Obama to veto Keystone Pipeline today. - IS THERE ANY DOUBT LEFT?

[Soul Crusher]

Lol, but he'll the country with a straight face that he's helping to decrease our dependancy on foreign oil

Maybe by that, he means he's going to run the country so far into the ground that we wont need oil.
Or maybe he just plans to flat out ban oil so that he can keep his enviro nazi friends.

Bingo -  I have learned exactly who to read into thugbama by now.   You are exactly right. 


With everyone jobless and imobile due to being broke they wont need as much energy for transportation.   

[tonymctones]

A controversial deal signed by a B.C. First Nation official with Enbridge on the Northern Gateway pipeline project has been rejected in a vote by aboriginal leaders.

A meeting of 36 Gitxsan hereditary chiefs Tuesday officially rejected the agreement signed by Gitxsan Treaty Society negotiator Elmer Derrick in December.


The pipeline to China is a "pipe dream"

there is a big difference in the way of thinking between china and its leadership and the US and our current leadershit KC.

China wants the pipeline to go through for them, do you honestly think obama wants this pipeline to go through for the US?

Honestly?

[Soul Crusher]

http://patdollard.com/2012/01/boehner-savages-obama-for-approving-solyndra-but-rejecting-keystone



Boom. 

[Soul Crusher]

In Keystone XL Rejection, We See Two Americas At War With Each Other
Forbes ^ | 1/18/2012 @ 7:16PM | Joel Kotkin
Posted on January 18, 2012 9:53:21 PM EST by dila813

America has two basic economies, and the division increasingly defines its politics. One, concentrated on the coasts and in college towns, focuses on the business of images, digits and transactions. The other, located largely in the southeast, Texas and the Heartland, makes its living in more traditional industries, from agriculture and manufacturing to fossil fuel development.

Traditionally these two economies coexisted without interfering with the progress of the other. Wealthier gentry-dominated regions generally eschewed getting their hands dirty so that they could maintain the amenities that draw the so-called creative class and affluent trustifarians. The more traditionally based regions focused, largely uninhibited, on their core businesses, and often used the income to diversify their economies into higher-value added fields.

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...

[Fury]

The EnviroNazis won't be satisfied until we all live by candlelight. Of course we'll all freeze to death as we won't be anle to cut down trees, either.

[GigantorX]

We need energy but we, the people, would see none of the oil flowing through the extended pipeline. The oil in the Keystone XL would be destined for Latin America and China. Plus, I did a bit of reading on The Oil Drum and was able to find that the company the would build it didn't have the best safety record.

If the above is true then we, the people, would take ALL of the risk and get none of the reward.

[Soul Crusher]

'We're Complete Fools' for Cancelling Pipeline: Pickens
CNBC ^ | January 18, 2012 | Margo D. Beller



"We're complete fools" for scuttling the Keystone Pipeline because it would've brought energy security to the U.S., well-known oilman T. Boone Pickens told CNBC Wednesday.

The chairman of BP Capital Management spoke after the Obama administration rejected TransCanada's $7 billion pipeline project running from the western province of Alberta to Houston.




(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[kcballer]

We need energy but we, the people, would see none of the oil flowing through the extended pipeline. The oil in the Keystone XL would be destined for Latin America and China. Plus, I did a bit of reading on The Oil Drum and was able to find that the company the would build it didn't have the best safety record.

If the above is true then we, the people, would take ALL of the risk and get none of the reward.

Exactly.  Just because it's refined and flowing through the US doesn't mean it will be cheaper, or even used by US consumers. 

[Soul Crusher]

Exactly.  Just because it's refined and flowing through the US doesn't mean it will be cheaper, or even used by US consumers. 

Its called security and independence.  What happens if ME war breaks out or iran blows up or nigeria or some bs?   What do we do? 

[kcballer]

Its called security and independence.  What happens if ME war breaks out or iran blows up or nigeria or some bs?   What do we do? 

What we currently do. Import Canadian oil. 

[MCWAY]

And you think that they wont find a way around that? The difference being, our home enviro-nazis will never let that Pipeline go across our soil if they have their way.
The Canadians know this. And they will not allow all that money to go to waste.

