Keystone XL is dead – at least until Jan 2013 when the joker living on Pennsylvania Avenue hopefully has to find another job. From the WSJ:
“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,” Mr. Obama said.
Yeah right. Because we don’t know anything about pipelines, or the Ogallaia Aquifer, or crude oil or anything else. What exactly is the magical “information necessary” that the State Department can’t seem to locate? The answer to that, of course, is whether its wiser to annoy the unions or the greens. Since the Ditherer in Chief can’t face such decisions, he kicked yet another can down the road. Surprised? Not me! As I wrote over at FPM yesterday:
President Obama will be forced to do something he hates to do: make an actual decision, all the more so because if he approves Keystone XL he will upset his green base, while if he kills it he will annoy his union base. History suggests he’ll look for a new way to waffle – perhaps by killing the project for now, while promising to revisit it in 2013.
Note this from the WSJ story:
The State Department said TransCanada could submit another application…
Which is not to say that I am prescient, but rather to point out how predictable this President is.
The enviros claim to be terribly worried about the Ogallaia Acquifer, which Keystone XL would cross in Nebraska. Know how many pipelines ALREADY cross the Ogallaia? The answer awaits, below the fold:
The shaded area is the aquifer. The dark blue line starting on the upper right is Keystone XL. The rest of the lines are pipelines already in place.
Go figure.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Rich, what’s your take on the prospects of the Congress taking this decision and running with it? I know the House is already working on it, and the Senate has a lot of support for going with the House on taking the reigns on it.
Here’s the paragraph that refers to it from the link I posted in Open Thread:
“But the issue will not be dropped by congressional Republicans. GOP leaders in both chambers are already mulling other legislation that could take the decision on the pipeline completely out of Obama’s hands. They have also said any such maneuver could likely be included in the longer term payroll-tax deal Congress has indicated it will pass by the end of February.”
Still voting present, I see.
The problem is that the more time we take, the more likely Canada will just bail and go to China or anyone else really. I think this decision effectively kills it. PM Harper has no love of the US and indeed it will be better for his reelection if he sticks the US in the eye.
I think he would rather do business with us (he tried to invoke the threat of Iran cutting off oil to persuade the building of the pipeline just a couple of days ago I think), but his first responsibility is to Canada, not Obama, and Harper has not been shy in saying so.
I think Skip is right. I can’t find find the link to the speech that Harper gave, essentially saying that we were their first choice, but not their only one.
Fritz – Dunno if the Senate will grow a pair or not. Would be nice to see, but I’m skeptical. This guy is so far out there on environmental issues that even EPA old-timers think he’s nuts.
Skip – You are correct. Last week they started hearings on the Northern Gateway Pipeline (the one that would ship crude to the west coast for shipment to China). However, over 4,000 people signed up to comment and under Canadian law every person has to be heard. Most people estimate that the hearings won’t close till early 2013, at which point we’ll hopefully have a President whose not moon-bat nuts.
Interesting. I did not know that about Canadian Law. Perhaps there is hope yet.
But polar bears will die!!
The State Department (and why the HELL is the Stae Department controlling this?) announced that TransCanada will not be allowed to amend their application to address environmental concerns, but will have to file a completely new application, which restarts the process fromt he very beginning, meaning the pipeline is at least 3 years in the future.
Obama’s statement blames Congressional Republicans for forcing him with an arbitrary deadline. He wanted to delay a decision until next year, after the election. The reality is that this pipeline plan has been under review, stalled by the Obama Administration, for over 3 years.
Canada’s Prime Minister told Obama on the phone today that since he has made this decision, Canada will sell the oil to China. That backs up statements he’s made for months – Obama cannot claim that this is a surprise.
Environmentalist lunaticsare in an uproar about the pipleline, supposedly because it crosses an aquifer in Nebraska. Pipelines already cross that aquifer. A pipeline almost as long has crossed Alaska for how many decades now, and there have been no environmental catastrophes – and that was built using much older technology and construction methods.
This is terrible news for our country from an energy standpoint, and from a jobs standpoint. However, it is great as a political football – Obama is going to be hammered on this until election day.
Did you not read my comment about polar bears dying?
Hmmm…Polar Bear meat may become cheaper for BBQing!
C’mon, BarryO. Where’s your ridiculously pithy drive-by Democrat talking point masquerading as deep political commentary on this one?
Say it with me…Romneycare
I somehow knew that’d be your best/worst. With that predictably out of the way, please now share with us your non-Jack Handy deep thoughts on the Keystone Pipeline ball-drop.
Since you asked nicely/respectfully this time, I will answer. I am highly disappointed that this didn’t happen. I think it’s politics at its worst. O will defer the decision until after the election, blame the Repubs for the deadline being too short while campaigning, and then approve it after he wins. The company already reapplied for the permits knowing that with a little more time (wink, wink, nudge, nudge – after the elections) the environmental issues will be resolved and they will move forward.
