Author Topic: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)  (Read 11167 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Big Green groups tell Obama to tell Canada to Drop Dead
Washington Examiner ^ | 02/05/11 | Mark Tapscott


________________________ ________________________ _________


A coalition of 89 Big Green environmental groups is urging President Obama to reject Canada's efforts to secure U.S. approval for construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would bring millions of barrels of oil extracted from Canadian shale formations.

In their letter, the anti-oil groups based their case on these arguments:

"When filled to capacity, Keystone XL would import up to 900,000 barrels per day of the world’s dirtiest form of oil and open a new economic drain to send more of our money to Canada.

"The pipeline would drive further destruction of Canada’s boreal forest, bring the threat of dangerous oil spills through America’s heartland, exacerbate air quality problems in communities surrounding the refineries that the pipeline would service, and significantly increase the carbon intensity of U.S. transportation fuel, which would undercut the emissions reductions achieved by increasing U.S. automobile efficiency.

"Keystone XL would transport some of the most corrosive and acidic oil in the world through sensitive lands and aquifers that provide drinking water and a way of life for millions.

"Already, TransCanada is using eminent domain against farmers and landowners who do not want a dangerous pipeline on their own properties. It’s time to stop giving a free pass to oil companies to increase profits at the expense of Americans.

"TransCanada’s own analysis even says the “strategy [with Keystone XL] would be intended to raise the price” of Canadian oil, especially in the Midwest, to increase oil company profits. America does not need this dangerous and expensive pipeline."

You can read the full letter here on Politico. It's release was timed to coincide with Canadian Prime Minister Stephan Harper's meeting Friday with President Obama. The issue of the pipeline approvals was expected to be a major topic of discussion at that gathering.

The letter from the anti-pipeline coalition drew a sharp response from Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, who accused the group of opposing the pipeline as part of their continuing efforts to force the costs of fossil fuel energy resources for American consumers higher:

“Canada is our nation’s number one trading partner. Tens of thousands of jobs in the U.S. have been created by development of our ally and neighbor Canada's oil sands.

"As our greatest supplier of petroleum products, we rely every day on the affordable, reliable energy that flows from the north to fuel our cars, heat our homes, and keep our economy running.

"While the Obama Administration refuses to issue permits here in the United States to develop our vast energy resources, relying on Canada for oil imports prevents our further dependence on more hostile foreign nations where civil unrest and dictatorships are more likely to disrupt production.

“Unfortunately, anti-energy groups here in the U.S. are treating Canada as if they are one of those hostile foreign nations. In their letter to President Obama, they urged him to prevent the Keystone XL Pipeline project from being built.

"Disregarding the mutually beneficial nature of the project, the well-paying jobs it would create, and the badly-needed economic boon it would provide for our suffering economy, these anti-energy activists condemn the pipeline as ‘dangerous’ and ‘unnecessary’.

"Instead, they claim that expanded mass transit and forcing Americans to buy electric cars is a more sensible solution.

“The opposition of environmentalists to the Keystone XL pipeline underscores their desire to increase the price of energy and increase our use of energy from unstable regimes.

"The Department of Energy recently reported that with the Keystone XL delivering oil to America, we could dramatically reduce our oil imports from the Middle East, which is exactly why environmentalists want to stop the Pipeline.

"We need affordable, reliable energy. The Keystone XL pipeline would provide that. We applaud Prime Minister Harper for standing up for Americans and trying to bolster our energy supplies.

"Now the only thing that stands in the way of providing affordable, reliable energy to Americans is the Obama administration and their continuing war on affordable, reliable energy.”

Expect this issue to take on major importance in the months ahead as the effects of the Obama moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for roughly a third of all U.S. oil and natural gas supplies, begins to be felt at the consumer level in the form of significantly higher gasoline prices.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Harper presses Obama to approve Keystone oilsands pipeline
  By Sheldon Alberts, Postmedia News February 4, 2011   StoryPhotos ( 2 )




The 3,456-kilometre Keystone Pipeline will transport crude oil from Hardisty, Alberta to U.S. Midwest markets.Photograph by:

Courtesy of TransCanada, Courtesy of TransCanada Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a personal pitch Friday for President Barack Obama to support a controversial $7 billion pipeline that could double the amount of Alberta oilsands crude exported to the United States.

