NY Times Columnist Joe Nocera Calls Out Obama on Keystone Pipeline
In the past two weeks, New York Times columnist Joe Nocera has published a couple of insightful columns about President Obama's cave-in to the environmentalist lobby on the Keystone pipeline. That pipeline would transport about million barrels of oil a day from Canada to refineries in the U.S. Environmental activists oppose the building the pipeline largely on the grounds that the oil it transports will exacerbate man-made global warming. The hope of activists is that stopping the pipeline will result in keeping the petroleum derived from Canada's oil sands in the ground forever. That won't happen explains Nocera. Why? One word: China.
Instead of blithely assuming the United States would purchase its oil, Canada is now determined to find diverse buyers so it won't be held hostage by American politics. Hence, the newfound willingness to do business with China. Canada has concluded that it simply can't expect much from the United States, even on an issue that would seem to be vital to our own interests.
In fact, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in China just last week to peddle his country's abundant energy supplies. As the National Post reported:
… with major U.S. media outlets covering his speech [in China], Harper also delivered a not-so-subtle reminder to the United States: if you don't want Canadian oilsands crude, China is a waiting customer with a growing energy appetite….
Canada has an abundance of petroleum and is looking to "profoundly diversify" its trade relationships, Harper said, as well as deepen its economic cooperation with a booming China that needs resources to fuel its growth.
"We are an emerging energy superpower," Harper told corporate leaders at the Canada-China business dinner in the city of 13 million people.
"We have abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy. And you know, we want to sell our energy to people who want to buy our energy. It's that simple," he said, to applause from the crowd….
Harper noted that virtually all of Canada's energy exports currently go to the U.S. and that it's increasingly clear the country's commercial interests are best served by diversifying its energy markets.
In his second column, Nocera notes that his support of the Keystone pipeline has gotten him called a climate change "denier" in certain circles. As he notes, it is quite possible to believe that man-made global warming is a problem while simultaneously thinking that the trade-offs with regard to energy security and job creation currently favor buying oil from Canada. Nocera also points out:
You want to know another little secret about the tar sands? It's already coming here, thanks to existing pipelines — and it is already doing us a great deal of good. The influx of Canadian oil is partly why our imports from OPEC are at their lowest level in nearly a decade. And because the crude from Canada is selling at a steep discount to Saudi Arabian crude, it is stabilizing the price at the pump.
Go here to read my column, The Miracle of Oil from Sand, about my industry junket to oil sands production facilities in northern Alberta earlier this year.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
it is stabilizing the price at the pump.
Last fill-up was $3.62/gallon.
Hardly stable.
Yeah, but WTI hangs around $99/bbl and the tar gunk flowing into the US today is holding that price down. US crude oil production keeps on increasing.
in fact this high sulpher, low BTU tar oil is already piped to chicago & sells at a discount to light sweet crude. the canadian owners want it piped to the gulf so it can be refined...then sold overseas as gas.
also, the gop gov & legislature in nebraska asked for a delay to reroute any pipeline away from a major aquifer.
the house had no business pressing for an earlier approval despite state objections which the pipeline co stated they'd address if given sufficient planing time.
moar memes
o3: Nocera addresses the claim that the refined products of oil sands oil would really just be sold abroad:
The second argument is that the tar sands oil won't help the United States because it is all headed for export. This is perhaps the silliest argument of all. Right now, most of the big refineries on the Gulf Coast export around 20 percent of their refined product. Why? Because every barrel of crude oil is converted partly to diesel and partly to gasoline ? and the rest of the world is far more reliant on diesel fuel than we are. The gasoline remains in the United States. Keystone wouldn't change that equation one bit. Normally, one wouldn't have to point out that exporting high-value products is good for the country. But, of course, improving our trade balance is irrelevant when you're facing the apocalypse.
there's excess refined gas & refineries are underutilized because of the recession which renders fungability moot.
I got told I was making the "silliest argument of all" and instead of taking that at face value, I make an even dumber one.
cause the NYT is suddenly all that huh?
Ron has returned from his grand tour of the Tar Patch sounding rather like Mister Zinc on steroids. I wish he had stayed home reading organic chemistry tracts instead.