I feel like youre really fumbling around for a way to not make this a big deal, when everything Ive read everything says the same thing - this is a clusterfuck of epic proportions, and since Obama is far too deep in "big greens" asshole, I dont see any different outcomes later on down the road.

A crude, but deadly accurate, description.

[GigantorX]

'We're Complete Fools' for Cancelling Pipeline: Pickens
CNBC ^ | January 18, 2012 | Margo D. Beller



"We're complete fools" for scuttling the Keystone Pipeline because it would've brought energy security to the U.S., well-known oilman T. Boone Pickens told CNBC Wednesday.

The chairman of BP Capital Management spoke after the Obama administration rejected TransCanada's $7 billion pipeline project running from the western province of Alberta to Houston.




(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't trust Pickens. His huge wind farm play years ago complete with commercials..."Hello, I'm T Boone Pickens and I'm an oilman...." was to control the land to get the aquifers and get tons and tons of tax payer cash and his nat gas play involving converting our truck fleet to nat gas (which isn't a bad idea, not sure how feasible) was also a tax payer cash play...and now he is pimping the XL. Look behind the curtain when it comes to players like him and Buffet. 

Again, we wouldn't see a drop of that oil, but our environment, water, crops etc would take all the risk and again the company that would be building it doesn't have the best safety record. The Canadian oil will always be there for us, there is time to chart a safer course for the pipeline anyways.

I would usually come down on the Pro side of the pipeline but not this time. To much shady business involved.

[Soul Crusher]

From a strickly political point of view - this shows obama is so full of shit its not funny.   Both sides wanted this, fuck, even the State Department wanted this originally, and now obama goes against what everyone wants and he complains no one wants to work with him? 

[Soul Crusher]

Dakotas officials unhappy with Keystone pipeline decision
 
Share  Posted: Jan 18, 2012, 3:47 pm
Associated Press

BISMARCK, N.D. — Officials in North Dakota and South Dakota say they are disappointed President Barack Obama's rejection of an application for an oil pipeline from Canada to Texas.


Obama said Wednesday an arbitrary deadline set by Republican lawmakers in a recent tax bill gave his administration too little time for a full review of the $7 billion Keystone XL project.

Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota says he believes the pipeline should be built and that it's in the national interest.

Republican South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard says the pipeline would create thousands of jobs and help strengthen the nation's economy and energy security.
 
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1482816

[Soul Crusher]

A crude keystone calculation
Last Updated: 12:07 AM, January 19, 2012




Who knows how many potential jobs President Obama killed yesterday when he bowed to hard-core environmental activists and put an indefinite hold on the mammoth Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Beyond doubt, it was a lot.

At the same time, he planted a big wet one on his greenie base — which he’ll need to hold on to if he’s to win re-election.

Obviously, he has his priorities.

To be sure, the hold Obama placed on Keystone is temporary — but long enough to get past November.

The 1,700-mile pipeline would carry crude oil from the Canadian province of Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries in Texas.

Frustrated with a review process that has already taken more than three years, congressional Republicans last month included a Feb. 21 deadline in their support for the payroll-tax-cut extension.

Now, Obama and the State Department — which must approve international deals — have given their answer: Nope.

That will make the left very happy. But, again, it does nothing for job-creation and — more important over the long term — does even less for energy independence.

(Whatever happened to Obama’s promise to find ways to wean the nation off of Middle Eastern oil, anyway?)

Moreover, it’s an open invitation to Canada to instead build the pipeline for another major oil consumer — China.

Ironically, Obama’s announcement came just a day after his own Council on Jobs and Competitiveness called for an “all-in approach” to energy — including expanded oil and gas drilling and expediting new projects.

“The jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of jobs,” the council’s report concluded. Ya think?

But apparently, no one in the White House was paying attention — or cares.

Yes, Obama’s decision means that the TransCanada company can submit a new Keystone proposal with a new route through Nebraska.

And who knows — maybe Obama will even approve it.

Once the election is over, anyway.