Harper confirmed he pressed Obama on Calgary-based TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline during the two leaders' hour-long meeting at the White House.

The planned 3,200-kilometre pipeline, which would run from Hardisty, Alberta to the Gulf Coast of Texas, is currently in limbo as the State Department weighs whether to grant a presidential permit allowing construction to begin.

In a question-and-answer session with reporters, Harper was asked if he discussed Canada's role as a secure supplier of oil and whether he sought assurances the U.S. would look favourably on the Keystone XL project.


"Yes, we did discuss the matter you raised," Harper said.


Obama has been a vocal advocate of the U.S. developing "clean energy" alternatives to help wean America off foreign oil. In his state of the union address last month, he announced plans to include sharp increases in funding for clean energy technology in his upcoming budget.


But Harper said he impressed on Obama the "reality" that the U.S. will need far more energy than it can produce for "some time" to come.


"And the choice that the United States faces in all of these matters is whether to increase its capacity to accept such energy from the most secure, most stable and friendliest location it can possibly get that energy, which is Canada, or from other places that are not as secure, stable or friendly to the interests and values of the United States," Harper said.


Obama has not commented publicly on the project — and did not respond to the question asked Friday of Harper.


But the prime minister's message was precisely the one that Canadian and U.S. energy sector wanted him to deliver.


Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, wrote to Obama on Friday appealing to the U.S. president to approve Keystone XL for economic reasons, saying it could create 342,000 direct and indirect jobs between 2011 and 2015.


"Other countries are securing their energy futures and we need to do the same," Gerard wrote.


The pipeline has been on indefinite hold since last July, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency described a draft environmental study of the project as "inadequate" — raising concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the potential threat to sensitive ecosystems of a spill.


The State Department is now weighing whether to conduct a supplemental eco-study providing more detail on Keystone's emergency response plans, the chemical composition of the oilsands bitumen and potential damage to groundwater from pipeline leaks or spills.


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said last October that she was "inclined" to approve the pipeline. But she has since come under political pressure from more than four dozen fellow Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate to address environmental concerns.


In particular, lawmakers in Nebraska have suggested TransCanada change the route of the pipeline to avoid crossing over the vast Ogallala Aquifer, a major groundwater source for the Plains.


U.S. environmental groups have put Keystone XL at the centre of a national advertising campaign in the U.S. against oilsands imports, triggering a TV air war of sorts with TransCanada over the pipeline's value.


Outside the White House on Friday, a small group of environmentalists protested the pipeline by holding up signs depicting states along the Keystone XL route.


"What Prime Minister Harper failed to acknowledge is that tarsands oil is highly polluting," Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth U.S., said in a statement. "There are cleaner, safer ways to meet U.S. energy needs than to import this dirty oil from Canada via a dangerous pipeline through America's heartland."

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
U.S. will continue to rely on oilsands crude: report
  By Dina O'Meara, Postmedia News
February 1, 2011   



CALGARY - The United States will continue to burn Canadian oilsands crude whether TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline gets built or not, according to a new report.

The pipeline project, now waiting for presidential approval, has raised heated opposition from environmental groups arguing the $7-billion line would boost dependency on carbon-intensive fuel to the detriment of renewable energy.

However, the study by EnSys Energy, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, suggests Canada's so-called dirty oil will flow regardless of pipeline capacity or demand.

``Under any given pipeline scenario, reducing U.S. oil demand would result in reduction of oil imports from non-Canadian sources, especially the Middle East, with no material reduction in imports of (western Canadian) crude,'' the report said.

A greener scenario is also unlikely to come about as a result of reduced demand as the difference in lost barrels would be made up by sour grades of Middle East oil, the report said.

The Keystone project would ultimately ship up to 1.29 million barrels per day of diluted bitumen out of Alberta's oilsands, running from Hardisty in Alberta to refiners in the U.S. Midwest and then south to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Proponents of the 1,900 kilometre pipeline say it would provide secure supplies from a friendly nation to U.S. refiners facing reduced imports from Mexico and Venezuela.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis told reporters Wednesday he has been pushing to get the U.S. to approve the line and will continue to sell that message.

