FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

The report begins: "The head of the US's biggest oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups."

Demonstrators protest against the Keystone XL Pipeline, 11/6/11. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
Demonstrators protest against the Keystone XL Pipeline, 11/6/11. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)



XL Pipeline: Oil Chief Threatens Obama

By The Guardian

06 January 12

 

he head of the US's biggest oil and gas lobbying group said on Wednesday that the Obama administration will face serious political consequences if it rejects a Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline that has been opposed by environmental groups.

Jack Gerard, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, said TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would definitely play a role in this year's national elections.

"This issue is very simple and straightforward, it's about jobs and national security," Gerard told reporters after giving a speech on the state of US energy.

"Anything less than approval or acquiescence in allowing the pipeline to go forward would be inconsistent with the vast majority of Americans," Gerard said.

The oil and gas industry says the country needs the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels per day or more of Canadian oil sands crude to US Gulf coast refineries.

But the decision on the pipeline is a difficult one for President Barack Obama. Approval would upset environmentalists – an important part of his voter base – while axing the project would upset some workers' unions, another part of his base.

With environmental groups concerned about carbon emissions from oil sands production, the administration had delayed a decision on a presidential permit for the project until 2013.

The administration says it needs more time to consider alternative routes for the pipeline, which was originally planned to traverse sensitive habitats and a crucial water source in Nebraska. Obama has until February 21 to make his decision on the project.

API is launching an advertising campaign aimed at getting Americans to consider candidates' stances on energy issues, including the Keystone project, before they cast their ballots in November.

While Gerard stressed that the advertising campaign is non-partisan, API has been a vocal critic of the Obama administration's energy policies.

In addition to the Keystone delays, the group has blasted the administration for not opening up more areas to offshore drilling and for its push to eliminate certain tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

Republicans in Congress have also forcefully objected to the administration's delay of the Keystone pipeline, accusing the White House of placing politics over job creation.

Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee have placed a clock on their website counting the days since Obama agreed to make a decision on the project.

"After waiting more than three years for this pipeline while the country faces prolonged unemployment, the American people are fed up with the president's inaction on a project that can quickly create jobs," Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, said in a statement.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+286 # RMDC 2012-01-06 18:24
I hope Obama sticks to this decision and stands up to these threats. Of course the oil industry will threaten -- but so what.

Oil from sands or shale is just a terrible technology. It is only profitable when the price of oil is very high. It destroys the land from which the sand or shale is taken, heated up to melt the tar, washed with chemical solvents, and dumped back on the landscape as polluted waste. The oil itself is very dirty.

This is just the wrong thing to be putting money into. The money spent on the pipeline would produce far more energy if invested in wind and solar technology -- and produce energy that is much better for the world.

Canadian oil companies get the oil for free from the Canadian government, so they feel they must use it.

Keep the oil in the soil.
 
 
+123 # Barkingcarpet 2012-01-07 00:46
ENOUGH! Lets end this stupid and insane circus sideshow which unfortunately is trashing the only planet we have. No more bullshit.
This is corrupt and evil, out of control thugs.
End the Corporate political stupidity. Yes, WE can, SO LETS!
 
 
-81 # tahoevalleylines 2012-01-07 01:10
The Chinese and India are in the Canadian oil-buying pool. The oil will not remain in the soil. In a classic History-Repeats -Itself situation, just about 60 years after the epoch WWII "Big Inch" oil pipeline project, America's railroads are ordering massive numbers of oil tank cars, to move oil by rail instead of a pipe. They intend to move the oil, boys and girls. Which of you environmentalis ts is willing to make the supreme sacrifice to prevent XL: take a vow of no more car ownership or using an automobile? Jan Lundberg did it!

Bigger things are in the offing here. Iran doings will likely bring on motor fuel rationing. We can allay this for a while by drawing on the strategic reserve, but that is a dead-end, for this reason- when we draw strategic petroleum from storage this time. expect it to cost a lot more to refill, -if enough supply beyond need is available. Just a thought. Check on "Annual Oilfield Depletion"

What is needful here, is comprehensive and all due haste rebuild of dormant rail branch line mileage, and vast expansion of rail mains capacity & reach. US Army/Guard Rail Logistics Units will be tasked with participation in the railway rebuild program. Frakking to supplement trucking fuel needs will go on, and we must employ NAWAPA engineering features (Lyndon LaRouche)to supply water & hydropower. Tend to your studies, students.
 
 
+49 # RLF 2012-01-07 10:35
Rebuilding the rail system will a high speed one seems like a good jobs program, eh?
 
 
+58 # Capn Canard 2012-01-07 10:48
tahoevalleyline s, for the most part I agree. The rail lines would be a tremendous jobs and infrastructure project, easily within 1-3 years this recession would be forgotten history. We need a severe shift to alternative sources and a tremendous reduction in fossil fuel use. Industry will resist this and defend their right to pollute and destroy at will and they will use war, crime, conspiracy, lies, deception, and any means necessary to enforce their profits and they will stop at nothing to keep control. And in regard to other drilling oil tactics/methods re FRACKING, the fracking in Wyoming is really frightening considering the latest Ohio quakes said to be caused by fracking. If fracking can/does influence quakes, then the Yellowstone caldera may be an even more serious hazard. This caldera is like a boulder on the edge of a cliff. It is overdue and if it happens you can forget all of the above. Our best bet is to leave the oil where it lies.... but there are no guarantees.
 