After all, he only promised hope and change — not political courage.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/crude_keystone_calculation_ZexagCTQC7IqdUee7mE06L#ixzz1jw8gv7iB

[Soul Crusher]

         
Email   Print   17Comments   Share
January 20, 2012
Keystone Madness
By Robert Samuelson
WASHINGTON -- President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity. It isn't often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and -- beyond the symbolism -- won't even advance the goals of the groups that demanded it. All it tells us is that Obama is so obsessed with his re-election that, through some sort of political calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporters will improve his chances.

Aside from the political and public relations victory, environmentalists won't get much. Stopping the pipeline won't halt the development of tar sands, to which the Canadian government is committed; therefore, there will be little effect on global warming emissions. Indeed, Obama's decision might add to them. If Canada builds a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific for export to Asia, moving all that oil across the ocean by tanker will create extra emissions. There will also be the risk of added spills.


 
Now consider how Obama's decision hurts the United States. For starters, it insults and antagonizes a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on other issues will be harder. Next, it threatens a large source of relatively secure oil that, combined with new discoveries in the United States, could reduce (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

Finally, Obama's decision forgoes all the project's jobs. There's some dispute over the magnitude. Project sponsor TransCanada claims 20,000, split between construction (13,000) and manufacturing (7,000) of everything from pumps to control equipment. Apparently, this refers to "job years," meaning one job for one year. If so, the actual number of jobs would be about half that spread over two years. Whatever the figure, it's in the thousands and important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans could repudiate such a huge supply of nearby energy. There's no guarantee that tar-sands oil will go to China; pipelines to the Pacific would have to be built. But it creates the possibility when the oil's natural market is the United States.

There are three things to remember about Keystone and U.S. energy policy.

First, we're going to use lots of oil for a long time. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that American oil consumption will increase 4 percent between 2009 and 2035. The increase occurs despite highly optimistic assumptions about vehicle fuel efficiency and bio-fuels. But a larger population (390 million in 2035 versus 308 million in 2009) and more driving per vehicle offset savings.

The more oil we produce domestically and import from neighbors, the more we're insulated from dramatic interruptions of global supplies. After the United States, Canada is the most dependable source of oil -- or was until Obama's decision.

Second, barring major technological breakthroughs, emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, will rise for similar reasons. The EIA projects that America's CO2 emissions will increase by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035. (The EIA is updating its projections, but the main trends aren't likely to change dramatically.) Stopping Canadian tar-sands development, were that possible, wouldn't affect these emissions.

Finally, even if -- as Keystone critics argue -- some Canadian oil were refined in the United States and then exported, this would be a good thing. The exports would probably go mostly to Latin America. They would keep well-paid industrial jobs (yes, refining) in the United States and reduce our trade deficit in oil, which exceeded $300 billion in 2011.

By law, Obama's decision was supposed to reflect "the national interest." His standard was his political interest. The State Department had spent three years evaluating Keystone and appeared ready to approve the project by year-end 2011. Then the administration, citing opposition to the pipeline's route in Nebraska, reversed course and postponed a decision to 2013 -- after the election.

Now, reacting to a congressional deadline to decide, Obama rejected the proposal. But he also suggested that a new application with a modified Nebraska route -- already being negotiated -- might be approved, after the election. So the sop tossed to the environmentalists could be temporary. The cynicism is breathtaking. 

Copyright 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

[Soul Crusher]

Free Republic
Browse · Search   Pings · Mail   News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

The Land of Obama Make-Believe
Townhall.com ^ | January 20, 2012 | Michelle Malkin
Posted on January 20, 2012 7:03:04 AM EST by Kaslin

Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals.

_And where'd he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain't child's play, you know.

Obama touted a White House foreign tourism initiative on Thursday with Cinderella's castle as his backdrop. "America is open for business," he proclaimed chirpily to the rest of the globe.

Tell that to the Keystone managers in Canada whom Obama and his State Department rebuffed -- after years of planning and review -- in order to appease militant environmentalists and Hollywood celebs. The Animatronic Divider robotically lambasted Republicans for pushing him to make a decision this week. But Senate and House Democrats issued the sharpest rebukes to White House obstructionism:

"President Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a major setback for the American economy, American workers, and America's energy independence," Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said.

"The rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline permit is a missed opportunity to drastically turn this economy around. This pipeline would have created thousands of new jobs and helped to ensure our energy independence," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lamented.

