Obama's Carbon Scam Jeopardizes Keystone Jobs

[Wehrwolfen]

OND EDITORIALS
June 26, 2013


Energy Policy: The president said Tuesday the pipeline from Canada should be built if the State Department finds it will not add to carbon pollution and is in our national interest. But State already has — twice.

'Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest," the president said in his speech on climate change. "And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution."

As with Benghazi, President Obama must not talk to the State Department much. For in March, for the second time, the department, tasked with ultimate approval of Keystone XL because it crosses an international boundary, said Keystone XL will have no net impact on so-called greenhouse gas emissions.

Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was quick to point that fact out when he said in reaction to the president's speech: "We agree with President Obama's State Department Report in 2013 which found that, 'approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.'"

Read More:
Obama Holds Up Keystone XL Pipeline After State Department Approved It Twice - Investors.com


The Keystone pipeline like Fracking will place America in the category of no longer depending on importation of fuel to run America. The same with offshore drilling. However as we have seen Obama wants to keep America fuel dependent on the Middle East and destroying the coal industry. But China and Russia will buy up all that coal and burn it anyway.

 

[Canell]

I don't get it. :thinking Why don't you build a refinery(ies) in the northern states and produce locally? Northern states would consume Canadian oil, southern states would consume tanker imported oil.
No need for a pipeline and destruction of nature. eace

 

[Carjosse]

I don't get it. :thinking Why don't you build a refinery(ies) in the northern states and produce locally? Northern states would consume Canadian oil, southern states would consume tanker imported oil.
No need for a pipeline and destruction of nature. eace

No instead we would just build here instead of the Northern States and avoid the hassle. Half the reason the Keystone is being built instead of our own refineries is because it's easier to lobby the U.S. governments than it is to put it through our own.

 

[Canell]

No instead we would just build here instead of the Northern States and avoid the hassle.

This is even better but I don't think Americans would want to depend on gasoline import rather than oil import. The profit of the refineries IS a big deal, after all.

 

[Drake McHugh]

Destroy nature? The company and states involved have jumped through every hoop possible. Obama sold out his union cronies on this one.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I don't get it. :thinking Why don't you build a refinery(ies) in the northern states and produce locally? Northern states would consume Canadian oil, southern states would consume tanker imported oil.
No need for a pipeline and destruction of nature. eace

There used to be petroleum refineries in New York (Brooklyn), and New Jersey along the Rte.17 corridor. I guess that was before your time. These refineries were slowly closed thanks to the EPA just as there have been no new refineries, or electrical generation plants built because of EPA restrictions.

 

[Grand Mal]

The Keystone pipeline like Fracking will place America in the category of no longer depending on importation of fuel to run America. The same with offshore drilling. However as we have seen Obama wants to keep America fuel dependent on the Middle East and destroying the coal industry. But China and Russia will buy up all that coal and burn it anyway.

Doesn't buying Canadian oil count as importing?
There's a proposal to build the pipeline going west, through BC to a Pacific port, but there's a lot of resistance to it. There's also this option...

www.nnsl.com/frames/newspapers/2013-04/apr29_13p.html‎

... a deep-water port on the Arctic Ocean, with a pipeline going up the MacKenzie River, anticipating the Northwest Passage being viable. The Canadian gov't has already let contracts for building military icebreakers. Shipping could go east to Europe or west to Asia.
So Keystone, as someone said, wouldn't much affect oil-sands development.

 

[Canell]

There used to be petroleum refineries in New York (Brooklyn), and New Jersey along the Rte.17 corridor. I guess that was before your time. These refineries were slowly closed thanks to the EPA just as there have been no new refineries, or electrical generation plants built because of EPA restrictions.

OK, I just wanted to point out that transporting oil from North Dakota to Texas and then gasoline from Texas to North Dakota doesn't make much sense. Plus, fuel consumption in the US is huge.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

OK, I just wanted to point out that transporting oil from North Dakota to Texas and then gasoline from Texas to North Dakota doesn't make much sense. Plus, fuel consumption in the US is huge.

Agreed.