Oil isn't fungible, and the warm goo Alberta exports barely qualifies as oil at all.
Instead of being chock full of high octane gasoline and benign paraffins fit for candles and sealing jam jars, the Keystone pipeline product is chemically more akin to coal tar, hydrogen deficient and highly polycyclic. Replacing that hydrogen by hydroforming costs energy , time and catalyst wear and tear hence the deep discount.
The campaign to whitewash it makes one long for the days of an earlier oil boom, when an honest New York merchant beat the import/export competition by hanging out a South Street shingle announcing himself as :
Captain Preserved Fish
+Dealer in Whale Oil +
.....Good & Bad.....
Russell: What whitewash? And who cares about the "discount" if the process is economic and produces products that are, inf fact, fungible, aka, gasoline for fueling SUVs?
With regard to any concerns about its global warming implications, oil sand oil compares fairly well with other petroleum imports after one includes transportation costs, e.g., tankers.
What Whitewash?
Listened to Yak Radio lately ?
In the interest of rent seeking, Keystone has been schmoozing the Tea Party thunk tanks to beat the band- it pains me to see Reason hitched to the bandwagon.
What are you talking about? Nebraska worked that out, as expected. The excuses for not moving forward are bullshit at this point. And who cares where it gets sold?
and will therefore be resubmitted. BFD
So you admit that Obama's delay has nothing to do with Nebraska? Thanks.
not really. the initial delay was due to nebraska. this subsequent delay is due to the idiotic tactics employed by the house gop despite the pipeline co itself saying it needed moar time to re-route.
Not even you are dumb enough to believe that. You're just shilling. Admit it.
If it remains in that price range, it will be stable. I don't mind when fuel costs more money, but I do mind when governments cause it to cost more money.
Last fill-up was $3.62/gallon. Hardly stable.
Stupid supply and demand!
Some day will get a real progressive Congress that will repeal that damn law.
It's a great law when prices drop but a stupid and unfair one when they rise.
USA! USA! USA! USA!
But I have a Plan. Let Congress determine the yearly average cost of gasoline, based upon past markets and predicted futures (to be determined by a panel of Experts appointed by the President), and force oil companies to offer--in the spirit of bipartisan compromise--an average price-per-gallon year-round, to mitigate unpleasant and unfair fluctuations.
We'll start at, oh, $3.75 a gallon.
Any questions?
Yes - can you please stop giving them ideas?
But I'm all about giving.
Why bother going through all that trouble?
Just nationalize the oil companies and put government committees in charge.
What could possibly go wrong?
Oh no no no! That would be illegal and counterproductive and frankly unAmerican! We want the oil companies to voluntarily acquiesce to our threats, in the spirit of fairness and community spirit and shared sacrifice. Only the selfish are opposed to shared sacrifice.
u mean wrong like BP?
This is a great plan! So instead of the users paying for gasoline, the gasoline companies will be mandated to provide it. Free gas! Only a real monocle wearing, Koch-sucking 1% could quibble with that plan.
Gasoline, like health care, is a basic right.
It's a great law when prices drop but a stupid and unfair one when they rise.
Wait, what?
Last fill-up was $3.62/gallon. Hardly stable.
"Stable" was a bad choice of words. The effect of cheaper oil sand gasoline on the marketplace would be "lower prices", which wouldn't much affect the underlying volatility of gas prices.
Prices would still jump around, just at a lower level than the current range.
As sarcasmic notes....US$3.19/gal a couple weeks ago, US$3.49 the other day....US$3.89 I forget how long ago.
That's *somewhat* stable in absolute $$, but on a percentage basis, a 20-25% swing +/- in the course of a few months is more like "somewhat volatile" in my world.
However, I understand that your mileage may vary.
$3.07 where I live.
Also, russet potatoes are $1.97/10 lbs., and my electric bill last month was $41.
/gloat
*HOLY SHIT $3.07!! look on face*
Yes, but he lives in Idaho.
50 degrees today, sunny, and no snow on the ground. But the friggin' people! So...so...decent! And the last time I heard a motorist blow his horn in anger was...in Florida. On the downside, the DMV here is staffed by friendly and competent people who are determined (and succeeding) at getting you in and out in 10 minutes, happy and dazed.
gah. you poor man. Who knew there was a whole state of Stepford out there?