"This delay is just playing politics with American jobs and American energy security," Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, pointed out.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle scratched their heads as the job-snuffer-in-chief bolted to Orlando's fantasyland to promote economic growth. But there's no more fitting place on Earth for the man whose escapist administration occupies the land of make-believe and no consequences. (Bonus moment: Obama got to shake hands with Mickey Mouse, who infamously turned up on a Florida ACORN voter registration form in 2008. Constituent outreach at its most surreal.)

On the very same day he quashed Keystone, Obama released his first campaign ad of 2012 -- hyping his stellar record on energy jobs. It's Opposite Day at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 365 days a year. Even more comically, the ad touted his exemplary ethics record by quoting a moldy three-year-old endorsement from left-leaning Politifact. And as bipartisan Capitol Hill outrage over the half-billion-dollar Solyndra solar stimulus bust mounts, Obama had the nerve to sprinkle his inaugural campaign spot with -- wait for it -- solar panels.

Instead of supporting new infrastructure jobs in America through an energy independence-enhancing project that has bipartisan legislative support on Capitol Hill, the president flew to Disney World to peddle looser visa restrictions in China and Brazil by executive order. He also will expand the Visa Waiver Program (a security loophole-ridden program that was suspended temporarily after the 9/11 terrorist attacks) to speed foreign travel.

In case anyone needs reminding, it was the relentless drive of the tourism industry and kowtowing State Department bureaucrats that led to the Bush-era Visa Express Program, which relaxed visa policies, eliminated in-person consulate interviews and opened the door to the 9/11 hijackers. Brazil is just the latest base for al-Qaida and other Islamic jihadi groups. It does not consider Hezbollah or Hamas terrorist groups, and it disbanded its anti-terrorism force in 2009.

The Visa Waiver Program and other efforts to expedite the tourist visa process also pose continuing security risks because -- as the Government Accountability Office itself admitted last year -- there is still no comprehensive, systematic way to track the 70 million-plus foreign visitors who enter the country on tourist and other short-term visas. Indeed, half of the nation's estimated 20 million illegal aliens are visa overstayers.

How many of the new Disney foreign tourists whom Obama is touting as America's economic salvation will fail to return to their home countries after their Obama World visas expire? We'll likely never know. And Team Obama doesn't care.

In his opening campaign ad salvo, Obama accuses his opponents of being "untethered to facts." But this is an administration that believes lowering visa standards and risking homeland security to pump up Disney foreign tourism is a better path to economic recovery than supporting direct American job creation and enhancing energy security. Like the Disney characters he posed with this week, our cartoonish president is wholly untethered to reality.

[Soul Crusher]

Canada Pledges to Sell Oil to Asia After Obama Rejects Keystone Pipeline
By Theophilos Argitis and Jeremy Van Loon - Jan 19, 2012 2:14 PM ET .
 


Obama’s Keystone Pipeline Rejection Sets Up Campaign Battle  Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg


Laborers' International Union of North America hold up signs in support of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in Washington, D.C.

Laborers' International Union of North America hold up signs in support of the Keystone XL pipeline during a rally in Washington, D.C. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
 
(Bloomberg) -- Chris Huntington, partner at New Energy Advisors, and Sabrina Willmer and Jeff Green of Bloomberg News talk about President Barack Obama's decision to deny a permit for TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL Pipeline. They also talk about the prospects for a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. private-equity fund dedicated to energy. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television's "Taking Stock."
Obama’s Keystone Denial Prompts Canada to Look to China 


Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's decision to reject a permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. Photo: Pete Marovich/Getty Images

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed disappointment with President Barack Obama's decision to reject a permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. Photo: Pete Marovich/Getty Images
.President Barack Obama’s decision yesterday to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to turn to China for oil exports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports,” according to details provided by Harper’s office. Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

The “decision by the Obama administration underlines the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets, including the growing Asian market,” Oliver told reporters in Ottawa.

Currently, 99 percent of Canada’s crude exports go to the U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a “superpower” in global energy markets.

Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Most of Canada’s crude is produced from oil-sands deposits in the landlocked province of Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

“I am sure that if the oil sands production is not used in the United States, they will be used in other countries,” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said in an interview before a speech at Imperial College in London today.

‘Profound Disappointment’
Harper “expressed his profound disappointment with the news,” according to the statement, which added that Obama told Harper the rejection was not based on the project’s merit and that the company is free to re-apply.

Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc. to move crude from Alberta’s oil sands to British Columbia’s coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets.

Environmentalists and Canadian opposition lawmakers welcomed the Obama administration’s decision. Megan Leslie, a lawmaker for the opposition New Democratic Party, said the Keystone pipeline project was harmful to Canada’s energy security.

“What I’m opposed to is continuing the unchecked expansion of the oil sands,” Leslie said by telephone.

New Flashpoint
Enbridge’s pipeline may now become the new flashpoint between Harper and the opposition. Harper has said building the capacity to sell the country’s oil to Asian markets is in the national interest, and the government will review regulatory- approval rules for new energy projects so they can be done more quickly. Harper has also said he will look more closely into complaints that “foreign money” is being used to overload the regulatory process.

“We have to have processes in Canada that come to a decision in a reasonable amount of time, and processes that cannot be hijacked,” Harper said at a press conference Jan. 6 in Edmonton.

The Keystone decision is the latest of several U.S. moves that have irked Canadian policy makers. Canada objected to “Buy American” provisions in the Obama administration’s $447 billion jobs bill that was blocked by Republicans in Congress, as well as the restoration of a $5.50 fee on Canadian travelers arriving in the U.S. by plane or ship.

Approval of Keystone is a “no-brainer,” Harper said in a Sept. 21 interview with Bloomberg.

Cornerstone of Development
Yesterday’s rejection “certainly introduces new uncertainties into the economic relationship,” said David Pumphrey, deputy director of the energy and national security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “This is a cornerstone of economic development for the country.”

The denial came before a Feb. 21 deadline set by Congress after Obama postponed a decision in November. TransCanada said the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) project would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Alberta’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf coast, crossing six U.S. states and creating 20,000 jobs.

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy,” Obama said today in a statement. “We will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.”

Canadian policy makers said they remain optimistic TransCanada will eventually be able to proceed.

Still Supporting
Alberta Premier Alison Redford said in a press conference in Edmonton that it is still “entirely possible” the pipeline will be built and said it was good news that TransCanada planned to apply again.

Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.

“We strongly believe that Keystone’s in the best interests of both countries,” he said. “We’ll continue to be an active supporter of the project.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Theophilos Argitis in Ottawa at targitis@bloomberg.net; Jeremy van Loon in Calgary at jvanloon@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Chris Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net; David Scanlan at dscanlan@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/canada-pledges-to-sell-oil-to-asia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html

[Soul Crusher]

TransCanada considers new plans: Keystone pipeline may be built in stages in U.S. first
Calgary Herald ^ | January 20, 2012 | Rebecca Penty



TransCanada Corp. is considering building U.S. portions of its Keystone XL pipeline and later seeking approval of an Alberta link to circumvent the Obama administration's rejection of the $7-billion project.

There is no requirement for a presidential permit to lay pipe anywhere in the United States, provided the line doesn't extend across the border into Canada.

On the table is a segment between the oversupplied oil storage hub of Cushing, Okla., and Gulf Coast refining centres in Texas, as well as a longer line from Montana to the Gulf Coast, executives said Thursday.

"I think that clearly, with yesterday's decision, we are now open to amending or changing our plans to building this in segments," TransCanada chief executive Russ Girling told an investor conference in Whistler, B.C. "As we've said before, that's dependent on the interest of our shippers in doing that."

Building an Oklahoma-to-Texas section alone would cost TransCanada $2 billion, said Girling, who told investors the company has already spent $1.9 billion on the Keystone XL project.


(Excerpt) Read more at calgaryherald.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Soul Crusher]

Keystone XL: Voting for the Stone Age

Yesterday, as expected, President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, a private infrastructure project meant to bring Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries.  In doing so, he was not quibbling over the pipeline’s route, but pandering to a group of his supporters who want nothing so much as to roll back modern industrial society.

