Skip to comments.Obama Faces Tough Decision on Oil Pipeline
Posted on 02/17/2013 10:05:41 PM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
President Obama faces a knotty decision in whether to approve the much-delayed Keystone oil pipeline: a choice between alienating environmental advocates who overwhelmingly supported his candidacy or causing a deep and perhaps lasting rift with Canada.
Canada, the United States' most important trading partner and a close ally on Iran and Afghanistan, is counting on the pipeline to propel more growth in its oil patch, a vital engine for its economy. Its leaders have made it clear that an American rejection would be viewed as an unneighborly act and could bring retaliation.
Secretary of State John F. Kerry's first meeting with a foreign leader was with Canada's foreign minister, John Baird, on February 8. They discussed the Keystone pipeline project, among other subjects, and Mr. Kerry promised a fair, transparent and prompt decision. He did not indicate what recommendation he would make to the president.
But this is also a decisive moment for the United States environmental movement, which backed Mr. Obama strongly in the last two elections. For groups like the Sierra Club, permitting a pipeline carrying more than 700,000 barrels a day of Canadian crude into the country would be viewed as a betrayal, and as a contradiction of the president's promises in his second inaugural and State of the Union addresses to make controlling climate change a top priority for his second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.cnbc.com ...
It’s GOOD for the Country. That makes it tough on Barry.
Pipelines crisscrossing for energy Independence is bad.
High speed rail lines crisscrossing the land carrying foreign oil is good.
Reduces the dollars flowing to his Muslim benefactors.
They would need to depend on air and wind power. See how that works out..long term. Same thing goes for the white House.
Tough choices - now that’s funny.
barry has no tough choices, he looks at an issue and says what can destroy the USA faster and chooses that.
He doesn’t vacillate one iota.
Isn't it more dangerous to ship refined product across the country than crude?
obama doesn’t have to worry about getting votes for his reelection. The decision isn’t tough at all. But his ideology, his OWN ideology, is what is holding this up. He does not want the US to be energy independent, nor does he give a damn about the ecology. What goes in his pocket stays in his pocket and that is ALL that he cares about.
Did you ever hear the song, “He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands”? We used to think it was about G-d. Now it’s about obama and it couldn’t be any more true.
Don’t the refined products have to be shipped from the refinery in Texas where they plan to pipe the crude?
A refinery separates crude oil into many components, from very heavy to very light. If you don't want to build one pipeline for crude oil then you will have to build ten pipelines for ten different products, some of which cannot be even pumped without some serious heating. Here is a diagram of a refinery:
So it may make sense to build a refinery where its products will be consumed, or from where they can be readily transported.
That sick scumbag Ubama doesn’t have to fill a gas tank, and the moocher base of the Democrat party mostly rides on those smelly, graffitied pisspots known as city buses, so what does he care if the price of gasoline goes through the roof?
That doesn’t really answer my question does it? Or the question of the guy I was responding to.
The higher the gas price, the more sales tax the state governments receive. It doesn’t matter to them that it also inflates the entire economy, because they don’t think they control that until after they get their cash from the taxes. For this reason, the states won’t interfere with schemes which escalate the energy costs.
Where in the article do they analyze the Economic Good?
0bama will approve Keystone, if not now, then soon. He betrays most everyone who backs him. Soon, the environazis will feel this betryal.
Here are some examples of what can be obtained from petroleum feedstock for many everyday products: plastic gadgets, tools, bags, toys, candles, clothing (polyester, nylon), hand lotions, petroleum jelly, perfume, dishwashing liquids, ink, bubble gums, car tires, ammonia, heart valves, plus thousands more products. I have yet to see any lipstick or asphalt coming from any Wind Farms, Solar Panels. Have you?
Obama decision could be moot if Canada took Keystone issue to NAFTA Court, which they would win. Canada is forced by NAFTA to send 2/3 of its oil to the US...and a “no” on Keystone not only hurts Canada selling oil to the US...but also to other countries because of 2/3 rule.
My sentiments as well. They voted for this POS let em live with it taxes and all. I could care less. Used to. Let them enjoy their free health care, free etc. When no one is left to pay for them, guess what.
There is not demand for an additional 830,000 barrels per day in North Dakota.
Ship the oil right across the border from Canada rather then piping it all the way across the country.
So after you build than a large new refinery, you are going to build thousands of miles of pipeline to ship the products? Plus now you have “waste” products like Petroleum Coke and Sulfur thousands of miles from their delivery point as well.
A Refinery in North Dakota sized for this flow rate doesn't solve the problem, it just creates more problems.
You need a port to ship your refined products out of. Houston is more centrally located for crude import and refined export.
Pray for America
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.