White House to announce opposition to Keystone pipeline project
Washington (CNN) - The Obama administration will likely announce its opposition to the controversial Keystone pipeline project as early as today, according to a Democratic source briefed on the matter.
Though House Speaker John Boehner's office has not yet been informed of the White House decision, the Speaker said today, "This is not good for our country. The president wants to put this off until it's convenient for him to make a decision. That means after the next election. The fact is the American people are asking the question right now, "Where are the jobs?"
The proposed Keystone pipeline has been caught up in the Washington political discourse since Republicans inserted a clause in the payroll tax cut negotiations last fall trying to force a decision on the project within a limited time frame. The White House had tried to push the decision until 2013 after the coming presidential election.
The pipeline would run from northern Alberta in Canada down to Texas's Gulf Coast. Republicans and some unions want to push approval through for the project in favor of the job creation prospects. The administration points to environmental reviews still underway and opponents express concerns about the nation's oil dependency being further embraced in regards to not rushing a decision.
From CNN Politics
- Republicans repeatedly interrupt Biden during State of the Union address
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- Texas challenges HHS guidance that pharmacies can't turn away people who have a prescription for a drug that may end a pregnancy
- Untitled
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders draws sharp contrast with Democrats in GOP rebuttal
- President Biden's State of the Union address
The jobs that the pipeline might create would be a pittance compared to the environmental damage. Pipelines always leak some amount of oil, and it there's a rupture somewhere along the line, it'll be a catastrophe for that area.
Then there's the extremely dirty process of extracting oil from tar sands. It's a clear sign we're already facing Peak Oil when oil companies can profit off of such an efficient source of oil. Instead of diving headlong into further oil dependence for the sake of very short-term price relief, we need to shift as quickly as possible to other sources of energy for our transportation. The clearest and most practical option is electricity which can be generated from all sorts of fuels - hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal.
If we stick our head in the sand and continue buying & producing gasoline cars, we'll forever be stuck at the mercy of the middle east and buying their dirty oil.
Only Oil addict cry for $10 gas, we have many sources of energy, switch to green technology it will create millions of new jobs and save money
As an individual who lives in Nebraska I say, "thank god!" For all of you that are slamming Obama for haulting something that would create jobs, let me explain to you that these are temp jobs that would only last about 2-3 months. Secondly this oil is owned by Canada and would be transported to the Gulf of Mexico and then shipped to other destination i.e. China...This pipeline was not being created in the best interests of America.
"Why not just build a refinery at the source."
-----
Great idea! That way, we can refine the oil there, and then build several pipelines to get the various prducts where they need to go and.... oh wat, never mind.
Yay, Obama! You are the man!
You guys do realize that even if he set the pipeline up that the jobs will be TEMPORARY? Doesn't mean that those "20,000" people who got the job will have it down the road.
pipeline is to be Canadian owned with Canadian oil and transported through the US so Canada can sell it OUTSIDE the US. in Congressional testimony the Canadian owners said they would not guarantee that ANY of the oil would remain here in the US and analysts have said it is all for expert. Why should we host a pipeline that does us NO good?
Oldeskoolfan, since this administration got into power we have lost over 80000 manufacturing jobs and 1.6 million lost their jobs. If the democrats stop giving the EPA unlimited power and the congress would vote on some of the bills the house put forth instead playing the class card and all they can say is tax the rich, according to the Huffington Post if you make over $37000 your rich.
And how many permanent jobs will this create? A few hundred, in Canada? Sure, the construction will employ many, but once the pipeline is done, so are the created jobs. But the GOP is going to make a massive issue of this because losing the pipeline means they've let down their main campaign contributors, and we can't have that here in the Corporate States of America.
Refine that crap crude INSIDE Canada and sell us the gas. We don't need this pipeline.
u need 2 build it now , it could b your legacy , you won't have another chance 2 do it , you will only b a 1 term pres
Somebody explain to me again why you'd build a complex oil pipeline thousands of miles across a country to an international ocean port, if your objective is to provide a domestic source of oil and gasoline?
Kil, so how much did Kerry, Pelosi, Reid invest with insider trading info.
There go the republicans, making rash decisions without doing their homework first. If the repubs win, say goodbye to more troops who will be heading for Libya, Syria, and Iran. Creates more jobs doesn't it? Sounds like the end justifies the means to me.
Oh, NO. I was going to buy oil stocks tomorrow.
Hmmm... the U.S. doesn't want Canadian oil at the moment! Obviously, Canada should just hang out until the U.S. is ready for it, (cuz ya know, Canada is like a slave to the U.S.). Oh but wait... that won't happen, it will be exported elsewhere.
Dear Obama, forget the environmentalist crazies who have just latched onto a "cause" (kinda of like pathetic celebrities), and do what is right for the U.S. If the U.S. had the capacity to provide its own energy to the whole country, this wouldn't be an issue. So pick, Canadian "dirty" oil (vs. clean oil???) or Middle East oil. Tough, tough, decision...
Refine that extremely low grade crude INSIDE Canada and sell us the gas. We don't need this pipeline. We don't need the massive amounts of toxic waste from the refining process.
Of course Obama wants to put it off till after the election, that way if he doesn't get elected he doesn't have to worry about it but if he does get elect he can go ahead and stab you in the back once again!
Ron Paul 2012!!
Tom from Canonsburg - Why does Texas need more jobs? Build the refinery in Montana
================================================================
And then build an explosive gasoline pipeline??? Or pay HUGE amounts to truck it??? (trucks don't polute at all right?)
Large amounts of OIL move in oil tankers on the water OR through pipelines on the surface.
All these loons posting about the dangers of pipelines should look at the VERY successful Alaskan pipeline. This country NEEDS and REQUIRES fuel! The ONLY decision is where you get it from. It appears Obama and the leftists want us to continue to buy it from Hugo Chevez and the Middle East that is always so friendly to us. Yes, screw those nasty Canadiens.
Obama, for purely policital reasons, is screwing over the USA and Canada in this matter.
There are thousands of miles of EXISTING pipelines, go research that this is just ONE more and will do nothing worse than any other of the THOUSANDS of miles that already exist in this country. The lunacy that this is some unique pipeline or that it will ruin an aquafer (it was already re-routed to appease those complainers) is simply the misinformed supporting Obamma no matter what.
Bush was a failure, agreed...and the current clown in office is no better.
Isn't it time we also finished off the GOP once and for all......along with their pompous and pious family values.
The so called reporting on the Keystone XL pipeline is pitiful. This has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. The product is planned for export, in the form of middle distillates – diesel, jet fuel, heating oil – primarily to Europe and Latin America.
Republican job creation numbers are way overblown. Environmental issues aside, this pipeline will raise our costs in the US signifcantly. Here's why.
The pipeline is designed to make it cheaper to export products from Canada. The pipeline ends in the Gulf of Mexico. Currently tankers must go through the Panama Canal and up the western coast of North America, which is expensive. The added expense means that the products must be sold at a discount to make up for additional transportation costs.
Meanwhile, the US buys this product at the discounted rate, and does not need to transport it very far. Guess what happens when you remove the added costs for tankers in the Atlantic? The discount disappears and the price goes up.
"You guys do realize that even if he set the pipeline up that the jobs will be TEMPORARY?"
---------
Yep – just like Obama's stimulus jobs.
No more support for energy dead ends. Green or nothing.