern Alberta. The region has the world’s third largest oil reserves, with 170 billion barrels of proven reserves.

TransCanada: Keystone XL to be delayed - Chicago Sun-Times

 

[Mr. H.]

It is perplexing as to why the Obama administration would gleefully approve the Alberta Clipper pipeline project in 2009, yet drag its feet with the Keystone XL.

Read for yourself from the U.S. Department of State website...

Permit for Alberta Clipper Pipeline Issued

Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.

You might suggest the difference is that Keystone crosses "sensitive" lands which include the Ogallala Aquifer. Here's an interesting bit about that aquifer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/opinion/polluting-the-ogallala-aquifer.html?_r=0

It seems that the agriculture industry has some serious questions to answer...

Chemicals trickle inexorably downward with each rainfall or application of irrigation water, creating a situation that the Geological Survey has referred to as “creeping normalcy.” Over the coming decades, it warned, contaminants will continue to creep down into the aquifer, and more (irrigation) wells will exceed federal safety levels.

 

[Care4all]

Why should us Americans put in a pipeline for Canadian businesses to get Canadian oil to the Gulf of mexico so to export this Canadian oil to OVERSEAS customers? The oil isn't even for us to buy and use from all that I have read on it? Is this true?

I mean, WHY should our State gvts be allowed to use Eminent Domain to take our property away from us, so that a pipeline for Canadian businesses can be built to the Gulf so it can be shipped around the world from there?

 

[Mr. H.]

Why should us Americans put in a pipeline for Canadian businesses to get Canadian oil to the Gulf of mexico so to export this Canadian oil to OVERSEAS customers? The oil isn't even for us to buy and use from all that I have read on it? Is this true?

I mean, WHY should our State gvts be allowed to use Eminent Domain to take our property away from us, so that a pipeline for Canadian businesses can be built to the Gulf so it can be shipped around the world from there?

Ma'am, that Canadian oil will be fractionated into lots of products that are in high demand overseas, and that demand a hefty profit. Diesel fuel, heating oil, bunker fuels. The heavy stuff.

Why should we Americans be denied the jobs it will take to build the infrastructure needed to accomplish such tasks? And why should America itself be denied the dollars that such activity will garnish?

Lastly, why is agriculture allowed to export tens of millions of metric tons of grains each year... while you and I pay record prices for groceries?

Is not what's good for the ag goose also good for the petro goose?