Ostensibly, Obama made the decision to block the pipeline because of concern over contamination of the Ogallala Reservoir, a vast underground water source that makes much of Midwestern agriculture possible.  And I am sure there are folks whose concerns are narrowly about the Ogallala or other enivornmental and NIMBY concerns along the proposed route.   But the US has tens of thousands of miles of petroleum pipelines, many cris-crossing this same general area.  There is nothing unprecedented or unmanageable about this particular line.  Had these routing issues been the actual problem, the Obama Administration could easily have approved the line with conditions or route modifications.

But local environmental concerns were merely the public pretext for a decision that is much more troubling.   Opposition to the pipeline began to rally among radical environmental groups long before any of them had the first clue about the pipeline route.  The real goal of these groups was not to protect water along the pipeline route, but to make it impossible to develop new sources of oil in Canada.  Unable to stop Canadian oil drilling and tar sand extraction programs, environmental groups are now trying to block any pipeline that is proposed out of the oil producing regions.

Some would argue that these opponents aren’t anti-energy, they just want to shift energy use from fossil fuels to “green” energy like wind and solar.  This is either disingenuous or unbelievably naive.   The Keystone XL pipeline would have single-handedly carried more energy to the United States than the sum of all the green energy projects funded by the Obama Administration.  And it would have done so entirely with private  funds rather than the Administrations increasingly ill-fated and ham-handed attempts at venture capitalism with taxpayer funds.  The fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, opposing fossil fuels is equivalent to opposing energy use.

The Keystone decision only makes sense in the context of a general push to limit energy supply and roll back our industrial economy and all its amazing gifts.  Part and parcel of this same effort has been the growing opposition to natural gas fracking.  Fracking is an underground procedure that has been used safely and succesfully for decades to extend the life of older oil wells.  Fracking is one reason that serial predictions of older fields “running out of oil” have been repeatedly incorrect.

Recently, though, fracking has presented the promise of substantially inreasing our domestic energy supply by opening up new shale formations previously thought to be impossible to produce.  With this new promise, anti-growth, anti-energy environmentalists have suddenly taken notice, and are gearing up to try to kill this exciting (and ironically quite clean) new energy source.

Both the opposition to the pipeline and fracking share a quasi-irrational (“I’m blogging against the modern economy from my iPhone”), almost aesthetic distaste for energy production, the modern industrial economy, and capitalism itself.    Fortunately, though, a quest for a sort of Medieval socialism does not play well with American voters, so opponents cast about for logical-sounding arguments that focus-group better.  My guess is that the appeal of inexpensive, domestically-sourced energy will be strong enough to overcome these attacks.

First postscript: Does anyone doubt that had this exact same route been for high speed rail, rather than a pipeline, it would already have been approved and President Obama likely would have been proposing to throw a pile of taxpayer money at it to boot?  This despite the fact that high-speed rail almost certainly has more environmental negatives than an underground  pipeline.  The route has always been a red herring — the real goal is reducing energy supply.

Second postscript: The “science” behind the opposition to fracking has been amazingly similar to that behind global warming alarmism.  Global warming supporters count on ignorance when they try to blame modern droughts on CO2, hoping folks will forget much worse droughts in the 1930′s when Co2 was at a supposedly “safe” level.  Similarly, there have been examples of methane in drinking water for decades, but because this fact was never widely publicized, fracking opponents can count on this ignorance to try to blame this long-existing effect on recent fracking.

Third postscript: I find the contrast between the California High Speed Rail line and the Keystone XL pipeline to be simply amazing.  In the case of the rail line, the Obama administration continues to try to perform CPR on an infrastructure project that makes no sense, is way to costly, and will likely bankrupt the state of California with all the taxpayer money required.  In the case of the pipeline, the Obama administration killed a private infrastructure project that is widely supported, covers its own costs, and requires no taxpayer money.  I wonder where Thomas Friedman is — does he still lament our inability to do large infrastructure projects of the kind President Obama just blocked, or does he only support large state-funded triumphal projects?  This seems yet another example of what I called the tendency of government to shift capital from the productive to the sexy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/01/19/keystone-xl-voting-for-the-stone-age

[Soul Crusher]

President Obama reveals who he really is -- and this picture isn't pretty
By Michael Goodwin

Published January 23, 2012
| New York Post
 


 By rejecting the Keystone XL oil pipeline, President Obama did more than just pander to environmentalists. He shredded attempts by his handlers to cast him as a pragmatic and reasonable man who can appeal to independent voters.

