Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Obama rejects Canada-Texas oil pipeline — for now

Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:04 PM EST
politics, us, barack-obama, pipeline, oil-pipeline
Matthew Daly, Associated Press
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney blames Congressional Republicans for problems with the Keystone pipeline decision because they inserted a 60-day decision deadline into the bill that extended the tax cut.
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 6 photos
<p>White House Press Secretary Jay Carney speaks during his daily briefing, Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012, in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)</p>

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney speaks during his daily briefing, Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012, in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — In a politically explosive decision, President Barack Obama on Wednesday rejected plans for a massive oil pipeline through the heart of the United States, ruling there was not enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by Republicans. His move did not kill the project but could again delay a tough choice for him until after the November elections.

Right away, the implications rippled across the political spectrum, stirred up the presidential campaign and even hardened feelings with Canada, a trusted U.S. ally and neighbor. For a U.S. electorate eager for work, the pipeline has become the very symbol of job creation for Republicans, but Obama says the environment and public safety must still be weighed too.

The plan by Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. would carry tar sands oil from western Canada across a 1,700-mile pipeline across six U.S. states to Texas refineries.

Obama was already on record as saying no, for now, until his government could review an alternative route that avoided environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska — a route that still has not been proposed, as the White House emphasizes. But Obama had to take a stand again by Feb. 21 at the latest as part of an unrelated tax deal he cut with Republicans.

This time, the project would go forward unless Obama himself declared it was not in the national interest. The president did just that, reviving intense reaction.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said in a written statement. "I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision."

Republicans responded unsparingly.

"President Obama is destroying tens of thousands of American jobs and shipping American energy security to the Chinese. There's really just no other way to put it. The president is selling out American jobs for politics," House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said. Insisting that the pipeline would help the economy, he declared: "This is not the end of the fight," signaling that Republicans might try again to force a decision.

The State Department said the decision was made "without prejudice," meaning TransCanada can submit a new application once a new route 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.

It did not take long for the Republicans seeking Obama's job to slam him.

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."

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney said the decision was "as shocking as it is revealing. It shows a president who once again has put politics ahead of sound policy."

Project supporters say U.S. rejection of the pipeline would not stop it from being built. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada is serious about building a pipeline to its West Coast, where oil could be shipped to China and other Asian markets.

Harper on Wednesday told Obama he was profoundly disappointed that Obama turned down the pipeline, Harper's office said.

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

The proposed $7 billion pipeline would run through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma en route to Texas.

The pipeline is a dicey proposition for Obama, who enjoyed strong support from both organized labor and environmentalists in his winning 2008 campaign for the White House.

Environmental advocates have made it clear that approval of the pipeline would dampen their enthusiasm for Obama in the upcoming November election. Some liberal donors even 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.

But by rejecting the pipeline, Obama risks losing support from organized labor, a key part of the Democratic base, for thwarting thousands of jobs.

"The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero," said Terry O'Sullivan, general president of the Laborers' International Union of North America.

O'Sullivan called the decision "politics at its worst" and said, "Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this."

Yet some unions that back Obama oppose the pipeline, included United Auto Workers, Service Employees International Union and Communications Workers of America.

TransCanada says the pipeline could create as many as 20,000 jobs, a figure opponents say is inflated. A State Department report last summer said the pipeline would create up to 6,000 jobs during construction.

Obama appeared to have skirted what some dubbed the "Keystone conundrum" in November when the State Department announced it was postponing a decision on the pipeline until after this year's election. Officials said they needed extra time to study routes that avoid an environmentally sensitive area of Nebraska that supplies water to eight states.

The affected area stretches just 65 miles through the Sandhills region of northern Nebraska, but the concerns were serious enough that the state's governor and senators opposed the project until the pipeline was moved. The new route, which has not been chosen, would have to be approved by Nebraska environmental officials and the State Department, which has authority because the pipeline would cross an international border.

Obama said his decision does not "change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

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.

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, Laurie Kellman and Sam Hananel in Washington, Shannon McCaffrey in Warrenville, S.C., Ramit Plushnick-Masti in Houston and James MacPherson in Bismarck, N.D., contributed to this report.

___

Follow Matthew Daly on Twitter: (at)MatthewDalyWDC.

Follow Ben Feller on Twitter: (at)BenFellerDC

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Matthew Daly's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Canada , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (135)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
Racing Truck Games

Seems like there should be an article about sopa.

    #1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:35 PM EST
    Fed up with Republicans

    Ordinarily this would be a popular argument in Canada, linked as it is to the old fear that residents of the resource-rich country will only ever be hewers of wood and drawers of water. The need to add value before exporting raw lumber, fish, minerals or oil has long been a popular refrain of Canadian governments of all political stripes. Peter Lougheed, a revered former premier of the province of Alberta, recently voiced these concerns anew. When the first part of the Keystone pipeline was built, the union commissioned a study showing that Canada would have had 18,000 more jobs if its oil were refined first in Canada.

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/10/canada%E2%80%99s-oil-industry

    The important thing to note in this argument is that the total Canadian job creation estimate if this oil was refined in Canada is 18,000 jobs period.

    • 3 votes
    #1.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:20 PM EST
    MJL-3

    According to an independ data , job created would be 2,000 to 4,600 Temporary jobs

    I am glad Obama did not let the congress rush him into this, If the line had a spill look at all the land it could distroy , such as Farms, what about feed for animals, food.

    I think this was wise of Obama even if it isn't popular.

    The oil company stretched abit saying it would create 20,000 jobs, not true

    So the big Oil barrons didn't get their way and the GOP tried to sell the middle class out again.

    • 16 votes
    #1.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:38 PM EST
    Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

    Even if temporary jobs, how many of those 4,600 exhausted all their unemployment, have a family to feed and a roof to keep over their heads?

    My guess about 70-80%!

    • 2 votes
    #1.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:50 PM EST
    Silvaria

    I am glad Obama did not let the congress rush him into this, If the line had a spill look at all the land it could distroy , such as Farms, what about feed for animals, food.

    Not only that, but Obama would have been blamed for not taking the time to do a proper assessment, and the spill would have been placed entirely on his shoulders.

    • 14 votes
    #1.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:52 PM EST
    Jenni-Oh

    The republicans are screaming jobs killer; but this bill needs to be looked at very closely. 2,000 instant jobs against the long term best interests of our country and environment needs to be scrutinized. Hopefully the President will address this in the SOTU next week.

    • 11 votes
    #1.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:54 PM EST
    Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

    But they didn't blame him for the mess in the Gulf now did they?

    • 3 votes
    #1.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:56 PM EST
    MJL-3

    Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

    But they didn't blame him for the mess in the Gulf now did they?

    Actually , yes the GOP did

    • 15 votes
    #1.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:58 PM EST
    Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

    I was referring to the WE THE PEOPLE... and there was just as much research done on that as this new issue!