Stepford! Funny!
We're happy because we are reasonably free. And considering that just one state to the left is where hell begins again, we are content in our alleged isolation, here in the "Treasure Valley."
Anyway, read it and weep.
I would move out there in a minute, although I have heard the place in infested with Mormons.
With about a quarter of the population, the number of Mormons in Idaho is 2nd only to that in Utah. Catholicism predominates north of Boise.
According to 2000 estimates, Idaho has about 311,425 Mormons, 18,745 adherents in the Assemblies of God, and 17,683 United Methodists. There were 130,847 Roman Catholics and an estimated 1,050 Jews.
And three black people.*
http://www.city-data.com/state.....gions.html
*OK, I made that last part up.
And three black people.*
http://www.city-data.com/state.....gions.html
*OK, I made that last part up.
I've been to Idaho. You didn't make that up.
What, no Lutherans?
I would move out there in a minute, although I have heard the place in infested with Mormons.
Not the whole state -- the SE corner and along the Utah border is heavily LDS, the Panhandle less so.
And, FWIW, the lack of an intrusive government is due in part to all those conservative Mormons.
I would want to live up north anyway. Some day.
Yes, Mormon "conservatism" cannot be discounted; but there's a refreshing mind-your-own-business attitude here that transcends mere religion (except in Boise proper, where, being the Capitol and harboring a lefty university, bits of nanny-statism have crept in); still, there's a pizza place down the street that delivers beer and wine with their pies, and I can buy said alcohol in the grocery stores, on Sunday, no time restriction that I'm aware of (but I have to go to a state store to buy hard liquor, the tax on which is very high.)
And Boise just passed a dumb smoking restriction (can't smoke in bars any more) that is being challenged, tho' enforcement is almost nonexistent, and the surrounding communities have declined to jump aboard.
No mandatory recycling, no bottle-deposit laws, no gas- or charcoal-grill bans for apartment dwellers...I spent the summer in Hell East (New York) and this place, by comparison, is Galt's Gulch.
You had me at "three black people".
And, FWIW, the lack of an intrusive government is due in part to all those conservative Mormons.
Agreed.
We're happy because we are reasonably free. And considering that just one state to the left is where hell begins again, we are content in our alleged isolation, here in the "Treasure Valley."
But... it's Idaho.
"But... it's Idaho."
Yeah.
If we're being completely honest, despite the anecdotes, the place is backwards and the weather sucks.
But... it's Idaho.
We're #4!
We're #4!
So what, we're number THREE and we're not a frozen Mormon wasteland.
we're not a frozen Mormon wasteland
I thought Indiana was a fine state...to pass through.
South Bend was a lovely city. To poop on. Who knew Indiana had ghettos?
And who's the retard that designed your toll plazas? Seriously, that's some dumb shit. Not that I did not need a handful of almost useless fake-gold dollars. And the 15 minutes I spent idling in each one, watching people try to feed crumpled bills into a slot...priceless.
One day I was driving on the Bobby Knight Memorial Toll Road and I swear somebody threw a chair at me.
"and no snow on the ground"
So today's that day huh?
the weather sucks
Not where I live. Unless bright sunshine and 50 degrees on February 13th constitutes suckiness.
So today's that [snowless] day huh?
We've had one snowstorm all winter. Six inches. All gone the next day.
"Not where I live. "
Yes, where you live, as long as it's Idaho.
Jesus, Idaho, you're a humorless fuck.
^ He lives in Idaho.
Oooh, the posse has shown up.
Time to high-tail it outta here!
On the other hand, you live in a state with a liquor-store monopoly.
Here in the Czech Republic it is only ~$8/gallon.
But you get to live in the Czech Republic. Small price to pay.
Heh, when we were touring the States a few years back I gave my wife 20 bucks to fill up the car. She was like, "This will do nothing." Didn't fill it up but did a fair job.
Okay I did the math, $7.80/gallon but that's for diesel which is slightly more expensive than gasoline.