``We have to keep pushing on this project,'' he said at an oilsands conference. ``We firmly believe . . . it has impact on the energy security of North America. This is crucial for us.''

TransCanada came out with flags waving Wednesday after the State Department made the study public on its website, saying it supported the argument that Keystone XL will increase U.S. energy security.

``The release is really stating the obvious, that they import today a couple of million barrels a day of oil from Canada,'' said chief executive Russ Girling in an interview. ``And that's likely to continue for the foreseeable future.''

TransCanada still expects to receive approval for the pipeline by late summer, for completion by 2013, he said.

Should approval be delayed beyond the third quarter, TransCanada will be meeting with the shippers already committed to the line.

``We could probably accelerate certain aspects of construction, albeit at potentially higher costs,'' Girling said. ``But that's a conversation we'd have to have with our shippers, what they'd want us to do relative to cost versus in- service.''

Alberta oil producers could suffer from a glut of bitumen, pressuring revenues and prospects for new projects, if the Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast were delayed, analysts added.

``If there was no other market access (to the U.S.) and we're still moving forward as far as adding productive capacity, eventually we'll hit a bottleneck in the Midwest market,'' said Jackie Forrest, director of global oil for IHS CERA.

Forest noted that in 2007 Canadian heavy oil blends fell to a $40 discount to light oil while heavy crude from Mexico, with its better access to market, was selling at a much-better $15 discount.

``If we saturate that Midwest market, it may not be that extreme but we're going to see a severe discount for Canadian crudes,'' she said. ``That's going to hurt the economics of new upstream projects . . . that would change our outlook. We wouldn't be doubling in 10 years anymore.''

The lack of north-south access to markets could push forward another controversial project - Enbridge Inc.'s Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat on the B.C. coast.

Such a line could open new markets in Asia for Canadian oil, but is vehemently opposed by environmental and First Nations groups concerned about the impact of oil spills on land, rivers and the pristine northwestern coast.

Pradis supports the idea of a pipeline to take Canadian crude to the West Coast, currently under review by a joint panel.

``The bottom line is I think we have to seriously consider to expand our markets,'' he said. ``We have huge market opportunities when we see what is going on in China, we can be a major player.''

Not everyone believes the pipeline would cut U.S. oil imports from the Middle East. Energy economist Phil Verleger characterized the report's suggestion that those shipments could be replaced as a ``fairy tale.''

``The United States believes in free trade, and if the oil is priced right, we will get it from the Middle East,'' he said.

Calgary Herald

domeara(at)calgaryherald.com

- with files from Reuters

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News


________________________ ____________________


Environmentalists are no different than terrorists.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Proposed Canadian oilsands pipeline stirs U.S. debate
Calgary Herald ^ | February 7, 2011 | Sheldon Alberts


________________________ __



Visits by Canadian prime ministers to the White House rarely generate the kind of American media attention that Ottawa hopes for — too often Canada's message is lost in the dust kicked up by the crisis of the day confronting the president of the United States.

The trend for the most part continued on Friday, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama inked a border declaration that could establish a North American security perimeter. As Harper started talking about the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship, CNN cut away. Egypt dominated.

But one side issue on the Harper-Obama agenda has piqued the interest of political and business media in Washington — the pending U.S. decision on whether to approve Calgary-based TransCanada's $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline.

In its Sunday editions, the Washington Post published an editorial endorsing the oilsands project — putting the pipeline issue front and centre for the nation's politicians and policymakers on the morning of the Super Bowl.

"Say yes to this pipeline," the headline said.

The Post had little good to say about the product that would be transported through the 3,200-kilometre pipeline. It described Alberta's oilsands crude as "nasty" and stated its greenhouse-gas intensive extraction process makes it "82-per-cent dirtier" to produce than "more traditional oil" the U.S. buys.

"The sooner the world stops burning it, the better."

But notwithstanding the heavy carbon footprint left by oilsands production, the editorialists at the Post concluded "that's not much of a reason to kill the pipeline."