    • 2 votes
    #1.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:04 PM EST
    Rhazes

    Its an export pipeline, right now we get 96% of Canada's crude, guess what happens to gas prices when that % drops.

    • 4 votes
    #1.9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:05 PM EST
    Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

    And why is it we own more oil than the Saudi's and Iranians combined have and we don't go after it? Because too many eco nuts don't want it to happen.

    Exxon disaster wasn't a piple line... was a ship... so accidents do happen and you deal with it...

    • 3 votes
    #1.10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:11 PM EST
    Rhazes

    And why is it we own more oil than the Saudi's and Iranians combined have and we don't go after it? Because too many eco nuts don't want it to happen.

    Actually, we export more of our crude than we import now.

    • 7 votes
    #1.11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:20 PM EST
    Grae

    and we don't go after it?

    You might want to ask the oil companies who are holding millions of acres of leases which they refuse to survey and work. Want to know why? Because if they cannot find oil, iot lowers the value of the lease and lowers the corporate valuation on Wall Street. There's also nowhere near enough survey equipment available to work leases, so the oil companies keep pointing to areas they THINK might be oil and whining that they are not allowed to lease that land (and likely never work it).

    • 5 votes
    #1.12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:30 PM EST
    JayTee-3231157

    #1.11

    That "Crude" remark would be incorrect for exports exceeding Imports......."Fuel" or refined products would be accurate.....American refineries process Crude and refine it, and Export MORE FUEL (gas/diesel) than we Import.

    Nice spin, propaganda.....don't let Facts get in the way of your spin.

    • 3 votes
    #1.13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:41 PM EST
    Buckeye Voter

    Its an export pipeline, right now we get 96% of Canada's crude, guess what happens to gas prices when that % drops.

    Especially in the Midwest and the Heartland of America.

    • 2 votes
    #1.14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:53 PM EST
    Z1P2

    Even if temporary jobs, how many of those 4,600 exhausted all their unemployment, have a family to feed and a roof to keep over their heads?

    My guess about 70-80%!

    My guess would be about 100%, because every one of those jobs that gets taken by someone that hasn't exausted all their resources, the other job that person would have taken is left vacant for someone that has exhausted all their resources. But I'd still rather put them to work pumping our own oil rather than building infrastructure to import even more oil which in the long run will cost more jobs in the US than keeping the money here would.

    • 1 vote
    #1.15 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:09 PM EST
    Greenwood10

    This Obama just doesn't have a clue just as I saw him while campaigning in 2008. He has panned out just as I thought. It wasn't really hard to figure out. I mean community organizer - president? Come on.

    • 4 votes
    #1.16 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 PM EST
    mike from wisc

    He just killed any chance of re-election. The unions are furious.

    • 4 votes
    #1.17 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:59 PM EST
    FlyingEnergy

    And why is it we own more oil than the Saudi's and Iranians combined have and we don't go after it?

    First off, we don't have more oil than Saudi Arabia. Please tell me where these huge resources are, they aren't in Colorado or Alaska I know that for sure.

    And what we have in those place are called reserves. Because eventually Saudi Arabia is going to run out. Then we will hold the last oil card and will sell barrels of oil for 3-$400 per barrel. That's how supply and demand works. If we sell it now while there is heavy supply available we will screw our self in the future. And those "huge" reserves would only carry the US alone for 3 years according to OPEC.

    Drill now ask questions later is bad policy. And it's the worst when you know none of the facts.

    • 1 vote
    #1.18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:36 PM EST
    Z1P2

    He just killed any chance of re-election. The unions are furious.

    That's hillarious because I was just reading an article about how three major unions, the UAW, the SEIU, and some major telecom union that I forget the name of were asking Obama to veto the pipeline.

    I was wondering why they would be against it... until I realized that the only thing the pipeline would do is allow the US to import more foreign oil instead of producing that oil for ourselves domestically.

    • 3 votes
    #1.19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:45 PM EST
    Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

    Flying: Try reading some of our own reports produced by the government.

    There are 17 acres of land in Alaska where oil companies want to drill and can't. You want to talk propaganda talk to the eco nuts who would have you believe where the 17 acres is, is way inland and would destroy valleys and hillsides when in fact it's 8 miles off the shoreline and far from any "beauty" which the eco nuts want you to believe.

    I inherited 17,000 acres of prime oil land in Texas from my grandfather but because of some stupid idiot in DC we're not allowed to pump more than 50 barrels per day per rig when we know for fact we could produce a minimum of 2,500 barrels per day per rig. Oh, and we've never had an accident, spill, fire, etc...

    • 3 votes
    #1.20 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:41 AM EST
    Z1P2

    There are 17 acres of land in Alaska where oil companies want to drill and can't.

    That's not very much oil... perhaps you meant for that to sound like a large area, but 17 acres is only enough land to support one oil well. By comparisson there are 3,858 oil wells in the gulf of Mexico. So now I'm curious to know if you thought that one well would make a big difference to this nation's supply?

    I inherited 17,000 acres of prime oil land in Texas from my grandfather but because of some stupid idiot in DC we're not allowed to pump more than 50 barrels per day per rig when we know for fact we could produce a minimum of 2,500 barrels per day per rig.

    The biggest pump jack (15 hp motor) can only pump 100 barrels a day on average (shallower wells will produce more, but not 2,400 barrels more)... I was also unable to find any government regulatory restrictions on how much oil you can pump per pump jack. I think you are stretching the truth a bit, if there's any truth to your post at all... but if there is any truth to it, I'm sure you can clear the air by posting a link to the restriction you're talking about.

    • 3 votes
    #1.21 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:23 AM EST
    vol fan in chatt, tn

    What happened to Mr..."we can't wait"President?? 60 friggin days to give Americans some jobs, but yet it wasn't enough time for the precious one to get a handle on it..Nah, it was just a stalling technique. He had no intention of allowing it and said so. Too bad he was busy shredding the Constitution (NADD, for example - indefinite detention) and playing games and campaigning instead of paying attention to things that matter to the American people - like high gas prices (and they will be even higher if Iran keeps up their stupid games) and jobs.

    Obama was already on record as saying no, for now, until his government could review an alternative route that avoided environmentally sensitive areas of Nebraska — a route that still has not been proposed, as the White House emphasizes. But Obama had to take a stand again by Feb. 21 at the latest as part of an unrelated tax deal he cut with Republicans.

    ....the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," Obama said in a written statement. "I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision."

    On pure bullcrap! This was part of the deal HE made back during the tax debate. And he had the gall to blame it on the Pubs!!

    I hope the Pubswill FINALLY realize you can't trust nothing this guy says. and he then cuts you off at the knees. Don't cut anymore deals with this Pres. Why they trusted him on this is beyond me. Chicago thug politics at it worst - and Obama is a master at it.

