What if there were a project that would immediately create 13,000 US jobs directly and thousands more indirectly? What if there was a feasible opportunity to reduce America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil? What if this project had bipartisan support? It seems like a no brainer that such a project should be executed, doesn't it?
It so happens that there is such a project. It is called the Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Alberta's tar-sands to refineries in Texas. It would produce approximately 700,000 barrels of oil a day. That is 700,000 barrels of oil a day the United States does not have to purchase from the Middle East. Let me ask again, the project seems like a no brainer, doesn't it?
Apparently the answer is no. This week President Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline. Why you may ask? Because extreme environmental groups rallied against the project, which is viewed as a political risk to President Obama as he faces reelection.
However, it seems to me that job creation and our national security should take precedence over strong support of environmental groups during the President's reelection campaign. But that's just me.
Annie Ellerman
Gilbert
Dale Whiting posted at 9:24 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Annie,
May I address your concerns?
Even TransCanada, the Keystone XL designer has admitted that it's decision to take a short cut across the aquafer extending from Kansas south to Texas was short sighted. It was the cheapest way, but not necessarily the most prudent way. TransCanada promisses to have ready a new design shortly. And that new design would not have potential to threaten the acquifer and hense the water supply for Kansans and Texans.
Some on this site refer to the possiblity that TransCanada would route a pipeline to Vancouver. I doubt that. But if they do, it would be because they want to send even more of their product overseas. You see, those gooey tar sands could be refined to finished product and marketed in the Centeral US and not need to go all the way south to Houston for refining. The only reason for sending that mixture of crude oil and water to Houston would be to refine it there for export. No need to send it south, refine it there and then send it back north again.
So don't jump to any irrational conclusions. Keystone XL is still alive and kicking! The potential crude oil reserves in Canada is second only to Saudi Arabia. And if you watched the State of the Union last night on the internet, you'd have seen graphics which made that abundantly clear and by inferrence abundantly clear that President Obama will be approving that redesigned pipeline route!
Dale Whiting posted at 9:38 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Dear Annie,
May I address your concerns?
Even TransCanada, the Keystone XL designer, has admitted that its decision to take a short cut across the aquifer extending from Kansas south to Texas was short sighted. It was the cheapest way, but not necessarily the most prudent way. TransCanada promises to have ready shortly a new design. And that new design would not have potential to threaten the aquifer and hence the water supply for Kansans and Texans. After all, Keystone XL hold promise to be running strong for decades if not longer!
Some on this site refer to the possibility that TransCanada would route a pipeline to Vancouver. I doubt that. But if they do, it would be because they want to send even more of their product overseas. You see, those gooey tar sands could be refined to finished product and marketed in the Central US and not need to go all the way south to Houston for refining. The only reason for sending that mixture of crude oil and water to Houston would be to refine it there for export. No need to send it south, refine it there and then send it back north again!
So don't jump to any irrational conclusions. Keystone XL is still alive and kicking! The potential crude oil reserves in Canada is second only to Saudi Arabia. And if you watched the State of the Union last night on the internet, you'd have seen graphics which made this fact abundantly clear and by inference abundantly clear that President Obama will be approving that redesigned pipeline route. The President spoke of cutting some of the red tape of our existing regulatory scheme. Perhaps the Keystone XL [version 2.0] will become some of the proof in the pudding?
Dale Whiting
Chandler
Rational Human posted at 11:39 am on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
In rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline project this past week, the Obama administration did exactly what they told everyone they were going to do.
The question many are asking is, “Why?”
Why did the President kill the pipeline deal that so many Democrats, Republicans and labor union leaders support?
Was it done because:
A. – As the administration has said publicly, there is not enough time to do a proper environmental impact study?
B. – Thanks to alternative energy companies like Solyndra, we’re on the path to becoming an oil-free energy generating country?
C. – Billionaire Warren Buffett (and Obama advisor) has an investment in a Canadian railway that would benefit from killing Keystone?
D. – Is it because Brazil, the country whose deep-water oil fields we agreed to fund, is going to be selling us cheap and plentiful oil?
In the case of the environmental impact study argument, it has been noted that the project could begin moving forward and jobs be created as another study commenced. If the findings show that the pipeline’s route needed to be changed, or additional safety measures put in place, those could easily be added to the project.
The Solyndra question answers itself.
Concerning the Warren Buffett investment, Bloomberg News reports:
Warren Buffett’s Burlington Northern Santa Fe LLC is among U.S. and Canadian railroads that stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s decision to reject TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL oil pipeline permit.
But what about Brazil? Was the real reason that President Obama rejected the Keystone XL deal because he was expecting Brazil to start selling us some of the cheap oil from their newly-discovered oil deep water oil fields. Estimates of the underwater fields could make Brazil an energy superpower and a very wealthy nation.
