Wednesday, February 01, 2012

Canadian Oil, Yes or No?

By Marshall Frank
The president has done it again, only this time in the form of quid pro quo.

If anyone doesn’t get it, here’s what must be going on behind the scenes. This president is smart enough to know what people want to hear. Despite all the lip service which draws cheers from the minions at campaign speeches, this president has no intention on breaking partnerships with oil cartels that hold our nation economically hostage. When opportunities do arise to make a significant move in that direction, nothing happens.

The Saudis are jumping with joy, as is Hugo Chavez, for they represent almost one-fourth of the foreign oil imports consumed by America.

By nixing the Keystone Pipeline project, President Barack Obama took three steps backwards in the plight toward energy independence and job creation. Words mean nothing. Actions mean everything.

Every president since Nixon has sworn to do everything possible to wean the United States from dependency on foreign oil. For every president, including this one, it has been empty campaign rhetoric and no substance.

When Carter took office in 1977, he created the Department of Energy for this very purpose. Instead of diminishing foreign oil imports, our dependency has increased from 33 percent in Nixon’s era to roughly 50 percent today. While Canada is our largest import source, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela— two countries who would broker a change in our way of life — account for nearly one-fourth of all foreign imports.

Not only is our economy beholden to the trends and whims of foreign decision-makers, our nation is constantly pitted into a crucial dilemma of national security risks. It is inconceivable that our elected officials do not see this as a simmering crisis. There are solutions, but our leadership team hasn’t got what it takes to do what’s necessary. We cannot, and should not, be beholden to countries that hate us.

Now comes an opportunity to see a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel in the proposed 1700-mile Keystone Pipeline from Canada through and into Texas. The project is estimated to produce 20,000 jobs, plus gazillions of barrels of crude oil from which we could break loose from the Saudi yoke and partner more with our friends to the north.Canada’s government has flatly said that if the United States does not deal, they might sell their product to China. What are we waiting for?

He who hesitates…

Even a Democratic-controlled Senate voted 89-10 in December to go forward with a proposal to consider the pipeline. Most of those senators are convinced it will be environmentally safe. North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, Democrat Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said, “The pipeline is absolutely in the national interest.” Democratic Senator Jon Tester of Montana said he offered support for the pipeline and the jobs it would create. The White House Jobs council supports the project. Even the labor unions are supporting the pipeline.

Blaming republicans, the president has rejected the proposal claiming they forced his hand by not allowing more time to study. That’s more lip service. The administration, including the leadership of the state department, said that no decision on the matter will be made until after the November elections. National security, job creation, economic factors and the American people are all trumped by politics as usual. And, they are trumped by suspicious loyalties to foreign entities, exactly what the constitution was designed to prevent.

Where do the president’s interests lie? Besides the Saudis and Venezuela, they lie to his benefactors, American taxpayers be damned. Following the BP spill, a moratorium was declared to prevent drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet, Brazil’s Petrobras Oil Company, owned in part by George Soros, was given the go-ahead to drill in the gulf in early 2011.

The Anwar Oil Field is a huge natural reserve in the northern remote regions of Alaska, we’ve yet to tap into. Our resources are vast, but nothing happens.

Solutions exist for weaning off foreign oil. Obama talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.

Time we stopped bowing to Saudi Arabia and take care of the homeland first.

20,000 jobs. A giant step toward Oil independence. Answer: No

Time for a new president.

Part II
Killing Keystone
by Rich Trzupek .. Jan 19th, 2012 - FrontPage Magazine

More than three years after an initial permit application was filed and following the submission of hundreds and hundreds of pages of additional documents, President Obama announced that he was rejecting TransCanada’s proposal to construct the Keystone XL pipeline because his administration supposedly wasn’t given sufficient time to review the project. Newt Gingrich called the decision “stunningly stupid” and it’s hard to argue with the former speaker on this one.

The president tried to duck responsibility for the decision, pointing the finger at Republicans in Congress who attached a pipeline provision to the short-term payroll tax cut extension approved last year that required Obama to approve Keystone XL by February 21 or explain why he was killing the project. This is yet another example of the President’s “the buck stops there” approach to leadership.

“This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people,” Obama said. “I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil.”

The president would have us believe that the State Department had but sixty days to review the project and they couldn’t possibly come to a decision in that short a time. In fact, the State Department has been reviewing the proposed project for over three years. In setting a deadline for the decision, congressional Republicans were not imposing an arbitrary, unreasonable deadline. They were rather attempting to force an end to the dithering and waffling that has gone on for far too long.

The amount of documentation that has been filed and reviewed since TransCanada first filed its permit application in September 2008 is staggering. The company has submitted thousands of pages of data, plans, maps, studies and all of the other bureaucratic flotsam and jetsam that government requires these days. In response, the State Department has generated thousands of pages of its own, including a Final Environmental Impact Statement that spans eight massive volumes. The president’s claim that his administration didn’t have “the information necessary to approve the project” defies credulity. The administration has a mountain of information, and it’s all available on the Internet.