    • 2 votes
    #1.22 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:01 AM EST
    JayTee-3231157

    Vol Fan

    You Hit the nail on the head with that one. Obama working tirelessly for Jobs, for China.

    • 1 vote
    #1.23 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:25 AM EST
    JayTee-3231157

    OBAMA GETS NAILED by Canada

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/18/world/americas/canada-keystone-oil/index.html?hpt=us_c2

    OTTAWA (CNN) -- In a phone conversation that came as little surprise, President Barack Obama called Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Wednesday afternoon to explain why he had rejected the Keystone oil sands pipeline project.

    In a statement released by Harper's office, the president is quoted as saying that the decision was not a decision based on the "merits of the project" and that TransCanada, the company looking to build the pipeline, could reapply for permission after a new route had been developed.

    The statement went on to say that Prime Minister Harper "...expressed his profound disappointment with the news. He indicated to President Obama that he hoped that this project would continue given the significant contribution it would make to jobs and economic growth both in Canada and the United States of America."

    But crucially, the statement also said that the prime minister reiterated to President Obama that Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports.

    In fact, in a sign of warming relations, Harper is scheduled to make a high-profile trip to China in February. Canada is proposing to build a pipeline of its own through western Canada that would make oil exports to China faster and cheaper.

    Obama, working tirelessly for Jobs in .....CHINA....

      #1.24 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:04 PM EST
      Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

      Zip on 17 acres you can have as many at 17 pumps so where you get not much oil from is beyond me.

      And you're more than welcome to visit my oil farm.. any time...and view the docs as well!

      I have no need to lie and/or stretch anything!

      BTW the name is Jim not Jack!

      • 1 vote
      #1.25 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:52 PM EST
      Frisco Kid

      Prediction-this issue will be one of the first things the republican nominee guarantees to sign in the first 30 days.

      • 2 votes
      #1.26 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:31 PM EST
      Z1P2

      Zip on 17 acres you can have as many at 17 pumps so where you get not much oil from is beyond me.

      Jim44, you are the one that said these 17 acres are offshore, you can not simply put nice compact little pump jacks offshore like you can onshore, you need a rig that is going to be even larger than those whole 17 acres.

      And you're more than welcome to visit my oil farm.. any time...and view the docs as well!

      If you were telling the truth and actually had documents stating that, you could just reference the docID's; I can look them up.

      BTW the name is Jim not Jack!

      Jim44 I never called you jack... I said a pump jack... you claim to have these on your property yet you don't even know what they are called?? You are not building any credibility here... you better do at least a little light reading up on them before trying to feed us more bs... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpjack

      • 2 votes
      #1.27 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:35 PM EST
      Buzz of the Orient

      Jim44 I never called you jack... I said a pump jack

      That qualifies to be a great comedy routine like Leslie Nielson's in Airplane: "Don't call me Shirley."

      • 2 votes
      #1.28 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:17 AM EST
      Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

      I don't manage the property I live in CA not TX and each pump is on less than 1/4 acre of land.

      In Long Beach, CA there are thousands of pumps on 1/4-1/2 acre of land.

      BTWFE...

      • 1 vote
      #1.29 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:48 AM EST
      Jenni-Oh

      Probably the most interesting thing on this thread is how ill-informed the Republicans comments are. I suggest you look at the bill and READ it before you make another uninformed comment. I'd post the link for you but because you're all so "smart" i'm sure you can find it on your own. But can you read it? We shall see.

      • 3 votes
      #1.30 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 3:33 AM EST
      JayTee-3231157

      Riddle me this batmen...........When did the Government get control of determining and saying "NO" to a Company asking to build something that Benefits All Americans ?

      Is that in the Constitution ? This Keystone Yes/No baloney is going to sweep Jimmy Carter Obama out of office as the Worst President ever for the American People.

      Obama, the Food Stamp windmill Economic idiot of a President.

      • 1 vote
      #1.31 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:01 AM EST
      FlyingEnergy

      JayTee,

      When did the Government get control of determining and saying "NO" to a Company asking to build something that Benefits All Americans ?

      Yeah, 2000 jobs is helping all Americans. The government say's no to projects that could hurt more Americans through unresearched environmental concerns. I'm sure drinking oil water is fine for you, but I'm not ok with it. The Administration isn't asking for much, just that they adress the environment, then they get a thumbs up.

      Oh and there are 21 billion barrels of oil in the US underground. These reserves would last America less than 3 years at the current rate of use of 6.99 billion barrels per year. Saudi Arabia has 267billion barrels, so Jim Davis, it doesn't take a math wiz to figure out that we have far less oil than Saudi Arabia. Going after it now would be stupid.

      Obama, the Food Stamp windmill Economic idiot of a President.

      Yet to prove that point, but sure keep talking, maybe sombody will believe it.

      • 2 votes
      #1.32 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:36 PM EST
      JayTee-3231157

      Unresearached environmental Concerns-----------Exactly, vaporware, excuses with no substance, Just like Global warming and it's Climategate I and II exposure of the Scientists playing Politics. Your extimate of of 3 years is BALONEY, you can Link to that false number, you missed a decimal.

      The Wa Po thinks Obama is going Insane.......

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rejecting-the-keystone-pipeline-is-an-act-of-insanity/2012/01/19/gIQAowG6AQ_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

      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 thus important in a country hungering for work. And Keystone XL is precisely the sort of infrastructure project that Obama claims to favor.

        #1.33 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:34 PM EST
        FlyingEnergy

        Climate gate is bull! And your opinions are dangerous to the nations well being.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2011/11/26/climategate-gate-the-dangerous-psychology-of-ongoing-climate-change-denial/

        And that article you posted is called an op-ed for a reason. It's opinion. Truth is there are only, maybe 5,000 jobs since trans Canada counts one job for each year. So 10,000 jobs times 2 years equals 20,000 jobs to them. Of coarse most of those are temporary construction jobs. The reason I said 2,000 is because only 2,000 permanent jobs will be created. To me thats a real job. Working six months and then having no job is not a real solution, so putting this massive project on hold until they can adress real concerns about environmental safety isn't going to effect the economy on iota!

        Here is the real story from a non-op-ed.

        http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/index.htm

        • 2 votes
        #1.34 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:33 PM EST
        Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

        How Much Oil Does The US Really Have?