$4 a gallon here in Hawaii, at CursedCo. Electric bill is around $400 to $500 a month. And the starch for comparison here is rice, not potatoes.
Sheesh. Your heavenly paradise sounds suspiciously like hell.
Real estate in heaven is expensive. Not so much in hell Idaho.
Detroit agrees!
So does yours.
Hilarious! Are you two a comedy act?
And I thought my $150 electric bill sucked.
First comment is win.
Just what the NYT needs: another columnist to join David Brooks as an unapologetic cheerleader for corporate interests and the fossil fuel industry. Fascinating, Nocera, that you fail in this oh-so-erudite piece to mention the two words that bespeak our present reality: Climate Change. Perhaps that would help explain why the "environmentalists" you say made Obama buckle are actually no more than conscious "citizens" who feel it is in our vested moral and biological interest to hand a liveable, breathable planet to future generations... something that "columnists" backing the corporate behemoths of the world could care less about.
Yes, that corporatist David Brooks and his evil corporations!
Human activity must be affecting the planet because it must.
Therefor Climate Change is a reality because human activity must be having an effect on the climate.
Circular logic is circular.
But the corporations!!! The lefty obsession with them is gone well passed creepy.
You spelled it wrong.
CORE
POUR
RAY
SHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUNS!
Naah.
Gotta start with three Ks.
Koch. Toe. Puss.
But you already knew that, DIDN'T you AuH20?
Ixnay on the onspiracycay!
Oh, why'd you go and have to post that for? My stupid meter broke again.
I post because keeping your stupid meter properly calibrated is of vital importance. Also, I am a lobbyist for Big Stupid, so... that.
You, sir, are the most successful lobbyist of all time!
Tell that to the MFers who give out the lobbyist awards!!!
It's an easy job.
If Barry thought the Canucks would simply slink away in defeat or offer tribute to get the pipeline, he was sadly mistaken. This pipeline will happen, with or without American involvement.
As the article points out tar slop pipelines already exist. Keystone XL is just a more direct route.
Well, its also additional capacity, and it hooks up to refineries with additional capacity.
Its not like a big new pipeline from a huge new source to a huge refinery complex isn't going to result in more finished product for everyone.
Exactly...and the refineries on the Gulf Coast are some of the most advanced and "cleanest" in the world. Processing this stuff in China will leave the surrounding area looking like Mordor.
So, like, the Canucks ain't losin' like they used to, eh? So they slink a lot less than before, eh? I think they got a good shot at the Stanley Cup dis year, an'll be drinkin' Molson from da Cup come nexr spring, eh? So there's a tribute right der - a tribute to drinkin beer from da CUP, eh?!
So watch whacher sayin about dem Canucks up der, eh?
Joe from Saskatoon
Take off! Yer blowin the floor. The Habs are comin back and DER gon win da Cup, eh?
Me and my brother Bob think so.
Doug from Ottawa, eh?
Wouldn't someone in Saskatoonbe more likely to be an Oilers fan?
That would have fit better with the thread, too.
Or maybe a Winnipeg fan. They have a really good young team.
And they can actually fill an arena.
You don't know nothin' about no Western Canada!
Who knows, my buddies in Windsor, ON - one is a HUGE Bruins fan, another's a HUGE Habs fan, couple are HUGE Wings fans, couple are HUGE Leafs fans...that's in one fokin' city!!
Canadians are hockey imperialists. They send their players down to take over US teams and then root for said US teams as if they were their own. Go to Nova Scotia sometime. Tons of Pens fans because Crosby is from the Maritimes.
Yep - just like everyone in Newfie Land was a Wings fan because Doug Clearly was the first Newfie to win a Cup (or something) - they were mad for it!
Fuckin' bandwagoners...
Daniel Cleary, not Doug
Not true. I know it's fucking cold there right now.
36F in Calgary right now. Is that cold?
I live in Florida. So, yes.
PS and the reference was to "canucks", hance the use of "Canucks" and not "Oilers"....
/know your meme
A scout from the Flames came down from Saskatoon
Said "There's always room on our team for a goon"
My observations lead me to believe that a lot of Canadians root for NHL teams that that have a farm team in their hometown.