What was really wanting here was time to respond to all of the complaints and pseudo-concerns that obstructionist groups like the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council have raised in their attempts to kill the project. As part of our dysfunctional regulatory system, well-heeled environmental groups can (and do) file a practically endless number of comments when permit applications are being reviewed. Typically, the vast majority of such comments are without merit, but that’s not the point as far as the environmental groups are concerned. Their aim is to gum up the works of the system, in the hopes that developers will tire of the process and give up, as well as to establish the basis of the lawsuits that inevitably follow any regulatory decision that runs contrary to their wishes.

At some point, the chief executive has an obligation to say “enough is enough” and press forward. But, this isn’t a chief executive who’s willing to make a stand of any kind. The answer to the question “how long will it take before Obama has the sense to stand up to the radical environmentalist portion of his base?” remains unknown, but we know this for sure: that answer involves more than three years per issue.

Environmentalist opposition to Keystone XL typically fell into one of two categories: that the pipeline would supposedly endanger sensitive aquifers in Nebraska and that utilizing this particular form of crude would be “dirtier” than using other forms for crude. Neither claim holds up to any scrutiny.

The aquifer issue presupposes a number of faulty precepts. It implies that Keystone XL will be invading virgin territory that has never seen the likes of a pipeline before. In fact, as the Heartland Institute has documented, thousands of miles of pipelines already crisscross the Ogallala aquifer and Keystone XL will cut a relatively small portion of it. Worrying about spills and contamination is another red herring. The regulations and technologies to prevent spills and to quickly clean them up in the event that one should occur are as advanced as they ever have been. Of all of the many pipelines that cross the Ogallala, Keystone XL would be the most modern, most regulated, most protected and, accordingly, the least to worry about.

The dirty crude issue is equally spurious, because the amount of contamination in crude ultimately doesn’t matter. American refiners have to meet the same clean air and clean water standards no matter what kind of crude they’re dealing with. What about the pipeline’s carbon footprint, you may ask. Personally, I don’t worry about such things, but if you do you ought to rest easy. When one does a complete life-cycle analysis (as opposed to the abbreviated versions that environmental groups do in order to support their theories) crude from Alberta is about middle of the pack in terms of net greenhouse gas emissions impact.

Keystone XL would have delivered almost 900,000 barrels of crude to American refiners per day, taking a serious dent out of imports from overseas. It would have created tens of thousands of jobs and generated billions in revenue. It’s a project that’s all upside and it’s hard to understand why any president would want to kill it, particularly in this economy.

Fortunately, the project isn’t dead yet. Keystone XL immediately announced its intention to reapply for a permit. At the same time, it appears that there is a good deal of bi-partisan support in Congress to take the decision out of the president’s hands. With a competing pipeline route that would ship Canadian crude to China under consideration, we can only hope that Congress does indeed take action and soon. For, as yesterday’s announcement so clearly demonstrates, action is not a word in this administration’s vocabulary when it comes to fixing our ailing economy and addressing our energy woes.

Links worth your time

A S/H Public Service Notice

Domestic "Violence" Hotline!

1-800-799-SAFE (7233)
1.3 Million American Women Each Year
Are Physically Abused by their
Husbands or Boyfriends!

Get Help ~ Call 911 ~ Report it

(Or Call Above D.V.H. Hotline, Now!)

The Wisest Mind Has Something Yet To Learn!


Anonymous said...

In the above combined article 'Canadian Oil, Yes or No?'
we have two fine authors... Marshall Frank, with "Obama Bows To Saudis, Again"... and "Killing Keystone" by Rick Trzupek of FrontPage Magazine.

For additional information see S/H Link-page, simply tap 'Energy Independence' for an amazing chart of republicans, democrats, white, black and hispanic, young and old, rich & poor, male and female who actually are...

~ Supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline ~

___ ___


Alaska's Oil, Yes or No?

___ ___


February 11th Fox News Poll:

The newest nationwide poll indicates that 67 percent favor building the KeyStone XL Oil Pipeline to Texas Refineries, and 25 percent disapprove.

Mark Green

Anonymous said...

Congressman Chuck Fleishmann condemns President Obama's rejection of Keystone XL Pipeline.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Anonymous said...

For more info on Energy...

--- >

___ ___




Obama blocks Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada to the Gulf in November
of 2011 for supposed "environmental concerns".

Now, there's a new proposed "environmentally friendly" route, but don't hold your breath waiting for his response (it's rumored that
his sponsor George Soros wants - Brazil's Petrobras - to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, so we can buy our petroleum from... BRASIL!!!

Then perhaps we can slap a 30% tax on... are you ready for this... EXXON-MOBIL. - reb
___ ___