        • No sooner than we came up with the outline of a $1-2 trillion crash program to eliminate US dependence on volatile-region oil plus create an export capacity (see below) using every measure we could think of, than we come across two articles 2 US Department of Energy articles that suggest the US has 1.124 trillion barrels of conventional oil left.
        • Well, since the official figure you will see for US reserves is 21-billion barrels - just 3-years total consumption, you will be justified in asking what controlled substances has DOE been ingesting and why are we worrying about oil when we should be worrying about why DOE has not made this wonderful stuff available to everyone.
        • The mystery is resolved once readers recall we had run a piece some months back which said only one-third of available known oil had been recovered in the world. Let's back off a minute to go over the matter in admittedly simple terms.
        • Primary recovery of oil is when the pressure inside an oil field suffices on its own to push oil out through drilled holes. This is the easy, cheap oil, and yes, the US is just about out of it. Primary recovery gets 10-20% of the oil out.
        • Secondary recovery comes when you have to inject pressure into an oil field to force oil out. This can be done with water or with CO2. US has been using secondary recovery to get up the percentage of oil recovered to 20-40%. We knew about this technology as surely did most of our readers, its no secret. But whenever we did read about it, it was all "Waaaaaah! It's so expensive! Weep, moan, whine".
        • What was not known to us - we do have to earn a living and then there's Orbat.com to run, so it's not like we can spend 12 hours a day researching - is that the technology has now advanced to the point that once large quantities of CO2 are available, DOE figures US can comfortably recover 83-billion barrels more.
        • Now, our program calls for a reduction in use by 5-million of 20-million barrels a day, eliminating volatile region imports, and production from shale and coal of another 5-million barrels, which the US would export while blockading enemy oil. So, for example, if you didn't want the world to suffer when you blockade Iranian oil - a move that will destroy Iran in short order - you would put 2-million barrels a day on the market to make up for the shortfall.
        • But if all that's needed is CO2, we don't have to go the shale/coal route. That 5-million bbl/day could come from US fields for 50 years. And the nice thing about CO2? You've guessed it - you sequester it from existing coal plants. It can be shipped via pipeline - one project in the works has CO2 being shipped over a 300-km pipeline for use in injecting oil fields. So everyone should be ecstatically happy, including the greens.
        • You would still need programs that shift our energy from dirty to clean - nuclear, solar, wind etc etc because you still want to run vehicles on fuel cells and not on gasoline, for environmental reasons.
        • But we're talking about 83-billion barrels, where did the 1.124 trillion come from? Well, developing technologies that exist today can push up secondary recovery to 430-billion barrels. Next, geologists have found that under the secondary layer is yet another layer - we don't know if we are into tertiary recovery yet, perhaps readers can look at the articles closer than we did. But this additional layer is achievable with technologies we can conceive of, but still need to develop. That's how we get to 1-trillion plus barrels.
        • Yes, the stuff is expensive. And yes, the pure economics of oil say that oil companies will want to develop where they get the most money, so let's be off to distant parts of the world and worry about the strategic dependency later. Economic theory will also tell you when companies are making huge profits doing business as usual, they have no incentive to shift to new technologies.
        • The problem with all this is that as Orbat.com has repeatedly said, we are not paying $70/barrel for our oil. When you add in the cost of securing that oil - for example, obviously we wouldn't be in Iraq if it did not have oil aplenty and even there they've only scratched the surface because without oil Iraq would not be a strategic interest - we are paying way over $100/barrel. We did this exercise some years ago, we'll do it again soon.
        • You cannot in any case rely on market mechanisms when you are dealing with something so fundamental as energy procured from volatile regions. If for some reason the flow of Chinese toys to the US is disrupted, that is not a problem. But if the flow of oil is interrupted, we have a big problem. Energy independence, and indeed, the ability to export energy in support of US foreign policy, is a strategic national security issue. It requires top priority - right now.
        • The government will have to spend money to encourage conservation, demand reduction, and technologies for recovering secondary/tertiary oil because it's spending that and likely more anyway on defense of overseas production areas and the sea lanes.
        • So if companies say: "well, secondary CO2 recovery makes no sense for us because oil will come in at $80 barrel", then the government has to say "fine, we'll make up that $10" because right now the people, via the government, are paying more than that $10 AND there is no assurance overseas supply wont get disrupted. How much better to subsidize production of US oil than to subsidize Iran and Saudi Arabia.
        • The two articles can be found at http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html and http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html

        http://orbat.com/site/energy/us%20energy%20independence.htm

        • 1 vote
        #1.35 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:35 AM EST
        Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

        How Much Oil Does the US Have in the Ground???

        program on oil and one of the Forbes brothers was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "More than all the Middle East put together."
        The U. S. Geological Survey issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big! It was a revised report (which had not been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota , western South Dakota , and extreme eastern Montana ...
        The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable. At $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3 trillion.
        "When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.
        "This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves. We now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL! That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight.
        - - - - - - -
        U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World
        Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006
        Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels.
        On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this 'mother lode' of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?
        They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:
        - 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
        - 18-times as much oil as Iraq
        - 21-times as much oil as Kuwait
        - 22-times as much oil as Iran
        - 500-times as much oil as Yemen
        - and it's all right here in the Western United States .
        HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.
        WHY?
        James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post .
        Do ya think OPEC will drop its price - even with this find? Think again!
        Do ya think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists? Hmmm.

        http://slumz.boxden.com/f605/mar-7-how-much-oil-does-us-have-ground-1507338/

        • 1 vote
        #1.36 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:40 AM EST
        Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

        How much oil does the U.S. have?
        Submitted by ryanteaguebeckwith on 2008-08-07 11:10
        Tags: Under the Dome | ads | Colorado | Elizabeth Dole | energy | gas prices | Green River Formation | oil | oil shale | Rand Corporation | Senate '08 | Utah | Wyoming
        Does the United States have 2 trillion barrels of oil?
        A radio ad touting an energy bill cosponsored by U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole says that the United States is "home to a vast supply of oil, estimated at over 2 trillion barrels."
        The ad appears to be referring to the Green River Formation, a giant untapped oil shale deposit in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
        A 2005 report by the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank based in California, estimated that the Green River Formation holds between 1.5 and 1.8 trillion barrels of oil, of which roughly 800 billion barrels are recoverable.
        "Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day, so 800 billion barrels would last for more than 400 years if oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand," the think tank noted in a brief.
        However, it added that there are technical problems.
        "Assuming the private sector decides to invest in oil shale development and production, we expect that an oil shale industry capable of producing more than a million barrels per day is at least 20 years off," it said.

        Read more here: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/how_much_oil_does_the_u_s_have#storylink=cpy

        http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/how_much_oil_does_the_u_s_have

        • 1 vote
        #1.37 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:44 AM EST
        Jim Davis, Veterans-For-Change

        Senators James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ranking Member of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, will release a report Thursday from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) showing that the United States’ combined recoverable natural gas, oil and coal endowment is the largest on Earth.

        Russia comes in as a close second with recoverable fossil fuel reserves, followed Saudi Arabia, China, Iran and Canada.

        According to the new report, an updated version of a 2009 paper, the United States’ resources are larger than Saudi Arabia, China and Canada, combined. The report estimates that the U.S. has 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil and enough natural gas to meet the country’s demand for 90 years.