Not sure how that woluld hold up to a proper study, though.
Damn, not sure how well my comments would stand up to proper editing, either.
Not well. The AHL is the affiliated farm system for the NHL and that league has a very small Canadian presence. The major junior teams that are everywhere in Canada aren't farm teams.
Hockey loyalty in Canada seems to be as random as NFL loyalty here. People seem as likely to root for the Ducks because Getzlaf is awesome and played junior one town over as they are to root for the Leafs because they live outside Toronto. That Leafs fans are intolerable and 1/2 of Canada falls in their territory may have something to do with this.
The Leafs haven't won anything in almost 50 years. How do they have any fans left? And what on earth do they have to be intolerable about?
Because the Canadian Sports Media fuels their hope that this could be the year.
I wish I knew, this is a decent starting point, though. If you ever find yourself debating Leafs fans about anything over at HFBoards then you'll really get a good idea of it.
Maple Leafs [sic] fans SugarFree their links, which is why everybody hates them. :-p
First time I did that in a while. And, stupid as it seems, Leafs is accurate.
http://www.grantland.com/story.....city-world
http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/index.html
Yes, I guess farm team is the wrong term for the Junior clubs that have an affiliation with a NHL team. I guess to be a farm team the parent club has to own exclusive rights to all the players and IIANM that is only the case for a tiny number of the Canadian junior clubs.
Also, I thought it was Montreal that had the biggest guaranteed player territory in the NHL. It's probably long since changed but didn't they at one time automatically own the rights to any Canadian player east of the Ottawa River?
It put them in a position of having players in the farm clubs that were better than many lower tier players in the NHL.
I read somewhere in the 70s some sports writer saying that their Halifax minor league franchise could beat at least two of the NHL teams at the time.
Just imagine the stuttering dudgeon of the enviro-absolutists when they figure out Canadian petroleum products can be shipped in American rail cars across the High Line to seaports on the Pacific coast and then carried by ship to China.
The HORROR!
Yeah but Uncle Warren gets rich off of that. So that makes it better.
More wingnut lies. No one is transporting Canadian tar gunk via rail when a pipeline already runs it to Kansas.
Fuck you shrike
Shipping the oil with a pipeline would have significantly reduced costs, as an Associated Press report explains:
Billions of dollars of infrastructure improvements have been made in recent years to allow North Dakota's oil shipping capacity to keep pace with the skyrocketing production. North Dakota is the nation's fourth-biggest oil producer and is expected to trail only Texas in crude output within the next year.
Alison Ritter, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Mineral Resources, said the state's so-called takeaway capacity is adequate, though producers and the state were counting on the on the Keystone XL to move North Dakota crude.
Shipping crude by pipeline in North Dakota adds up to $1.50 to its cost, compared to $2 or more a barrel for rail shipments, producers say.
"Oil that would have moved by the Keystone XL is now going to shift to rail transportation," Ritter said.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49036
Oh, John, you and your "facts" and "references"....
As I said. No one IS transporting CANADIAN tar oil via rail because a pipeline ALREADY exists into Kansas.
Montana is a different issue and the Montana governor supports Obama's decision.
The Montana governor blamed Nebraska for the holdup. He wants the pipeline built, see here and here.
The only way you can say that Schweitzer is supporting Obama's decision is that he's blaming the environmental review in Nebraska for keeping the application from being ready, and thus is letting Obama off the hook for not approving it.
and
In the sense of saying that the reason for the delay is not the Feds' fault, Schweitzer supports Obama's decision. However, he certainly is pro-pipeline, contrary to implications.
Yes, you're right. I pictured the KXL route and Montana when I read John's "news" link because North Dakota already has a TransCanada pipeline running through the center of the state.
http://www.transcanada.com/key.....e_map.html
John's article is so irrelevant in his lame attempt to smear Buffett it set logic on its ear.
TAKE ME, WARREN!! MY ANUS IS LUBED AND READY!!
Canada is right. We said "Fuck you!" and they're looking for another boyfriend.
Considering that high oil prices had something to do with the past (current?) recession, this is a foolish path for the president to take. I know real-estate was the main culprit, but gasoline also had an effect. Anyone remember $4-$5 gasoline? The roads were suddenly clear of pickup trucks, and you couldn't give the big vehicles away.