Instead, he stands naked as an ideologue willing to sacrifice workers on the altar of special-interest politics.

Thousands of jobs were cast aside with no more thought than yesterday’s socks. Demolished, too, is the promised commitment to energy independence.

The $7 billion pipeline would carry Canadian oil to Gulf Coast ports. Despite three years of study by the State Department, Obama tried to put off the decision until after the election.

But Canada offered to change the route to avoid an aquifer in Nebraska, and unions demanded to know whether he would approve a permit, so Republicans put a 60-day deadline in December’s payroll-tax legislation.

Now we have undeniable proof of the president’s priorities. The man who insisted that “making sure jobs are available is the first thing I think about when I wake up every morning” was just reading empty words from a TelePrompter.

Obama didn’t even have the decency to explain himself, sending out a lame statement that hinted he wasn’t making a decision on the merits, only reacting to the deadline.

The suggestion that he might ultimately approve the project is a shameless bid to deny the obvious. He made his choice because that’s who he is.

Meanwhile, Canada, saying it is “profoundly disappointed,” is turning to Plan B. It likely will build a pipeline to its West Coast and sell the oil to China.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist. To continue reading his column on other topics, including Obama adviser David Axelrod, click here. 



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/23/president-obama-reveals-who-really-is-and-this-picture-isnt-pretty/#ixzz1kJZazp9H

[Soul Crusher]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-23/buffett-s-burlington-northern-among-winners-in-obama-rejection-of-pipeline.html



Disgusting.    so disgusting it's beyond words.    Screw Obama.    What a treasonous fucking failure.

[MikMaq]

Its called security and independence.  What happens if ME war breaks out or iran blows up or nigeria or some bs?   What do we do? 

|Lol this is why your such a fucking a joke, your paranoia is based on emotions rather than reality. The fact of the matter is our military costs us far more than a temporary shortage in oil ever will. Far more importantly the fact is we can't afford to import oil from canada even if it's 10-30 bucks a barrel cheaper. It's still horrid for our balance of trade, and  is causing the main overall problem that our economy is stuck on. Which is high oil prices, 2008 crisis wasn't just about banking it was about oil. The GDP predictions for china were around for a while, the fact is we can't compete on the world market for oil at our current consumption rates, we need to get off it, whether or not it's from the middle east or not is irrelevant.

In the future we can't be reliant on oil, canada is currently very progressive, they could easily slip into a socialist gov like they were in the past and shut down the tars sands all together, we can't generate electricity from oil, and we can't use it for transit, this isn't an opinion it's a direct fact.

[Hugo Chavez]

This Keystone deal really has me thinking for the first time that Obama isn't just incompetent but really out to hurt America.

[Soul Crusher]

|Lol this is why your such a fucking a joke, your paranoia is based on emotions rather than reality. The fact of the matter is our military costs us far more than a temporary shortage in oil ever will. Far more importantly the fact is we can't afford to import oil from canada even if it's 10-30 bucks a barrel cheaper. It's still horrid for our balance of trade, and  is causing the main overall problem that our economy is stuck on. Which is high oil prices, 2008 crisis wasn't just about banking it was about oil. The GDP predictions for china were around for a while, the fact is we can't compete on the world market for oil at our current consumption rates, we need to get off it, whether or not it's from the middle east or not is irrelevant.

In the future we can't be reliant on oil, canada is currently very progressive, they could easily slip into a socialist gov like they were in the past and shut down the tars sands all together, we can't generate electricity from oil, and we can't use it for transit, this isn't an opinion it's a direct fact.

You really are an ignorant moron.   $4 gasoline at the pump was one of the main reasons we went into recession in 2007-2008. 

There is no viable alternative anywhere in the near future so we need oil, and better to get it from friendly neighbors instead of tyrants. 

Until energy prices come down, we will be stuck in the mudd.