        The CRS report is being made public at a time when oil and gas prices are skyrocketing and the Department of Interior is embroiled in a battle with oil companies over offshore drilling. Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Michael Bromwich, Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, appealed a court decision that ordered them to act on five pending drilling permits.

        Moreover, earlier this week it was reported that President Obama is considering tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as a response the rising gas prices. On Monday, the national average for a gallon of gas was $3.51 – up 39 cents since the unrest in Libya began in mid-February.

        The rising cost of oil is putting immense pressure on the White House to act. And Obama, said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is “very cognizant of the fact that Americans are experiencing a sharp rise in prices at the gas pump that affects them and their family budgets.”

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/new-report-says-u-s-has-largest-fossil-fuel-reserves-in-world/#ixzz1k54M7KdG

        http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/10/new-report-says-u-s-has-largest-fossil-fuel-reserves-in-world/

        • 1 vote
        #1.38 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:48 AM EST
        JayTee-3231157

        Like Clinton, the 21 Billion figure is based upon what you mean by "Reserves".

        Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil.

        JIM DAVIS just grounded Flying Propaganda Energy.

          #1.39 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:54 AM EST
          FlyingEnergy

          Maybe you can't read but, all sources including the USGS and oil investment firms confirm, there are only, maybe 1 billion barrels in Colorado.

          In Montana the largest of the finds, they have only 3.8 billion barrels. Nothing about that say's trillions of barrels to me.

          The green river formation, according to it's claimants, the oil company drilling it claims it contains 1.5 trillion barrels of shale oil. Or in real terms, 260 billion barrels of useable oil. This is due to the costly nature of extraction.

            #1.40 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:22 PM EST
            FlyingEnergy

            Currently oil shale is not a competitive product. Introducing it to the market would require higher fuel prices. But if the do go after it oil prices would drop and companies wouldn't be able to profit off the shale. So in a way you are right but in practicality you are wrong.

              #1.41 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:32 PM EST
              JayTee-3231157

              Let me repeat, and maybe you don't want to define......RESERVES......

              Like Clinton, the 21 Billion figure is based upon what you mean by "Reserves".

              I'm sure you are either interpreting it in the narrowist of terrms, like an environmentalist hoping against hope that no one notices the "other" interpretation.

              And even "IF" I chose to believe your "reserves number", and I don't, it even makes it more stupidly ignorant for the president of the USA to ax the Keystone Pipeline, doesn't it ?

                #1.42 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:47 PM EST
                JayTee-3231157


                USGS press release April 10, 2008

                , 2008: "The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil." http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

                That was THEN, and this is NOW..... your dated information becomes even more dated


                Reserves

                The extent of recoverable reserves from the Bakken is subject to debate and ongoing surveys are underway. When the USGS revised their 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels to 4.3 billion barrels in 2008, it reflected rising confidence in the early results of the drilling program that was beginning in the Bakken, investment by independents, successful application of new technology, and high IP rates. In January of 2008 North Dakota produced 138,000 b/d; in November of 2010 North Dakota production was over 356,000 b/d. Any revised estimate is likely to be much higher than 4.3 billion barrels. In January 2011 North Dakota state officials began saying there were 11 billion barrels in North Dakota alone. This is up from their previous message of five billion barrels.

                Only a few years ago the number of frac stages were much lower (single digits), but now they are commonly above thirty and many are above forty. Forty fracture stages are allowing for ultimate recovery figures between 600,000 and 700,000 barrels of oil per well.

                Any more propaganda and I'll give you the GREEN RIVER "reserves"

                  #1.43 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:56 PM EST
                  Reply
                  TheBigLebowski

                  A pipline to the refinery that we so they can ship more overseas...brilliant

                  • 8 votes
                  Reply#2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:43 PM EST
                  Tappy McWidestance

                  With Nebraska blocking the pipeline, Trans Canada was asking for permits without being able to give a route. Does it make sense to issue a permit to a foreign country to overrun our states when they will not even tell us where they want to build?

                  • 12 votes
                  #2.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:51 PM EST
                  Buckeye Voter

                  Build a refinery in the Midwest and use the Great Lakes for export. Brillianter!

                  • 2 votes
                  #2.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:54 PM EST
                  Z1P2

                  Building an additional refinery would actually be brilliant... do you know how long it's been since a refinery was built in this country?

                    #2.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:45 PM EST
                    vol fan in chatt, tn

                    can't build em because the EPA is so constipated, they won't allow it....stupid. They are shutting them down right and left...We are screwing OURSELVES...

                    • 1 vote
                    #2.4 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:02 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Grae

                    Good. Only thing the pipeline offered was pollution. There are no jobs, there would be no benefit to American energy (all oil sold on the world market, even the oil produced in the US). The KXL pipeline was ill thought out and bound to cause more problems than it was worth.

                    • 10 votes
                    Reply#3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:45 PM EST
                    GoldenGateMami_Susi

                    Does this pipeline offer immediate & permanent, high paying, high benefit offering jobs for millions?

                    • 6 votes
                    Reply#4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:51 PM EST
                    Grae

                    If 50 = millions, then "Yes."

                    • 12 votes
                    #4.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:10 PM EST
                    MJL-3

                    GoldenGateMami_Susi

                    Does this pipeline offer immediate & permanent, high paying, high benefit offering jobs for millions?

                    No

                    See post1.2

                    • 11 votes
                    #4.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:39 PM EST
                    GoldenGateMami_Susi

                    Creating something that has jobs is an awesome. But what we need are programs that will put people to work YESTERDAY not a year or two down the road.

                    The promise of jobs is just that a promise and as we have all seen and even experienced in our lives, promises can be and are often times broken.

                    Even 10 immediate jobs would be welcome. This would mean the President reverses his decision and by the end of that press conference there are representatives from that company setting up tables on street corners, malls, colleges/universities hiring people on the spot to start work tomorrow.

                    A promise doesn't pay bills. A projected outlook does not put food on the table, shoes on feet, gas in the tank.

                    We want to see those tables set up, reps with pens in hands, stacks of offer packets TOMORROW to hiring those supposed 20,000 workers.

                    • 5 votes
                    #4.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:43 PM EST
                    GoldenGateMami_Susi

                    MJL I asked it rhetorically, but yes....20,000 is as always a PROJECTION that number can vary with the immediate need of the company, job sites, project, etc. Nothing new. The GOP is just focused on that number. But most smart, rational, intelligent and sensible people know the difference between --

                    • "......Estimated to create approximately 20,000 jobs" and
                    • "HURRY! APPLY TODAY HIRING TODAY WORK TOMORROW." Go to this website all jobs open contract, FT, PT, seasonal, temporary. Salary ranges from $ to $ DOE, benefits include:________. All jobs must be filled by _________.
                    • 4 votes
                    #4.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:08 PM EST
                    MJL-3
                  • "HURRY! APPLY TODAY HIRING TODAY WORK TOMORROW." Go to this website all jobs open contract, FT, PT, seasonal, temporary. Salary ranges from $ to $ DOE, benefits include:________. All jobs must be filled by _________.

