August 2nd, 2013
07:08 AM ET
10 years ago
If Wall Street's right, Obama may nix Keystone
New York (CNNMoney) - President Obama hasn't decided whether he will approve the expansion of the controversial Keystone oils sands pipeline just yet. But in a strange turn of events, some opponents of the plan are finding support for their position from an unlikely source: Wall Street.
Obama has long said that he will only approve the project if it doesn't significantly contribute to climate change. He reiterated that in a recent interview with The New York Times. The State Department has said it won't because it thinks the oil sands, which are dirtier than conventional oil, will get developed no matter what happens to Keystone. In other words, that oil is going to leave Canada somehow ... so it might as well be through the United States.
FULL STORY
From CNN Politics
- Beware deepfake reality as Trump dominates headlines
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- Biden vows US will 'forcefully protect our people' as Iranian-backed groups launch more attacks on US troops in Syria
- Untitled
- 2024 GOP field tests their messages -- while largely avoiding conflict with Trump
- Untitled
This isn't a good idea. The tar sands are messy and dirty form of oil. The jobs that would be created aren't enough. We don't have enough non-fossil fuel research and energy production.
Just what this country needs is more possible jobs taken away. Thousands of them. We need all the jobs we can get at this point. Wonder what he plans to mess up next?
Why do we never tell the whole truth about this pipeline. its Canadian sand OIL some of the worst oil ever if a spill happens, it will be worse than the gulf spill. we wont see a drop it will all be going overseas.
Wall Street is going in a right direction–no matter what this nation ever remains a strong capitalistic nation. Good sign.
People are going to be killed in auto accidents, so we might as well remove all seat belts, all speed limit signs all traffic lights. Illegal drugs will always be used, so we might as well allow them to be sold on our streets. If there is so much oil and gas in the ground to be had, then why is this industry so determined to proceed with the difficult and expensive extraction and processing of tar sands? Running out of conventional oil are we? Our focus should be on leaving tars sands in the ground.
I hope Wall Street is right, but regardless of whether they are right or wrong on this one, I oppose the Keystone pipeline.
Good. The oil will not benefit us anyways. It's providing a few thousand temporary jobs and has the potential to screw up the environment. In the long run it's just not worth it.
Obama nixed Keystone, long, long ago.
Obama doesn't want America to become energy independent........not be a long shot.
"The State Department has said it won't because it thinks the oil sands, which are dirtier than conventional oil, will get developed no matter what happens to Keystone. In other words, that oil is going to leave Canada somehow ... so it might as well be through the United States."
--------------------
This is a resurrected right wing talking point. But, I do agree with the conclusion that the oil will get developed irregardless of whether or not a Keystone pipeline gets built or not. I've maintained that building the pipeline will produce only one result, higher prices. Seeing how the U.S. is the biggest consumer of Canadian oil, that means our domestic oil prices will rise and will we see gasoline prices comparable to those in Europe. Period.
The pipeline extension will not create new jobs- it will transfer them from the oil refineries in the Mid West to the Gulf Coast. The construction jobs will be filled by the same people doing work on the current stretch. They migrate with the line. What this will cause is higher food costs as it will remove the cheap diesel currently being produced in the Mid West.
Hey Rick, how can sending crude through a pipe from Canada, to the Gulf coast, then on to a tanker headed to China make America energy independent? Now how could thousands of wind farms and solar panels all over America make us energy independent? Do you even know what 2 + 2 equals?
@Rudy,
"Seeing how the U.S. is the biggest consumer of Canadian oil, that means our domestic oil prices will rise and will we see gasoline prices comparable to those in Europe. Period"
So the law of supply and demand doesn't apply here? With more supply comes lower prices. Honestly, I don't understand your logic whatsoever.
A crystal ball says it is unnecessary. But the southern root will need a second.
@Dominican,
Why are you opposed to Keystone? This is an opportunity for good jobs. This is an opportunity to lessen our dependence on oil from the middle east. Why wouldn't we want to have less reliance on the middle east so we can get out of there?
Also, if we do it here, it will be held to much higher standards for the environment. I would think that would be a good thing. For some reason President Obama thinks it's ok to drill off of the coast of Brazil to get our oil yet we can't drill here? That confuses me. If drilling is going on anywhere in the world, then according to the global warming crowd, this will affect the environment negatively. Why wouldn't we want to do it here where we know that the standards will be at the highest level while at the same time creating jobs? The reality is that we use oil now and we need it now. I am by no means saying that we don't use alternative sources of energy and continue to develop those, but for the foreseeable future we use oil. I'm interested to hear your opinion.
HYPOCRITE word from Greek and Roman theaters of ancient times, that means " play actor". But over time, a HYPOCRITE came to mean a person who changed his/her MASK for APPLAUSE. Someone who Performed for the Crowd, who performed for an audience. I know you know of whom I speak!!!!!! He leads without leadership skills and governs without knowledge.
tom l. wrote:
"Seeing how the U.S. is the biggest consumer of Canadian oil, that means our domestic oil prices will rise and will we see gasoline prices comparable to those in Europe. Period"
So the law of supply and demand doesn't apply here? With more supply comes lower prices. Honestly, I don't understand your logic whatsoever.
----------------------
Not my problem, if you don't understand basic supply and demand. Let's hope the moderators post my explanation of it.
its just going to be exported ,will do nothing for the price at the pump
jpmichigan
HYPOCRITE word from Greek and Roman theaters of ancient times, that means " play actor". But over time, a HYPOCRITE came to mean a person who changed his/her MASK for APPLAUSE. Someone who Performed for the Crowd, who performed for an audience. I know you know of whom I speak!!!!!! He leads without leadership skills and governs without knowledge.
-----------------
Why are you talking about Romney? He wasn't elected
"So the law of supply and demand doesn't apply here? With more supply comes lower prices. Honestly, I don't understand your logic whatsoever."
----------------
Wrong. The product is currently sold at a deep discount because of high transportation costs. If you construct a pipeline, then you remove the downward pressure to discount the selling price. You figure it out.
Well, if it is approved, I am certainly glad it isn't coming through Minnesota.
@Dixie–Don't know who you've been listening too, but there will only be a couple of thousand jobs created the first year while the pipeline is built, thereafter..............a couple of hundred. Not nearly worth the risks involved. Why do you think the Canadians won't allow it in their country?
Rudy: "Seeing how the U.S. is the biggest consumer of Canadian oil, that means our domestic oil prices will rise and will we see gasoline prices comparable to those in Europe. Period."
I'm giving your comment a great big "brrrrrr" (from up here in the four months of every year frigid north). "BRRRR" ... to the cold ... and "BRRR" to the higher fuel prices.
"This is an opportunity for good jobs"
Tom, this has been analyzed to death by experts a lot smarter than us. You're talking about 2000 temporary jobs, followed by about 50 or permanent jobs (not necessarily filled by Americans, btw) to maintain the line. As others here have pointed out, the oil's going to China anyway. As such, I doubt "supply and demand" debates are even relevant.
Meanwhile, the environmental risks far, far outweigh the benefit of 2K temp jobs that would likely be filled by Canadians. So, basically, the only reason I can see for conservatives to support Keystone is because Obama doesn't like it. But not to worry, conservatives: according to this piece, Kerry's on board with Keystone anyway, so what are even talking about?
Warren Buffet is one of Obama's big donors. Buffet has invested a lot of money in railroads to move oil. Approving the Keystone Pipeline would negatively impact Buffet's business interests.
I can't believe after another tepid jobs report this morning, approval of the Keystone Pipeline is even an issue. Obama will probably blow another opportunity to create jobs. Good middle-class jobs.