In May of 2011, President Obama visited Brazil and pledged massive financial support from America in the amount of $2 billion dollars. Obama also hinted that the money being lent to Brazil should also put America at the front of the line once the oil starts pumping.
The President‘s wishful thinking seems to have been undercut by China’s forceful negotiating.
Last week it was announced that Brazil and China had inked a deal for oil sales, big oil sales.
Additionally, in the wake of the Keystone XL rejection, Canada‘s Prime Minister has talked about building a pipeline to his country’s west coast where oil could easily be pumped into tankers waiting to take the oil to China:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call yesterday, told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports.”
If you wonder what the Prime Minster means when he says “diversify its energy exports“, he is apparently talking about China. The Bloomberg News report continues:
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.
As the Iranians inch closer to realizing their threat to block the transport of oil through the Strait of Hormuz and the EU has voted to ban oil imports from Iran, the importance of oil from South American oil is obvious.
Some might argue that the oil underneath American soil and American waters would bring great independence and security.
sockratties posted at 7:29 pm on Wed, Jan 25, 2012.
Obama advised congress that if they didn’t send him a clean bill it would be vetoed. The house tried to attach a bill that would have curtailed the middle class income tax break.
Solyndra was 1 of 134 clean energy companies that were on a list created by DOE under Pres. Bush. They were 1 of 16 that had made the cut by the time Pres. Obama came into office. They were totally financed until they got the DOE loan guarantee, by private funds. The loan guarantee was made before there was a housing crisis that destroyed the market and a big drop in the resale price of panels caused by foreign competition. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Private investment was the biggest loser.
Petrobrazil had already made a deal with China to buy Brazilian oil before Obama visited the Brazilian President. She is an effective president, pro U.S. and we can help Brazil not become another Venezuela by doing business with her country. The U. S. Import-Export Bank is a privately funded bank that makes credit available to foreign companies who buy U. S. manufactured goods and machinery. Brazilian companies are making an investment that will (and already is) creating U.S. jobs. It’s kind of like issuing a store credit card. Brazilian companies can borrow money from Amercan banks to buy American goods. The banks and manufacturers make money and the IE Bank get paid for the service. The import-export bank is administered by the government and actually makes a modest profit on fees it charges. The fees are given to the U.S. Treasury but the money loaned is from private U.S. commercial institutions.
Once the environmental impact and all the logistics are laid out the administration and congress can evaluate the Keystone XL pipeline project. I see any project that Big Oil is trying to ramrod through approval as trying to get it approved before associated problems are discovered. If Obama were to approve it only to find later that there is a hidden agenda such as costs, highway routing, river crossings or unseen hazards, the naysayers would be out en-masse to bad-mouth him. Better he gets bad-mouthed for erring on the safe side. Remember 3 mile island, Love Canal, Gulf oil spill. All those projects created jobs. And deep water drilling is allowed in the Gulf, but U.S. regulations now are the same as other countries who already had safety rules in place.
Warren Buffet will benefit from either final decision on the pipeline project. If the pipeline is built, most of the equipment and materials will be transported by rail. If the pipeline is not built the crude will be transported by rail. People should have no problem with an American profiting from his investments so the problem must be with his lack of animosity for our president. That’s really sad. Successful businessmen should be advising the president. Who else; Joe the Plummer (ala Bush).
The U.S. only has about 10% of the world oil supply. Even if it were all tapped today it couldn’t meet our needs. We have huge reserves of coal and natural gas. If we want to expand our use of those fossil fuels and can do so without destroying the environment, that may be the realistic way to meet future domestic energy needs.
It was reported a couple of weeks ago that the U.S. is actually exporting gasoline. If this is true, why are we subsidizing ethanol production and oil exploration? Let big oil, like BP, Exxon and TransCanada foot the bill for making coal environmentally friendly and creating an infrastructure for distribution of natural gas.
Rational Human posted at 7:55 am on Fri, Jan 27, 2012.
As Another Gov’t-Funded Energy Co. Goes Under, Obama Admin Announces More Loans. “The company, Ener1, received a $118 million grant from DOE [Department of Energy] in 2010 as part of the president’s stimulus package,” writes the Heritage Foundation’s Lachlan Markay. “The money, which went to Ener1 subsidiary EnerDel, aimed to promote renewable energy storage battery technology for electrical grid use.”
Today, Ener1 announced it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Despite the generous federal support Ener1 received (Vice President Biden even visited Ener1, January 26, 2011, the day after the President pledged in his State of the Union address to put “one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015” with the help of taxpayer funding), and like several other now-bankrupt energy companies, Ener1 was “racked by problems.”
See the Vice President mistakenly, but appropriately, refer to the bankrupt company as “Enron one”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ixt82lp8NDc