                  • LMAO, Yep, the GOP :)

                    • 8 votes
                    #4.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:10 PM EST
                    GoldenGateMami_Susi

                    The GOP would **** it's collective nappy if companies get to the point where they can actually begin hiring like that again.......shades of mother lodes being found and boom towns springing up all over.

                    Step up now. Hire immediately. Work tomorrow.

                    Of course the GOP would be wholly against it.

                    • 5 votes
                    #4.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:13 PM EST
                    MJL-3

                    Of course the GOP would be wholly against it.

                    Yep

                    • 6 votes
                    #4.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:39 PM EST
                    FlyingEnergy

                    Is this how you think. Oh job! What it could kill millions of fish, ruin farmland, poison drinking water. Oh well, as long as their are jobs. Errr, the Obama administration said they could re-apply if they included environmental concern in the application, is that too much to ask?

                    • 3 votes
                    #4.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:57 PM EST
                    Buzz of the Orient

                    Hey! Don't buy it. Canada will make a lot more money selling their oil to China. They have no problem, it's the USA that has a problem.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.9 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:23 AM EST
                    Grae

                    Canada will make a lot more money selling their oil to China.

                    Since all oil is sold on the world market and none through direct sale, your statement would be lacking a certain level of veracity required to be accurate.

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.10 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:40 AM EST
                    Buzz of the Orient

                    I would have thought that there were financial treaties between the USA and Canada that might have abrogated the "world" prices. Well, in any event, Canada has a very large trade deficit with China, and the sale of oil would help to balance the trade figures.

                    http://sbuzzc76.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/19/10187756-on-visit-to-beijing-harper-has-bargaining-power-the-globe-and-mail

                    • 2 votes
                    #4.11 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:00 AM EST
                    Reply
                    Edward-453134

                    Who is going to pay for this pipeline if constructed? Will we become independent of foreign oil, or more dependent on it?

                    • 1 vote
                    Reply#5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:53 PM EST
                    Susan-3647822

                    It's still foreign oil. Canada is not one of the 50 United States no matter what Rick Perry thinks.

                    • 4 votes
                    #5.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:08 PM EST
                    Buckeye Voter

                    It would make export of Canadian oil easier. Right now, most of it is utilized in the Midwest. Our gasoline is much cheaper than on the coast because of Canadian oil supplies.

                    The hike in oil prices would make domestic oil sources more competitive - at the expense of everyone. Wee.

                    • 3 votes
                    #5.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:58 PM EST
                    Buzz of the Orient

                    Will we become independent of foreign oil, or more dependent on it?

                    If you're going to have some dependancy on foreign oil, would you prefer that that dependancy be on your neighbour and friend or on the Middle East OPEC nations?

                    • 2 votes
                    #5.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:41 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Monkey99

                    Don't know what possessed the GOP to push this through with the holiday tax break. The impact statements weren't done, the number of jobs created were a lie, and the whole thing was a boondoggle.

                    Another case made, where the House GOP don't know what they're doing, and politics rules the day, rather than doing anything beneficial for this country. One can only wonder how much certain members of the GOP congress were paid to push it through for Big Oil.

                    That money was wasted, so now it can be fully expected for the price of gas to go up to pay for their failure. Isn't that how it always happens?

                    • 11 votes
                    Reply#6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:56 PM EST
                    Eoin-899252

                    What you have to ask yourself is this, Since the GOP has taken and cashed there checks from the Big Oil company's and they LOST the pipeline deal, what are they going to produce Now for the Oil Companies? What Other Type of Low Down, Back Room deals will they be making next? They have to do something, they did cash there big payouts, can't take payment without doing something for it?? Humm me think the GOP will need some Knee Pads and some winter mint scope....... Hell some are tea baggers, this should come naturally for them..

                    • 3 votes
                    #6.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:51 PM EST
                    Reply
                    G. H.

                    I think President Obama made the right choice. Once again, we were being *held hostage* by the R/tp for benefits to big oil, blindly and without question on possible ecological problems. Saying it will go to China instead is just another THREAT! When will the R/tp realize that threatening is NOT the way to run a County?

                    • 8 votes
                    Reply#7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:17 PM EST
                    Fed up with Republicans

                    Can some one explain to me why Canada doesn't build a refinery to process this oil in Canada.

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:17 PM EST
                    greg81082-4115372

                    Because that would take away millions of jobs for America.

                    ...right wing troll in training

                    • 6 votes
                    #8.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:22 PM EST
                    Buckeye Voter

                    Can some one explain to me why Canada doesn't build a refinery to process this oil in Canada.

                    Actually, there are twenty-five oil refineries in Canada. Most of the gasoline and other Canadian oil products are consumed in the Midwest USA. The pipeline would make it easier to export that oil to other countries, resulting in higher domestic prices.

                    • 4 votes
                    #8.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:01 PM EST
                    Reply
                    Strangerthanfiction

                    As a Canadian I am glad Obama said NO. I agree we should process our own oil instead of farming it out like we do everything....Made in Canada barely exists for anything...made in China however, is rampant...

                    • 7 votes
                    Reply#9 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:24 PM EST
                    Fed up with Republicans

                    Same thing used to be true of and in America, everything you nearly purchased said made in America

                    • 5 votes
                    #9.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:46 PM EST
                    Reply
                    James Scranton-3132313

                    Boehner says that the promised that he would create jobs well thats what he said and the new congress said they would do promise new jobs. They have fought President Obama every step of the way to create jobs they produced diddly squat on job hypocrates!!!

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#10 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:28 PM EST
                    Timba65

                    Again the R's have shown they are far more interested in corporate profits than the American people and I for one am glad that Obama had the intellect to turn them away before they could bring even more destruction to this nation. It is my hope that agreement on this pipeline never happens. How do the R's even think this oil can go to China to be refined? If they find a different way to ship it to a refinery it will still be cheaper to bring it here. That may be the weakest and stupidest threat Boehner, McConnell and company have ever thrown out there.

                    • 8 votes
                    Reply#11 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:40 PM EST
                    concerned67

                    I have an idea lets ask the people along the gulf in Miss. La. Texas and Western Florida if they like the oil spill. Lets ask the fishermen how they liked it.

                    • 8 votes
                    Reply#12 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:43 PM EST
                    Mary-1324335

                    Good for President Obama. What the Republicans won't address is the fact that the governor of Nebraska, the State Department, and TransCanada are working together to come up with an alternative route, and the state of Nebraska is funding an EIS. The proposed pipeline, which would carry the tar sands oil over the Ogalalla Aquifer, is a potential disaster, possibly affecting millions of people's drinking water and irrigation water.

