Keystone fight explodes (behind the scenes)
April 1st, 2013
11:31 AM ET
5 years ago

Keystone fight explodes (behind the scenes)

(CNN) – Guns. Immigration. The budget. Sure. All hot issues at the moment.

But those watching Washington closely see what may be an even more intense scramble behind-the-scenes: the fight over the Keystone XL pipeline.


Filed under: Congress • Energy
soundoff (16 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    This project does not create all of the jobs that misguided supporters in the general public thinks it has. I recall Gov. Rick Perry claiming during a GOP presidential debate that it would "create a million jobs." You would only get a couple thousand permanent jobs, if you're lucky.

    This project serves one purpose, and one purpose only. To reduce the cost of the product coming out of Canada. It is currently sold a discount because of the higher transportation costs. The new generation of super tankers must go around the tip of South America because they are too large to fit through the Panama Canal. The US enjoys the benefit of being able to purchase the product at the discounted price, but has no need to transport it to the Atlantic and Europe beyond.

    Supporters also tell you that the pipeline would reduce the cost to US consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Once you eliminate the transportation costs, then downward pressure on the price eases, and up, up it goes. And so up goes the prices in the US for the product. This pipeline is all about profit for the oil producers: not jobs, not lower prices.

    April 1, 2013 11:42 am at 11:42 am |
  2. plain&simple

    Bullet trains make more sense!!!

    April 1, 2013 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  3. much thunder..little rain

    americas natural gas is where all the jobs are...good paying , entergy freedom,, clean ...we should be converting all our cars, trucks over to gas.....

    April 1, 2013 11:54 am at 11:54 am |
  4. Dutch/Bad Newz, VA

    Politicians want to achieve energy security and less dependence on hostile governments. These goals can be achieved with less oil, and at less cost, through conservation. Rather than building the Keystone Pipeline, we will be better served by trimming the fat from our current energy system.

    April 1, 2013 11:58 am at 11:58 am |
  5. Marie MD

    Hate to say I told you so if there is a leak, but . . . . . . .
    Not only are the job numbers misguided but we don't get that oil which already has caused a spill. Horizon anyone?

    April 1, 2013 12:00 pm at 12:00 pm |
  6. MaryM

    Exxon Pipeline ruptures in Arkansas. Exxon knows how to do clean up. But how much contamination will there be in the lakes surrounding the area. Now this XL pipeline, tar sands which are extremely dirty, not regular oil, travels from Canada to Texas for refining only to leave the U.S.

    April 1, 2013 12:06 pm at 12:06 pm |
  7. Fair is Fair

    Obama is going to fold on this one. The best part? Watching all of his supporters who are anti-Keystone now "magically" change their tune when he does.

    April 1, 2013 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  8. Rudy NYC

    Fair is Fair

    Obama is going to fold on this one. The best part? Watching all of his supporters who are anti-Keystone now "magically" change their tune when he does.
    Nope. Ain't gonna happen. That's what conservatives do....fall in line.

    April 1, 2013 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  9. ghostriter

    Fair...there's not much to fold on. He already said it could go thru as soon as the paperwork is done. Only conservatives are attempting to inflate the issue into more than it is.

    April 1, 2013 12:36 pm at 12:36 pm |
  10. just sayin

    so obama is going to have to make a decision. is he working for the good of the country or for the environmental kooks. whay should be a no-brainer is giving obama fits because of his far left base.

    April 1, 2013 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  11. g

    the oil barons will make a killing on exporting to china -with all this oil going to china clogging the system americans will pay at the pump for the shortage in america

    April 1, 2013 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm |
  12. Sniffit

    Oil pipeline in Arkansas just ruptured and it's pouring down the streets and into peoples' front yards, literally. There's footage of it online already. It's also leaking in to the local lake.

    As for claiming Obama would be folding, there's nothing to fold on. He's always said it could happen as long as it went through the full approval process. GOPers/Teatrolls took that as their cue to try to force it to be approved EARLY and not go through the full process, even though the relevant agencies said that would force them to recommend it not be approved because they wouldn't be able to finish their analyses in time. It was nothing more than the GOP/TEatrolls manufacturing the talking points you're spewing, Fair and others, but it's entirely dishonest. Obama's never said he opposed it and never said he wouldn't allow it.

    April 1, 2013 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm |
  13. Rudy NYC

    just sayin

    so obama is going to have to make a decision. is he working for the good of the country or for the environmental kooks. whay should be a no-brainer is giving obama fits because of his far left base.
    Give one good reason why the approvals should be sped up. Any jobs that come out of it will not make a significant dent in our curent woes, because they will to few and we will not see most of those for years to come.

    April 1, 2013 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  14. Fair is Fair

    ghost – I know, I know. All I'm saying is that these ardent opposers are going to be singing a different tune once he signs it. Mark my words, they're going to come out of the woodwork in support. Why? Because their principles are secondary to the irrational blind faith they put into this man.

    April 1, 2013 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm |
  15. Mikey

    @Just sayin – This issue is far from a "no-brainer" (which I thought was the name of the party resulting from the merger of the GOP and TP). Tar sands oil is very energy intensive to process and therefore very inefficient. The tar sands in Canada represent a huge carbon pool that will contribute to air quality and climate change (which for the 13th century science crowd, actually does exist), making it a poor long-term solution to our energy problems. Accessing the tar sands will have only a minor impact on gas prices in the U.S. Increasing worldwide demand and likely production adjustments by OPEC will mute the effect of these additional supplies. The oil will not belong to the U.S., but to Canada and multinational oil companies.

    All that being said, we do need the energy supplies along with the expansion of natural gas, but hopefully only as a stop gap while we continue to improve sustainable energy sources and increase their production capacity. Part of our economic recovery has been and will continue to be driven by the increasing supply of domestic (not Canadian) oil and gas.

    This is a complex issue that requires more indepth thinking that either the reactionary environmentalists or members of the new-founded "no brainer" party are willing or able to engage in.

    April 1, 2013 01:03 pm at 1:03 pm |
  16. rs

    Keystone is a redundant giveaway to big oil. The stuff currently gets to the gulf via rail car- far safer and more relaible than pipeline- and no one loses their private property. I'll give it to the GOP. If you want a boondoggle and they give you Keystone.

    April 1, 2013 01:09 pm at 1:09 pm |