The play is not entirely bad for O politically speaking, and a month or two may not be that big of a deal economically speaking overall, so I think everyone’s a little overreacting here too. It’s the posturing that annoys me. I personally may be drinking the water from the Ogallala Aquifer, so I don’t mind taking a few more months to straighten it out, but I definitely think we need the jobs and the oil.
Like Big John McCarthy says, “Let’s Get It On!”
Why thankee kindly and don’t worry, we’ve got your back should the Black Panthers and/or SEIU give you any trouble. Well, Stephanie might not (unless you promise to pledge allegiance to Gov. Perry), butat minimum I will.
(please note this has nothing to do with what Scott M posted re. a pipeline)
Priceless Eric!!!
“and then approve it after he wins”
Did you miss the part where his own secretary of energy said this has to go completely back to square one and will take the same, multiple years to get approval?
Did you miss the part where the Canadian Prime Minister said he’ll bypass the U.S. and do this deal with China?
Did you miss the part where the President put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and has completely stalled the application process?
Why would he jeopardize losing this many votes on such an unpopular decision, including millions of Union votes, until “after the election?” if he’s on-board with it anyway?
Baby-steps with BarryO, Rufus, baby-steps. Initial criticisms of Dear Leader can’t be without some
delusionssilver linings.Good point. I need to keep reminding myself that emotion, empty platitudes and fabricated appearances are more important than fact. I keep getting caught up in that crazy, “scientific method” thing they taught me in school.
1. If he wants to push forward, he can make it happen.
2. Canada’s threats are to force our hand. It’s business. In addition to the money we give them for the oil, we also do business with them that could be jeopardized by their actions, so I’m not so don’t be surprised that our leader didn’t flinch. Taking a page from the Republican mantra that foreign countries do not dictate policy for us seems like something you would like. Or you think we should just bow down to what every other foreign country thinks we should do by holding something over our heads. Your argument doesn’t align with the philosophies you espouse.
3. Did you miss the BP Gulf Oil Spill disaster. I bet you were trumpeting how this was Obama’s Katrina. Should we check the tape? It was his way of addressing a problem until we could ensure the safety of the operations. Maybe you should ask the people along the coast how the spill affected their economy. Now ask the people of Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas how it might affect them if there were to be a spill.
I am sure an arbitrary two month deadline set by the deadhead Repubs was the best move (not) for all, but the President is not going to gamble with lives just to please a few folks wanting to rush to make it happen.
Three years is not a rush, mi amigo, though it certainly does make me more in the mood for a change of atmosphere.
I agree that this is a political ploy and that is what stinks the most but there are a couple of problems with your argument.
First off it’s the economy that makes me worried Canada is more likely to find business elsewhere than in the past. Under normal circumstances, sure okay maybe Canada would smirk or grind their teeth and wait for US politics to play out. With all the uncertainty in the future I don’t think it’s out in left field to think that if China shows up with a pile of cash (which we sold them) Canada will go for the sure thing.
Secondly, your statement about not letting foreign nations dictate American actions is on its head slightly. It is domestic policy influencing foreign actions; Canada isn’t holding us to any terms to build the pipeline. They willfully navigated our maze of regulations and did everything we asked them to. In fact, the US gave them no reason what so ever until the last possible moment that the pipeline wouldn’t be built and that was pure electorate pandering.
Lastly, Katrina? What in the hell does a natural disaster have to do with this? Has there been some worldwide change in how deep sea oil rigs are built? No. Does the same type of rigs that ruptured in the Gulf of Mexico operate elsewhere in the world? Yes. Did a huge number of nations get together to impose new safety protocols and inspections before they would be allowed to drill? No. Has even the US changed its rules for off sea operations of oil rigs? No.
Square peg meet round hole. Not to mention, did you see the pipeline map above? Where is the concern for all of those? Oil crisscrosses this nation by the billions of barrels daily, the idea that it would ruin the drinking water is absurd. As a newer pipeline it would be far more technologically advanced than many of the lines in place now and would pose a much smaller risk. Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think they are trying out any new type of building or construction or other procedure outside of how oil is normally transported.
At the very least, the people concerned with fracking can fall back on the idea that there hasn’t been enough data generated to know for sure (not that I agree with them). But this? This is standard operating procedure! Seriously, what the hell.
Mighty Skip beat me to the punch, so, what he said…
I will add, there are some equally damning charts of the Gulf and active and inactive oil rigs as well as zones with lease applications into Obama’s administration and the snail’s pace they are being considered that have nothing to do with the disaster in the Gulf. I know a fair amount of grizzled, old oilmen in Texas who put business way ahead of politics and they say there has never been an administration that has been worse for their industry.
You can’t deny the FACT that this President has used every opportunity he has had to funnel tax money (your money!) to green businesses and has used everything in his power through the EPA and other agencies to diminish and/or halt domestic oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear development.
There are only a small handfull of reasons he would do this. He’s stupid…which I doubt, or he’s greedy…possible but not likely, or he’s got an evil agenda…which I believe with every ounce of what intellect I possess. I believe that his agenda has to do with diminishing America and raising the UN, or some variation of that including UN Agenda 21, or communism outright, or at the very least plain, old socialism.