The Post noted that the U.S. already has "plenty" of unused pipeline capacity and Keystone XL itself wouldn't affect oilsands production until the next decade. In other words, stopping Keystone XL won't slow the flow of oilsands crude into the American market.

The newspaper argued the best way to reduce production of oilsands was to lower American demand, not by forbidding construction of a new pipeline from Canada.

As to environmental concerns — particularly the threat that an oil spill could devastate environmentally sensitive areas along the pipeline's route — the Post's editorialists said they can be overcome.

"The Obama administration should carefully consider them and adjust the project accordingly, ensuring it's done responsibly," the Post said.

Harper, for his part, told Obama the U.S. faces a "choice" between meeting the nation's demand for oil by importing from unstable sources in the Middle East or "from the most secure, most stable and friendliest location it can possibly get that energy, which is Canada."

The Washington Post's editorial follows a feature story the newspaper published last month on the high-stakes activism and lobbying that has enveloped the Keystone project. The Los Angeles Times dispatched a correspondent to Texas in January to report on opposition to Keystone XL among landowners along the pipeline's proposed path.

U.S. oil industry officials admit they're surprised with the level of public attention being paid to the forthcoming decision by the U.S. State Department on whether to grant TransCanada a presidential permit to build Keystone XL.

Cindy Schild, refining issues manager for the American Petroleum Institute, said in an interview she "can't remember" a pipeline proposal ever generating the kind of scrutiny that has attended TransCanada's proposal.

Some of that attention is direct fallout from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

But in large part, environmentalists can take credit for a well-organized, well-funded and persistent advertising and lobbying campaign against the Keystone XL project.

On the day of Harper's meeting with Obama, a coalition of 86 national, state and local environmental groups wrote the U.S. president urging his administration to reject the "dangerous and expensive" pipeline.

In their letter to Obama, the environmentalists appealed to the president's own values as a reason to reject the pipeline. Since entering the White House, Obama has placed a priority on boosting investments in clean energy to reduce U.S. reliance on fossil fuels.

"We appreciate your words and actions to move America toward a clean energy economy that will provide sustainable jobs and protect Americans from air and water pollution," said the letter, signed by the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others. "We strongly believe that approval of the permit for Keystone XL would put these priorities in jeopardy."

The Keystone XL project has been on indefinite hold since last July, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency described a draft environmental study of the project as "inadequate" — raising concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and the potential threat to sensitive ecosystems of a spill.

The State Department is now weighing whether to conduct a supplemental eco-study providing more detail on Keystone's emergency-response plans, the chemical composition of the oilsands bitumen and potential damage to groundwater from pipeline leaks or spills.


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
BUMP

Johnny_Blaze

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 170
I think there's enough ties between Canada and the U.S. Like we need anymore.
Just Do It

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Drill baby drill!

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
you betcha  ;D

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
you betcha  ;D

Gas goes to $5 a gallon - Palin will have an open line right into office when Barry sticks with his WTF energy policies.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
So let me get this right, obama is giving billions to brazil for drilling and tells them that he wants the US to be a major purchaser of their oil, ad is still leaving our allied Canada on hold for his.


Obama must hate white people. 


Either way -  FFFUUUBBBOOOO 

 

RUDE BUOY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6227
  • The Franchise
So let me get this right, obama is giving billions to brazil for drilling and tells them that he wants the US to be a major purchaser of their oil, ad is still leaving our allied Canada on hold for his.


Obama must hate white people. 


Either way -  FFFUUUBBBOOOO 

 
i live in Calgary Alberta we has plenty of oil pls come has our oil

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
This is more redistrubtion of wealth of white people to brown people by Obama, literally.     

RUDE BUOY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6227
  • The Franchise
This is more redistrubtion of wealth of white people to brown people by Obama, literally.     
so you suggest there is a form o favoritism skin wise with ole bama

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
so you suggest there is a form o favoritism skin wise with ole bama

Absofuckinglutely.  Obam hates white people and white western european culture. 

He even says he wants to do that.  "Previously Dispossessed peoples?"