If gas prices rise, it's going to also effect the supply chain transportation costs, increasing prices. Which will in turn drop demand.
It is only inexplicable if you operate under the assumption has any idea what he is doing as President.
Gas is $4.20 by me already.
The funny thing is that when we had higher prices during the last recession, we were constantly getting stories on the high price of gas.
Recently, I've again been seeing stories about the rising price of gas; one of the local TV channels had it as their top story last week.
In between, the price must have gone down, and we never got stories about how the price of gas had gone down.
What would it take to transport this resource to China? Using the environmentalists' criteria of what causes global warming, will this transportation be worse than the Keystone XL pipeline?
Yes. And currently it is transported by train, which is much more dangerous to the environment than a pipeline. When is the last time you heard about a pipeline leaking?
TRAAAAAAAAAAINZZZ! Doesn't that make it OK?
Choo choo?
Well, there was a leak near Yellowstone last year.
Actually, pipeline leaks are quite common but they're usually plugged and the damage cleaned up fairly quickly.
It is rare for one to realease enough crude to do any permanent damage.
Left-wing intelligentsia is failing the world economy.
I don't even like calling them "intelligentsia", because that implies a high level of intelligence and competence that they don't really possess.
Not just China. If they pipe it to the coast or the seaway, it just enters the world market.
Oh, are we still pretending the idea of AGW isn't at best groupthink and hysteria, and at worst fake science used as a means to global economic policy changes?
Next you're going to say Auschwitz didn't exist.
Hater!
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
Hey! Look! A chicken!!
Yes.
When is the last time you heard about a pipeline leaking?
Last spring.
And I am sure they just let it leak and destroy everything around it. They didn't go out and fix it or anything.
Nope - still leakin'.
No - it did get into the river pretty bad, but they fixed it and now....have not heard of any ongoing ill effects.
Go figure?
You can bet that there were heavy fines as every spilled drop.
Meanwhile, as the leak is being fixed, the a truck owned by the country drives past spraying oil onto the dirt road to keep the dust down.
And I am sure they just let it leak and destroy everything around it. They didn't go out and fix it or anything.
Remember the guy about 10 years ago that shot the Alaska Pipeline with a hunting rifle? One .338 hole was enough to let loose almost 300,000 gallons of crude before they managed to get it fixed.
http://articles.latimes.com/20.....n/op-59754
But that pipeline is above ground. A below ground one would leak less.
But that pipeline is above ground. A below ground one would leak less.
Yes, but can we guarantee its safety from bunker-busting munitions? Or do you simply not care about the children?
Actually, I just posted that story about the hunter because I was always astounded at how much oil was lost through that tiny hole. Personally, I'd be cool with oil Habitrails in the sky if I thought it would keep me from paying $3.92/gallon like I did yesterday. 42 bucks to fill a Honda Civic! Granted, I have to use premium, but still!
Kalamazoo area in MI. I can't remember if that was last year??? I think so...
Bell's bottled it. Called it Tar Stout. It has a roasty bite.
Don't assume sales to China would be a done deal, as they would require the construction of a pipeline through pristine areas of British Columbia. There is already strong opposition to this from environmental and aboriginal groups (who hold title to the land along the route). Eminent domain anyone?
That would be another environmental fail. Instead of putting it through the plains, lets build it through the Canadian Rockies. Yeah that makes sense.
The Indians can be bought. They are just running up the price.
The enviros can be ignored. They already have been, in fact, as evidenced by the actual production of oil, which they opposed.
Enviro nuts are ignored at your own risk. They'll set fire to SUVs and other polluting actions to "save the earth".
Given the massive overlap between enviro nuts and gun control nuts, I'm willing to take that risk.
The Indians can be bought.
Racist!@!
Sure, a pipeline has environmental impacts, but generally it takes a lot less energy and has less environmental impact to use a pipeline than trucks or rail. The environmental objection simply can't be because of a pipeline qua pipeline, it has to be because they simply don't want the oil to be used.