Think New World Order, that demon that GHW Bush(Daddy Bush) slipped and spoke about when he ran for POTUS.
He loves his father. He named his autobiography for him. His father’s opinions of the U.S. and Britain are well documented and all of Obama’s actions are in line with his father’s political philosophy. He believes the U.S. and England were Imperialist empires and the sins of their colonialist crimes need to be reversed by using their wealth to prop up the colonies they, in his mind, destroyed.
UK may have some “ruined colonies” but I can’t think of one that we (USA) ruined. Guam, Samoa, PR are doing as well as can be expected, and AK and Hawaii became states. If you have time…about three years or so (LOL!) read UN Agenda 21. Thousands of pages that will make your flesh crawl it’s so pinko.
All Imperialism is unjust and all “contacted natives” have been ruined by the experience. Don’t you remember the long life expectancies and technological innovations the natives had before they were destroyed by Imperialists?
Then by your definition, you are an idiot for trying to advocate he has an evil agenda. It just may not be your agenda.
Regardless of who supports or criticizes it, little arguing it’s an agenda which reeks of anti-Americanism, n’est-ce pas?
No…it’s evil. Takes away a lot of freedom. Do you understand freedom, Barry?
Lastly, Katrina? What in the hell does a natural disaster have to do with this? – I know you just skimmed the point. I said the BP Oil Spill was being heralded by the conservatives as Obama’s Katrina. That the diaster would have political backlash like it did for Bush. The point of bringing up the BP Oil Spill was to say that O is not going to rush into another potential disaster. Is a disaster likely to happen – no. But since the Oil Spill, the administration will be much more cautious before giving the green light to something that could potentially have a tremendously negative environmental impact if something did go wrong.
Sure Canada can sell to whomever they want. Granted I agree it is a risk that I would not want to take. Due to their proximity to the US, other businesses are able to sell products here that they may not be able to export across the world as easily or profitably, and I argue that by skiping the US, the Canadians could be affecting a larger part of their export business than just oil. Whether or not you say they will wait, the answer is they have waited. How much longer they will wait is not in my or your crystal ball.
I agree with you Rufus, the President is holding true to his promise to make advances in alternative fuel sources and green technology. This also to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
For the moment I’ll take it English is your second language. Exactly what about your statement above invokes politics? Let us break down your sentence there. “His way” meaning Obama. “A problem” meaning the oil spill. “The Operations” meaning drilling oil in the gulf. What was Obama doing about the problem of oil spills and drilling in the gulf? Well according to your sentence, you are suggesting he is “addressing” it by not allowing people to drill for safety reviews.
Did I miss something? Exactly where does political backlash come in?
Oh wait, I guess I have the nouns in your sentence messed up. “His” still means Obama, but the “problem” must actually mean political backlash? And the “operations” is his re-election campaign. But you refer to oil spills directly in the following sentences, hm. Well, Obama is black, oil is black, so I guess oil spill means Obama’s blackness will spread across the land. Okay, now things are starting to make sense. So the solution to his problem is to ensure his safe reelection to avoid the political backlash.
Wow. This is fun, this is like those children adlib games except written by a retard.
As Canada is the US’ largest trading partner I don’t think they will worry too much about backlash. And you are wrong; I do have a crystal ball. It is called my brain and I look into it when I need insights on problems. Perhaps you lost yours.
A pipeline to Barry’s brain…
Harper’s scheduled to visit China next month,so we can guess where that oil’s going.
Great post, and wonderful map, Rich! But why let facts get in the way of a good narrative? Darryl Hannah has saved us from Big Oil and we owe her a debt of gratitude.
Once more, not disappointing his detractors, the IIC comes down totally on the wrong side of what would actually help the country and what is the right thing to do! Asshat!!!
-fritz-, haven’t you noticed the money this administration has poured into Green Energy? Our leader has brought us to the forefront of a new era of clean, cheap, renewable energy. Fossil fuels are so yesterday. He’s saving these private investors from wasting their money on outdated technology. Why do you think they call it “fossil” fuel? Only dinosaurs use it. Why, I hear in his next term he’s going to build a super fast, high speed monorail from New York to Los Angeles and it will be powered by solar energy and free to all Americans, legal or illegal! Get on the green bandwagon, old-timer.
I also read this morning that the price of gasoline is roughly double the cost at the time of his ’09 inauguration. My income hasn’t gone up hardly at all since then. The buck stops here! Not trying to be crude, but my butt is greener than Obama’s energy policies!
Also, we need input from Rich, our resident energy genius, but I read a report the other day that stated that fossils are not really the production driver for petroleum, but the magma activity underground is actually what drives it, and therefore, it is essentially inexhaustible. The report stated that some fields thought depleted for years are actually filling up again with oil.
I’ve read about that also. It’s an interesting theory. I believe the vast majority of geologists still conform to the oil is slush from millions of years of carbon detritus being underground under high heat and pressure, but the new theory is causing a stir and I’m sure there will be more testing of it in the future. It would be wonderful if it is correct.