 

RUDE BUOY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6227
  • The Franchise
Absofuckinglutely.  Obam hates white people and white western european culture. 

He even says he wants to do that.  "Previously Dispossessed peoples?"




 
so why would a strong white voting population in the us vote him in

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
1.  Liberal white guilt.
2.  Bush fatigue.
3.  General stupidity and gulibility of the public.
4.  College aged kids who have been brainwashed by years of indoctrination by leftist professors. 



RUDE BUOY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6227
  • The Franchise
1.  Liberal white guilt.
2.  Bush fatigue.
3.  General stupidity and gulibility of the public.
4.  College aged kids who have been brainwashed by years of indoctrination by leftist professors. 



don't forget the mother fucker was backed by Oprah as well i mean that alone

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama officials back oil pipeline from Canada
   

 
Source: Boston Globe

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s administration gave a crucial green light yesterday to a proposed 1,711-mile pipeline that would carry heavy oil from Canada across the Great Plains to terminals in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, saying the project would provide a secure source of energy without significant damage to the environment.

For many in the environmental movement, the administration’s apparent acceptance of the pipeline was yet another disappointment, after recent decisions to tentatively approve drilling in the Arctic Ocean, to open 20 million more acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil leasing and to delay several major air quality regulations. The movement is still smarting from the administration’s failure to push climate change legislation through Congress.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2... /


And in the London Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/26/obama...




DU is freaking out.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2011, 02:02:04 PM »
Because Obama isn't publicly revealing his strategy, he sucks.

At all times, all presidents should reveal their decisions to the public.

Obama should have told us taht he was going after bin laden BEFORE he did it so that we could discuss it on message boards and criticize him for it.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)
« Reply #20 on: September 12, 2011, 02:04:23 PM »
Because Obama isn't publicly revealing his strategy, he sucks.

He is weighing the political fallout from his communist fringe base vs. the economic destruction $4 gasoline is doing now. 

If the fallout is less from his radical commie nut base - he will veto it. 

If the fallout is greater from indes and a spike to $5 gasoline by next year - he will approve it. 



Its all politics to get this dirtbag a second term, not the needs of the nation.   

Dr Loomis

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
Re: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)
« Reply #21 on: September 12, 2011, 02:10:56 PM »
He is weighing the political fallout from his communist fringe base vs. the economic destruction $4 gasoline is doing now. 

If the fallout is less from his radical commie nut base - he will veto it. 

If the fallout is greater from indes and a spike to $5 gasoline by next year - he will approve it. 



Its all politics to get this dirtbag a second term, not the needs of the nation.   


It's rare I agree with you, but on this one yes

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)
« Reply #22 on: September 12, 2011, 03:43:53 PM »
Almost as amusing as Obama demanding that Congress pass the trade bills he's had sitting on his desk for years now. The same trade bills he never gave to Congress.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2011, 08:15:08 PM »
Over the past two weeks or so, several hundred protesters assembled outside the White House to oppose the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which is designed to transport bitumen produced from oil sands in Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast. During the protest, actor Daryl Hannah, climate scientist James Hansen, and author and activist Bill McKibben were among some 1,200 people who were arrested.

The protesters are hoping that President Obama will block the $7 billion pipeline. Their rationale: The pipeline will result in major increases in carbon-dioxide emissions, and therefore it must be stopped or catastrophic climate change will ensue. Protest as they might, a State Department report found that the pipeline will not have a major environmental impact.

Here are ten reasons why the Keystone pipeline will be built.

1. Canada’s oil production is rising, Mexico’s is falling. For many years, the U.S. has relied most heavily on crude imports from Mexico and Canada. Over the past ten years, Canadian crude production has risen by 600,000 barrels per day while Mexico’s has fallen by about that same amount. I’d rather have a reliable, long-term supply of crude from Canada than rely on overseas suppliers, whether they are part of OPEC or not. How long can we rely on the Canadian oil sands? Probably for decades. The resources there are estimated at over 100 billion barrels.

2. U.S. oil production is rising, but we will still need to import oil, and lots of it. Thanks to the shale revolution, domestic oil production could rise by as much as 2 million barrels per day over the next few years. That’s great news. But that increased production will not cover all of America’s needs. The more oil we can get from North America, the better.