As near as I can tell from the reports on Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline expansion the First nations Chief's are bickering about the price.
They're just using the environmental angle for PR.
Expect them to strike a deal any day and you'll see them go ahead with the plan to at least double the capacity of the pipeline to the West Coast.
there was a leak near Yellowstone last year.
Nowhere near the park.
It was a pipeline under the Yellowstone River just west of Billings, caused by the all that snow global climate aberration we had last year. Runoff was so heavy, it apparently uncovered the pipe, which allowed it to be damaged by large rocks being rearranged in the riverbed.
My September 2011 Job Speech
"The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we'll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy, whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning."
We create jobs my way (via government stimulus)
#vote4mein2012plz
Montana is a different issue and the Montana governor supports Obama's decision.
Are you sure about that?
TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline can rile political debate in Montana faster than anything since medical marijuana.
All the big guns are for it, from Gov. Brian Schweitzer to the entire congressional delegation. Even U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, the state's top Democrat, castigated President Barack Obama for denying TransCanada's application Jan. 18.
You're totally missing the point.
I don't care if China burns the tar sands. At least we won't be responsible for killing the planet again.
"At least we won't be responsible for killing the planet again."
First, assumption minus evidence.
And then the good, old 'I don't care about the result; my intentions are all that matter'.
Would you be a lefty?
And then the good, old 'I don't care about the result; my intentions are all that matter'.
Would you be a lefty?
He would be a troll.
Nocera notes that his support of the Keystone pipeline has gotten him called a climate change "denier" in certain circles.
Fail to tow the lion, you get scarlet-letter for heresy.
I once pointed out that the most 'popular' environmental policy of the last decade ('carbon credit-markets') was an enormous waste that accomplished absolutely nothing positive for the environment... and was quickly told that the reason for this was clearly the fault of *anti-environmentalists* like ME who undermined the noble effort with nothing but naysaying and criticism. It COULD have worked! Corporations! Fat cats! Greed! If only we could make laws of economics disappear...
Similar reactions with things like Ethanol. You point out how un-environmental their pet-ideas are... and they lash out at you for daring to suggest that there's anything wrong with a little well-intentioned boondoggles here and there. Par. For. Course.
If you criticize the results then you obviously oppose the intent.
The treatment Bjorn Lomborg has received at the hand of the enviros convinced me that most of them did not give a shit about the environment. There was someone who was obviously passionately committed to most of their causes, but tried to find cost effective ways to address problems. For that, he was effectively excommunicated.
Excommunicated is a good word, as the warmists have the same approach as the Catholic church ca. 1400 AD. The last thing any real scientist should be afraid of is a challenge, since science can only be proven by repetition of the same experiments. The reaction of the IPCC "scientists" (among others) is about what you'd expect from a bunch of medieval priests who've just had their scripture questioned.
I'll tell ya another thing: their beer sucks!
I like Le Fin du Monde pretty well.
Somebody needs to call Obama and the EPA out on this shit and propose building a massive refinery complex just inside our border where the pipeline is slated to come across. If his concerns are in that area of Nebraska, why not just build the refineries just inside the US border? I'm sure the people in ND that would see a huge increase in job opportunities, state income levels and tax receipts wouldn't be opposed to it.
And as an added bonus, it would expose how fucked up our EPA is when it comes to approving refinery or other energy projects.
Ah you see, then I would be opposing what my large campaign contributors and environmental lobbying groups wish me to do.
Vote for me 2012 bb!!
I don't think he's talking to you.
The answer to that would be NOT to frequent those circles. Unless he likes to be called a "denier."
mustard|2.13.12 @ 11:45AM|#
You're totally missing the point.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"We have to rely on foreign clients so we don't bankroll people that hate us!"
What a nice twist to things this is.
Well, I had no idea this map existed.
Thx google.
"Environmental activists oppose the building the pipeline largely on the grounds that the oil it transports will exacerbate man-made global warming."
That's when I stopped reading.
Bailey has gotten insufferable as of late.
Remind me why I'm supposed to have a boner for some megaproject that's using eminent domain to take people's land?
The internal polling over this issue must be ugly for the White House to lie so blatantly over this. This is insanity!
Thanks