The Real Reason why Obama Killed the Keystone Pipeline

It’s easy to understand Obama’s rejection of the Keystone pipeline. All you have to do is place this event in the context of Obama’s rhetoric and actions of the the past three years.

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline Obama denies the creation of 100,000 direct and indirect private sector jobs.

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline Obama is forcing the Canadians to sell their oil to China – how many times has Obama expressed his admiration for the Chinese?

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline Obama ensures that oil prices stay high to benefitĀ  his donors and supporters like Geroge Soros and the Saudis

By rejecting the Keystone pipeline Obama further erodes America’s national security.

Is any of this news to you?






Read these Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

One Response to The Real Reason why Obama Killed the Keystone Pipeline

  1. Qiky December 24, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    Rundle ,I think you overstate the role of GHG’s in the KXL detbae by emphasizing a GHG-based solution. I would rank GHG’s as a distant 3rd or perhaps 4th in importance among the concerns leveled against KXL. Most likely to derail the project may be concerns about pipeline safety. The proponents of the pipeline have been broadsided by a lot of unfavorable events, some of which are their own responsibility. These incidents have been compounded by poor response to requests for information from regulators and ignoring concerns voiced by environmental groups which have now been almost taken as fact. Second, I would look at the choice of the route itself. The route is clearly chosen to be as direct as possible, which makes sense from an engineering perspective, but the question of why they don’t simply follow the existing Keystone right-of-way is valid. If you are going to run a new right-of-way, then the process necessarily becomes tougher. Third, although it may be the one which ends up first, is the question of economic vs. physical need . The case for the KXL pipeline is one of matching products to markets, not of physical cross-border capacity, and here again the proponents have not done a great job of making their case consistently. You can make a credible argument that the additional cross-border capacity is not needed given current production growth forecasts in Alberta. The regulatory regime is designed to allow new infrastructure to be build to serve new demand, not to allow infrastructure to be built to displace oil from another jurisdiction. That might be the biggest test. Anyway, I might be proven wrong, but I certainly don’t think anyone will be wishing they’d signed deals for 30Mt/yr of emissions offsets when the decision comes down later this year.Andrew

Leave a Reply

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes

Marquee Powered By Know How Media.