3. Some of the oil moving through the Keystone XL will likely be exported, but that’s no reason to stop it. Critics of the pipeline, including Oil Change International, say that much of the oil in the line will “never reach U.S. drivers’ tanks.” That may be true. But U.S. oil exports are not new. American refineries are now exporting about 2.3 million barrels of refined products per day. Why? U.S. refiners are among the best in the world. They are importing lots of lower-grade crude oil and turning it into diesel and other fuels the world demands. Indeed, over the past six years, U.S. oil exports have more than doubled.

4. The pipeline will help America’s balance of trade. Refining is manufacturing. The U.S. is importing unfinished goods (in the form of Canadian crude), finishing them, and exporting them. That’s a good thing. 

5. U.S. oil demand may be relatively flat, but it’s not going away. Opponents of the pipeline claim that there’s no need to build the Keystone XL, because U.S. oil demand is sluggish. That’s true, but the U.S. will continue to need lots of oil for decades to come. Here’s the latest prediction from EIA: “U.S. consumption of liquid fuels, including both fossil fuels and biofuels, rises from about 18.8 million barrels per day in 2009 to 21.9 million barrels per day in 2035.”

6. Like it or not, oil is here to stay. U.S. oil consumption — as a percentage of its total primary energy consumption — now stands at about 37 percent. That’s the exact same percentage as in 1949. Given the amount of money that has been spent over the past six decades on reducing our dependence on oil, the hard fact is that petroleum is a miraculous substance. Nothing else comes close to oil when it comes to energy density, ease of handling, flexibility, convenience, cost, or scale.

7. We should be getting as much oil as we can from as close to home as we can. But we can no longer rely on Mexico. Pemex, the country’s national oil company, is not investing enough money in new drilling projects even though its most important field, Cantarell, is declining rapidly. Nor can Pemex count on getting more money from the Mexican government, which is spending heavily on its war against the drug cartels. Indeed, Mexico may already be a failed state. The cartels are under siege by the federal police and federal soldiers, but the slaughter just a few weeks ago of more than 50 people at a casino in Monterey shows that the narcos are still running wild. Canada, meanwhile, has an ultra-stable government. And given its enormous oil deposits, it’s apparent that Canada can be an essential player in America’s effort to secure reliable energy supplies.

8. The claims about the pipeline being the pivotal project with regard to carbon dioxide are not true. McKibben has claimed that if the Canadian oil sands are developed, “it is essentially game over for the climate.” Think what you like about carbon dioxide. The reality is that the global issue of carbon dioxide is no longer about the United States. Over the past decade, U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions fell by 1.7 percent. During that same time, period global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by a stunning 28.5 percent. Recall that over the past decade, Al Gore and his allies dominated the news media and much of the political discussion both in the U.S. and around the world. And yet during that same time frame, the countries of the world increased their use of energy by about 53 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Why? Because hundreds of millions of people all around the world are desperate to improve their lives by using more energy. And the cheapest, most abundant, most reliable source of energy is hydrocarbons.

The result: Carbon-dioxide emissions are soaring. The Kyoto agreement failed. Copenhagen failed. Cancun failed. The upcoming climate meeting to be held in Durban in December will fail, too. Why? The developing countries of the world need energy, and lots of it.

9. Demonize oil all you want, but coal is the real issue when it comes to carbon-dioxide emissions. Again, look at the numbers: Over the past decade, global coal use increased by 47 percent to about 71.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. During that same time period, oil use increased by 13 percent to about 87.3 million barrels per day. If Hansen, McKibben, and their allies want to protest projects that result in lots of carbon-dioxide emissions, they should be looking for coal mines and coal-fired generators, not oil pipelines. But protesting against coal means protesting against electricity generation, because most coal is used for that purpose. Over the past decade, electricity demand in Asia jumped by a whopping 85 percent. All over the world, people are turning on lights in their homes for the very first time. That trend will continue.

