Obama to block Keystone oil pipeline

[Kleves]

The Obama administration was poised on Wednesday to reject the Keystone crude oil pipeline, according to sources, a decision that would be welcomed by environmental groups but inflame the domestic energy industry.

Sources familiar with the matter told Reuters the administration could announce its rejection of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline late on Wednesday. But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said later that it has not made a decision on the proposed pipeline.

TransCanada Corp. shares slid more than 3 percent after reports that rejection was imminent.

"We're expecting the pipeline to be rejected," the source said.

Rejection of the pipeline had been expected in Washington after Obama tried to delay the decision until 2013 but Congress forced his hand as part of a popular tax cut measure. Republican lawmakers have already begun work on a plan to let Congress circumvent the administration and give the project the go-ahead.

State Department officials said TransCanada will be allowed to apply again for a permit if it identifies a new route for the pipeline through Nebraska. Critics of the pipeline have said a spill along this route could contaminate the aquifer. But a new route would mean substantial delays.

TransCanada's planned 1,700-mile pipeline has become a potent symbol in the battle over of the future of U.S. energy policy.

With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration in November delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.

But lawmakers that support the project attached a measure to a tax-cut law passed at the end of last year that set a February deadline for a decision.

The administration has said it needs more time to consider alternative routes for the pipeline, which originally was planned to traverse sensitive habitats and a crucial water source in Nebraska.

Caught in the middle
The pipeline has placed the Obama administration in the middle of a dispute between two key parts of its voting block: green groups who oppose the pipeline over concerns about climate change and some unions who back the project because of the jobs they believe it would create.

Supporters say the pipeline that would transport 830,000 barrel per day of crude to U.S. Gulf coast refineries would create thousands of jobs and is integral to U.S. energy security.

Environmentalists say the job-creation claims are inflated and warn that the pipeline would lock the nation into the use of carbon-intensive oil sands crude for years. They said their support for Obama's reelection campaign this year depended on his rejection of the pipeline.

The company in November agreed to find a new route away from the Sandhills and Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska.

TransCanada shares tumbled as word circulated of a rejection for the project the company has developed and promoted for more than three years. The stock was down more than 3 percent at C$40.91 on the Toronto Stock Exchange at midday.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week that Iran's threat to block shipping in the Strait of Hormuz pointed to why Washington should approve the project.

I don't know enough about this to really comment (though when has that ever stopped anyone on Languish?), but this seems stupid. 

[MadImmortalMan]

Fuck Canada!

[HVC]

if you don't want our oil china will take it

[Barrister]

Fuck you then - we'll just seell our oil to the Chinese instead.   

It's stuff like this that drives me crazy regarding certain elements in the environmental activists.  Their opposition has little to nothing to do with water aquifers in Nebraska.  It has everything to do with the fact they think that the US / world needs to use less oil.

But trying to reduce oil consumption by attacking potential sources of oil seems to me to be the most asinine way of fighting global warming I can think of.  It's on par with Republicans trying to shrink the size of government by reducing tax revenues - no matter what it might do to the budget deficit.

[MadImmortalMan]

The continent is already covered in pipelines. One more won't hurt.


http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_pipelines_map.jpg

[Phillip V]

If TransCanada submits a new application, the Obama Administration says that it would need at least another 12-18 months to make a decision.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46045289

[Neil]

Good.  Shipping our precious oil to America is not an optimum use of it.

[mongers]

From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.

I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually.   

[Tonitrus]

They should complete a rail line from the lower 48 to Alaska instead.

[Neil]

From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.

I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually.   

It's a forest, Mongers.  If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.

Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.

[mongers]

From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.

I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually.   

It's a forest, Mongers.  If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.

Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.

I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc

[Neil]

From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.

I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually.   

It's a forest, Mongers.  If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.

Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.

I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc

Alberta will be able to feed itself.

[Sheilbh]

According to this Economist blog it looks like a big bit of election year jiu jitsu.  Both parties benefit:

Keystone XL
Still in the pipeline
Jan 18th 2012, 21:20 by S.W.
BARACK OBAMA'S decision last year to put off a judgment on a proposed oil pipeline between Canada and Texas until after this year's presidential election swept a tricky problem under the carpet. Supporters pointed out that Keystone XL, a pipeline that would carry oil from Alberta's tar sands, as well as some from America's Bakken shale fields, would bring not just added energy security but jobs aplenty. Environmentalists would have none of these supposed advantages, decrying emissions-heavy oil from tar sands and claiming that in the event of a leak, the pipeline threatened a vulnerable aquifer on its route through Nebraska.

So the administration's announcement that it will now slap a big "rejected" stamp on the application from TransCanada, the Canadian company that wants to build and operate Keystone XL, seems to come down firmly on the side of the greens. But Mr Obama is still treading a fine line between the two sides. Thanks to resistance to the pipeline from Republican politicians in Nebraska last year, TransCanada had already offered to reroute it to avoid the Sandhills, a part of the state where the massive Ogallala aquifer rises almost to the surface. The ostensible reason for last year's delay was the need to study new routes (the unspoken ones being to duck a tough decision and placate the green lobby). The assumption was that the pipeline would eventually be approved in some form, but not at such an awkward time.

Republicans in Congress, however, tried to force the president's hand by inserting into an important spending bill a clause obliging him to rule one way or another by the end of February. The administration now claims, insouciantly, that it had to rule against the pipeline because the Republicans had denied it the chance to consider all the risks properly. In fact, little has changed. TransCanada can submit a new application for a similar pipeline following a new route, giving Mr Obama the respite he wanted while allowing him to bask in green adulation for now. The Republicans, for their part, can now make slightly stronger attack ads about Mr Obama's foot-dragging in the run-up to the election in November.

Meanwhile, the delays have strengthened Canadian resolve to find new ways of getting tar-sands oil to global markets. This might mean expanding an existing pipeline and building a new one to Canada's west coast for shipment to Asia's oil-thirsty markets. The western province of British Columbia, however, has feisty environmentalists of its own who might yet have a say.

The Chamber of Commerce is gnashing its teeth about the decision, but there are some American businesses who will rejoice at the new delay. The final section of the pipeline would have taken oil from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf coast, helping to alleviate a persistent price differential between Brent crude, the global benchmark oil, and West Texas Intermediate. Cushing, where most American oil is delivered is landlocked. There is not nearly enough pipeline capacity to the Gulf where global markets set prices. Unfortunately for American drivers, petrol (gasoline) is globally traded. The upshot is that local refiners can buy cheap Cushing crude and sell petrol at dearer global prices. So at least Mr Obama is keeping one lot of businessmen happy.

[mongers]

From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.

I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually.   

It's a forest, Mongers.  If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.

Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.

I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc

Alberta will be able to feed itself.

Could it defend itself from the ravenous band of Southern neighbours ?

[Neil]

From my experience, there isn't a whole lot of jobs involved in building a large capacity oil pipeline.

I think the Yanks might being trying to help you Cannucks out, tearing up all of the land for tar sands is kinda short term thinking, with climate change much of that land might potentially become valuable agricultural land eventually.   

It's a forest, Mongers.  If they attempted to turn it into agricultural land, the environmentalists would engage in a campaign of terror.

Besides, there's no shortage of rich agricultural land in Alberta.

I know it's forest, but with the possibility of climate zones migrating north and south, then it to might be needed for agriculture as other countries suffer from desertification, soil erosion etc

Alberta will be able to feed itself.

Could it defend itself from the ravenous band of Southern neighbours ?

Absolutely.  The lower races are weak and stupid.