                    • 7 votes
                    Reply#13 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:47 PM EST
                    BlackMountainJoe

                    Again here are the retardicans playing politics just in time for the gop race and then blaming the other side of doing what they are doing. I wonder how many in the House and Senate won't sleep tonight from all the calls they will make and receive from their Oil buddies to walk them off the ledge and assure they will do everything to force an approval from this administration.

                    This is politics at its worst!

                    • 8 votes
                    Reply#14 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:53 PM EST
                    austinrick

                    Sound decision.

                    • 7 votes
                    Reply#15 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:00 PM EST
                    rational thought-3748544

                    Wise move for the time being until the project can be thoroughly vetted for safety and environmental impact. I just read a report that since the opening of phases #1 and #2 of this pipline system in 2010 there has already been 16 leaks, 2 of them being major. Too much is at stake not to proceed cautiously.

                    • 7 votes
                    Reply#16 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:02 PM EST
                    rational thought-3748544

                    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."

                    Most of the refined oil will go to China and around the world anyway. Why do you think they want to pipe it to refineries on the Gulf. Ever hear of Oil tankers?

                    Republican idiots.

                    • 4 votes
                    Reply#17 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 PM EST
                    Oliver Closoff

                    Tell me if you would make the same ridiculous remark if the pipeline was being built to china?

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.1 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:27 AM EST
                    Bill-Weeks

                    Uh...irrational thought, you may not understand how the global oil trade works.

                    • 1 vote
                    #17.2 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:34 AM EST
                    Oliver Closoff

                    And if anyone does want to understand more about how the global oil trade around here.

                    See my Primer on the topic under my column here on the Vine.

                      #17.3 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:56 PM EST
                      Reply
                      Fejj

                      It was a stupid idea to begin with. That pipeline still means we're dependent on foreign oil and that doesn't exactly help us. Not to mention we'd be eating up thousands of more square miles for that pipeline when we could just drill straight from our own resources.

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#18 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:11 PM EST
                      rose-231178

                      While i am for renewable energy you are correct on being dependent on foreign oil. I do not advocate drilling our own. (if you were to think about it, why use ours now, when we can wait for the other countries to run out. Are we desperate really?) The "they" meaning oil in this case, would have you believe that prices would come down. Fallacy.

                      In the last few years we have learned that "price/demand" is not true. Speculation! drove it. Now they threaten 5.00 a gallon by summer?...must have something to do with the temporary "no" of the pipeline, but nothing to do with reality.

                        #18.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:34 PM EST
                        Fejj

                        It's a funny argument because what you speak of is mass psychology (speculation). If you want the alternative energy then get independent first. We can make our own prices at that point and become the main exporter of oil instead of the Middle East. We could stand to make enough money over time to put a serious dent in the deficit and to fund more research into alternative energy.

                        I have no problem with alternative energy but in-so-far I haven't seen anything yet that's going to push my truck with better mileage, better power and at a cheaper rate. Hopefully that will change because our reserves (even if we started using it just for ourselves today) will last approximately a 100 years even if we used it at the same capacity as we do now. By then, I'd like to think we'd have a better handle on energy efficiency.

                        That pipeline is a waste of time and money and a completely waste of landmass. Drilling, on the other hand, uses less than half the proposed land mass.

                          #18.2 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:30 PM EST
                          Fejj

                          .

                            #18.3 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:32 PM EST
                            Reply
                            JayTee-3231157

                            300,000 miles of Pipelines in the USA and all of a sudden the Keystone 1000 miles threatens Obama's 9% unemployment with Job Growth.....Must be Bush's fault Obama can't grow the Economy with Cheaper Oil.

                            My Kingdom for Obama's College grades, he can't be as smart as the claims....no way...the Failure in chief threatens the American economy again.

                            • 3 votes
                            Reply#19 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:19 PM EST
                            rational thought-3748544

                            Only you and other Republican sycophants see a problem with this decision.

                            O'Sullivan called the decision "politics at its worst" and said, "Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this."

                            Who are they going to vote for, Romney? That would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

                            • 3 votes
                            #19.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:37 PM EST
                            Fejj

                            Romney is no answer. Everyone says anyone is better than Obama. I heard the same thing about Bush when it came to his reelection time and Bush got reelected. Obama will probably get reelected, not because he's worth a crap but because the jackass republicans hate Obama more than they like their candidates. This is what happened to the democrats when they were pushing Senator Kerry out there. They hated Bush more than they liked Kerry. Either way, we're screwed.

                            We will not get out of this deficit no matter what this president does or the next one will do. A $15,000,000,000,000.00 deficit is in the astronomical vicinity. It will get much higher by the end of the year.

                            • 1 vote
                            #19.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:49 PM EST
                            JayTee-3231157

                            Romney ? Gee, another assumption that the GOP nomination is Complete....Desperate Democrat assumptions with no Facts to be considered....Keystone decision drops Obama in the Polls.....he will change his mind.....or the Landslide election will be a Tsunami loss for Obama.

                            • 2 votes
                            #19.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:49 PM EST
                            Fejj

                            Don't get confused by my statement. I'm 100% Libertarian. Both parties are crap. They've been crap since after WWII and will continue to be crap until a true Constitutional party emerges from this slop. Beats the hell out outta me how anyone can stay with either party after all this but there's no accounting for brainwashing.

                            • 1 vote
                            #19.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:58 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Fox_News

                            Boy the liberals are spinning this like a top!

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#20 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:38 PM EST
                            rational thought-3748544

                            How profound.

                            • 2 votes
                            #20.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:06 PM EST
                            Reply
                            rational thought-3748544

                            Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Canada is serious about building a pipeline to its West Coast, where oil could be shipped to China and other Asian markets.

                            Go ahead. Maybe you can roll over common sense and the people in Canada that are concerned for the same reason we are concerned here in the US. The oil is ultimately bound for China and Asian markets anyway regardless of the overland route. That's the plan.

                            • 3 votes
                            Reply#21 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:46 PM EST
                            A. Commentator

                            It was the Teapublican corporatists in Texas that wanted this built. They are the international oil companies, that will only get rich with the exhorbitant prices they will charge Asia.

                            Very few American jobs for this project. Most of the comments on these blogs are from paid corporatist bloggers, or else people who can move to another hidden island location in the event of an accident.

                            Oil is dirty, and must be phased out. We are running out of it on this planet.

                            • 1 vote
                            #21.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:48 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Jim-Evolu

                            Saying NO to the party of no. They are like "huh...wha???"...

                            • 4 votes
                            Reply#22 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:02 PM EST
                            rational thought-3748544

                            Yep, one GOP tantrum coming up.