10.  Obama can’t afford to hand a major campaign issue to his Republican opponent. Earlier this month, Obama backed down on a proposed rules that would have dramatically tightened standards on ground-level ozone. He will approve the Keystone pipeline. Doing otherwise will hurt his chances of staying in the White House for another four years. And while he knows that some environmentalists won’t be happy, he also knows that few, if any, of them will abandon him for a candidate like Rick Perry.

— Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41760
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Canada begging Obama to approve oil pipeline (So far Obama has been silent)
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2011, 07:18:29 PM »
Skip to comments.

It’s Great for America So Naturally the Left Opposes It
RedState ^ | September 22, 2011 | Ben Howe
Posted on September 23, 2011 5:56:50 AM EDT by iowamark

Next week will begin public meetings regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline, which will be a pipeline connecting Alberta, Canada with Gulf Coast refineries.

As I’m sure you can expect, the freaks are going to come out of the woodworks.  The left is already giving them their talking points:

From the Climate Change® appeals -

While protecting the climate will ultimately require legislation and treaties, in the meantime it is essential to prevent the use of “extreme energy” fuels like the Alberta tar sands oil that will rapidly make climate change far worse.

To enviro-guilting™  -

Our water, our health, our environment and the natural beauty of a 1,700-mile swath of America need you.

To calls for law-breaking -

Now is the time for nonviolent civil disobedience to persuade President Obama to exercise his option to block the construction of the Keystone XL oil tar sands pipeline.

The left is in a tizzy over this.   And of course they would be because, as is the case with anything that is in anyway beneficial to our way of life, the left is programmed to be opposed.

The truth is, the Keystone Pipeline is a very good thing.  As Steve Maley pointed out some time ago:

The new line would increase the export capacity of the Keystone Pipeline (placed in service 2008) by 700,000 barrels of Canadian oil-sands oil per day.

What’s more, even Barack Obama’s own State Department, not known as being a bastion of conservative ideology, has agreed that the pipeline is safe, smart, and important to our country’s energy future.

From the State Department’s Environmental Impact Statement (emphasis mine):

“In consultation with PHMSA, DOS determined that incorporation of the Special Conditions would result in a Project that would have a degree of safety greater than any typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system under current regulations and a degree of safety along the entire length of the pipeline system that would be similar to that required in high consequence areas as defined in the regulations.” …

Also:

“As a result of these considerations, DOS does not regard the No Action Alternative to be preferable to the proposed Project. If the proposed Project is not implemented, Canadian producers would seek alternative transportation systems to move oil to markets other than the U.S.  Several projects have been proposed to transport crude oil out of using pipelines to Canadian ports.  Whether or not the proposed Project is implemented, Canadian producers would seek alternative transportation systems to move oil to markets other than the U.S.  Several projects have been proposed to transport crude oil out of the oil sands area of Alberta using pipelines to Canadian ports. …”

So the State Department of arguably the most environmentally coo-coo president of all time, a president who is more than happy to shut down the entire coal industry and regulate the air we exhale, thinks this project is safe and a-ok.

That should tell you something about just how out of touch you have to be to think this would be harmful.

Maley also noted a handful of the benefits that environmentalists either aren’t thinking about or just don’t care about:

Opponents of the Keystone XL project might think they’re saving the environment by blocking the line. Not so.

Without the line, Canadians will sell the oil to the Chinese, who will export the oil in tankers.
Without the line, American imports will necessarily increase. More tankers.
Unlike tanker spills, pipeline spills are of limited volume and limited environmental impact. Pipelines are the most efficient and cleanest way to move volumes of oil.
But just in case you need more convincing, here’s some more benefits courtesy of the Consumer Energy Alliance:

Will create over 20,000 high wage manufacturing and construction jobs
Will contribute over $20 billion to the U.S. economy
Will deliver over 700,000 barrels of American and Canadian crude to refineries in the Gulf Coast to help America with the over 19 million barrels of oil a day that we consume
In short, this is an environmentally friendly, completely safe, job creating, energy increasing pipeline that all in all is a great deal for America.  Putting aside my shock that President Obama looks to actually sign its approval, it’s no surprise at all to see the unhinged left would have a problem with something that’s that good for our way of life.