                            • 5 votes
                            #22.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:04 PM EST
                            Reply
                            PattyNC

                            Lol, the big Oil company handed big checks to our Dem and Repub congressmen, to get this bill passed. So do these guys and gals have to return those all monies to the oil comp or do get to keep their payola if they can't get this bill passed.

                            So wouldn't it be cheaper for the big corporations just to get a repub president elected and just pay him off instead of the congress? I think that what their trying to do now!

                              Reply#23 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:02 PM EST
                              lifeisgood43

                              Yes. This will cause more harm than good. Pres Obama's Admin though about plants and wildlife.

                              Instead of doing things that can harm America, lets re-build America like Pres Obama's job plan does

                              • 3 votes
                              Reply#24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:07 PM EST
                              Oliver Closoff

                              Obama's jobs plan?

                              You mean the one where he goes around crapping all over everything and then hires pissants with pooper scoopers to go around shoveling @!$%#?

                              • 1 vote
                              #24.1 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:30 AM EST
                              JayTee-3231157

                              SEE #1.24 for Obama's Job plan....for China

                              • 1 vote
                              #24.2 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:05 PM EST
                              Reply
                              Bill-Weeks

                              The President handled this badly. At every turn we are reminded that this President's first priority is to get reelected regardless of the cost to Americans.

                              He could have said, we have talked to the Keystone builders and they are working on a new route. Pending acceptance of the new route we are putting the current project on hold. Instead, the President used language to energize his "base" that leaves the impression the pipeline may never be built. I have news for those in the President's base, the pipeline will be built and you have been duped.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:45 PM EST
                              rational thought-3748544

                              Why are you so eager for this pipeline? Please explain.

                              • 5 votes
                              #25.1 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:51 PM EST
                              Timba65

                              No, Republicans forced a decision and Obama gave it to them, the proper decision to boot. The pipeline might be built, but not across the aquifier. How about we run this thing through your backyard since it's so safe? If you have kids I'm sure they wouldn't mind having toxic sludge dripping into their sandbox.

                              • 4 votes
                              #25.2 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:58 PM EST
                              Bill-Weeks

                              Let's be clear; Canada will pull the oil out of the ground; it will be purchased by someone, and it will enter the atmosphere. The only question is will it cause more damage because it is transported to point of refinement via train and truck, or will it be transported using a more efficient and clean path through the Keystone pipeline. Those against the pipeline that say it will be unsafe are being disingenuous. What they are really trying to do is get their way on hydrocarbon policy. Furthermore, they are unconcerned about the impact of their goal on jobs. If they are honest with the American people, they will just say we don't want the Keystone pipeline because we want to do everything possible to raise the price oil. But, they won't say that because Americans would quickly realize opponents of the Keystone pipeline are pushing their environmental agenda to the detriment of the country.

                              The Keystone Pipeline will bring raw material to a point of refinement in the most efficient and environmental safe manner possible. It will create temporary jobs during construction, operating jobs for life the pipeline, and secondary jobs because the increased flow of Oil.

                              The President knows the Pipeline make sense and he will utimately find a way to approve. If he is reelected, he will approve then. If he is not, the Next President will certainly approve the pipeline. Eitherway, its going to be built.

                              • 1 vote
                              #25.3 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:08 PM EST
                              rational thought-3748544

                              Says you. There is much evidence to the contrary.

                              • 2 votes
                              #25.4 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:40 PM EST
                              Bill-Weeks

                              I see no evidence to the contrary. I do see a lot people making disingenuous arguments for preventing the pipeline. Intellectual dishonesty seems to reign supreme among the "progressives."

                              • 1 vote
                              #25.5 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:45 PM EST
                              Fed up with Republicans

                              Which is more dishonest the republicans inflating the potential number of jobs or the Democrats claiming a potential ecological disaster.

                              • 3 votes
                              #25.6 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:58 PM EST
                              Timba65

                              If you aren't seeing evidence of possible ecological catastrophe than you either aren't looking or are willfully turning a blind eye. The material they are planning to use isn't even rated for the temp and pressure that will be necessary to push this toxic sludge thru the pipeline, or so says the experts. You are aware that Keystone already has one pipeline running thru the country, yes? You are aware that the current pipeline leaks, yes? So what makes you think that this one will work flawlessly? Furthermore the max on temp jobs will be 6500, not the 20-50,000 the baggers in Congress keep saying and the long term might total 50. Even if it were a million short term and 100,000 long term it would not be enough for even the possibility of destroying the aquifiers that feed water to 1\3 of the crops grown in the country and drinking water for a large portion of the midwest. Finally, not one drop of the oil will be sold exclusively in the US. Like every other drop of oil produced in the world it will be sold on the world market. In summary, the pipeline does nothing to help the US and carries with it a possibility of ecological disaster that could make the Gulf disaster look like nothing. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that this equation equals FUBAR. Obama made the right decision.

                              • 2 votes
                              #25.7 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:29 PM EST
                              A. Commentator

                              Yep, it was the right decision.

                              • 2 votes
                              #25.8 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:42 PM EST
                              Bill-Weeks

                              Timba65, you are missing the point and rule at issue entirely.

                              Take me up on my suggestion and ask the President to promise...no pipeline.

                              This was a test for the President and he failed.

                                #25.9 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:59 AM EST
                                Fed up with Republicans

                                The only way he can fail, is if the pipe line actually gets built on his watch.

                                • 2 votes
                                #25.10 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:08 AM EST
                                Bill-Weeks

                                If he's reelected it will be built on his watch. Many of the Progressive don't seem to understand that the pipeline is going to be built. The oil is already being extracted and will soon be on its way to market. The argument for the pipeline will be so compelling that no one with a lick of good sense will stop it. The people that will fight it tooth and nail will be viewed as having bad judgement and will be largely ignored.

                                  #25.11 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:11 AM EST
                                  Timba65

                                  Since you can see the future could you tell me who is gonna win the next super bowl? I'd like to get a big bet in before the odds drop.

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #25.12 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:07 AM EST
                                  Bill-Weeks

                                  The Super Bowl makes no sense to me at all. I suspect the team that you least expect to win will win at the last minute so the networks can sell more advertising, and the NFL can garner more royalties from advertising sold. You probably guessed, I'm a little cynical about Pro Football. Go Navy!

                                    #25.13 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:35 PM EST
                                    Reply
                                    Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                    Leave a Comment:
                                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                    FUN STUFF:
                                    • Leaderboard |
                                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                                    • Top of the Vine |
                                    • Newsvine Live |
                                    • Newsvine Archives |
                                    • The Greenhouse
                                    COMPANY STUFF:
                                    • Code of Honor |
                                    • Company Info |
                                    • Contact Us |
                                    • Jobs |
                                    • User Agreement |
                                    • Privacy Policy |
                                    • About our ads
                                    LEGAL STUFF:
                                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com