 
+6 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-08 00:31
WE gave the 1800s Railroad Barons massive subsidy and a checker-board of every-other section (640 acres) of land across the country, constituting countless thousands of square miles, for ties, minerals, and the building of railroads with Irish, Chinese and Black slave labor.

Through State land swaps and other nefarious, back room collusion's between government and the 1% (actually they are one and the same), those lands were then combined into HUGE contiguous ranches now owned by the Oil Barons and the 1% who play cowboy out west.

Those same Oil Barons made their money to buy those ranches when WE built the Interstate Highway system, nearly putting the relatively fuel-efficient railroads out of business with the completely inefficient, fuel-wasting trucking industry.

And now you are telling me WE are going to use OUR US Army/Guard Rail Logistics Units to rebuild that same railroad system? Wait up here; I have to get my personal lubricant and bend over. I feel another fucking coming on.

In any event, US Army/Guard Rail Logistics Unit rebuild programs will more likely be used to transport WE citizens to some relocation camps, while some of the best men our military ever trained on OUR nickel will get out of the service and be providing private security for the 1% who live on those mega-ranches during the urban melt-down and economic collapse of OUR country.
 
 
+12 # jimsenter 2012-01-08 19:04
Oh come on. If the Canadians have no way to get the oil to port, the Chinese can buy it but they won't be able to get to it. Same with India.

That's why Transcanada needs the pipelines. Either south to the Gulf or west to the coast of British Columbia. Either way, they are gonna have a hell of a fight on their hands.
 
 
+97 # Barbara K 2012-01-07 06:49
I'm with you. Keep the oil in the soil. I wonder how many times he has had to give in to these terrorists on the decisions he has been making. Stand tough, Mr. President, we, the normal people, are behind you. We end up taking all the risk and get none of the benefits from this monstrosity. We have many weather conditions to consider, like tornadoes, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc., that could cause serious damage to this thing and destroy much of our country forever. Don't sign it. Send the bully to Gitmo, he threatened you. That is against the law. The Rs are traitors, their only god is money; for themselves; and care not what happens to the rest of us. Please expose all the threats you get, Mr. President, including who made the threats.
 
 
+8 # patw 2012-01-08 22:48
Yes. But this article was in an English (not US) newspaper. Will the US public not hear about this - tar sands, this pipeline, and the president of the API, threatening Obama, from most of our press? We need to do more than "hope" Obama does what's right.

"We, the People" need to take some responsibility for sending the truth about tar sands oil & this pipeline to our friends, neighbors, newspapers & ESPECIALLY we need to call Obama (202-456-1111) & tell him we support him. Millions of us can provide a counter pressure to the API. We can inform those fellow citizens who are misinformed, & recommend they let President Obama know that we support him taking care of our water, land, health, and energy costs, by not supporting this pipeline and not extracting oil from tar sands. This can be an opportunity to motivate people to share what is happening and get involved. If those of us who are informed, take action, we can help Obama realize it is more politically expedient to do what is right.

I may sound naive to readers, but if some of us are working for campaign finance reform/public financing & some are working for ballot counting & some are researching what's harming and helping our environment and ...if everyone, or a critical mass of us does something - we may be OK. If we just sit back and predict Obama will fold without letting him know we support him, i think we are complicit. Call 202-456-1111 & write a comment on the White House website.
 
 
+136 # RichyD 2012-01-06 18:32
Sounds like a direct threat! Including mention of oil subsidies taints this smelly load even more. Let's simply label this treasonous!

How about 'disappearing' this guy, Mr. President? Much as I'm against the abridgement of free speech...
 
 
+46 # Savvylady 2012-01-07 01:37
Amen to that! It is treason.
 
 
+47 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-07 04:46
“How about 'disappearing' this guy, Mr. President? Much as I'm against the abridgement of free speech...”

If you advocate "disappearing" people for what they say (no matter how repugnant the words) then you aren't against the abridgement of free speech – or due process. There is no middle ground on this. We, as Americans, are either committed to the principles of democracy or we aren’t. Claimed exceptions to the protections guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution can be used against any person or group, not just the “bad guys.”
 
 
+24 # RLF 2012-01-07 10:38
Yeah...you are right but when bad things start to happen to rich people...things get changed! Not before.
 
 
+25 # RLF 2012-01-07 10:37
THis lobbyist is a terrorist of the corporate type and should be taken to Guantanamo under the new war powers law...Yahoo! Go get him Holder, you cojoneless wonder!
 
 
+31 # John Locke 2012-01-07 11:04
RichyD: watch how this plays out, I am against this pipeline and the lies that are being told about jobs, but I can see how they will twist the truth, perhaps backed up by gas rationing like they did in the late 70's when they wanted to raise the price of gas at the pump, after the price of gas went up there was plenty of gas available...I also believe Obama will cave in on this issue as he usually does...But to threaten the President i agree sounds like treason to me..
 
 
+14 # jimyoung 2012-01-07 21:22
You don't need to go back to the seventies, remember the oil "shortage of the summer of 2008. Prices peaked then, and Bush's friends were well on their way to stuffing an extra 19 million barrels of oil into the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) trying to fill it to 99.5% capacity with oil as high as $147 a barrel (despite regulations limiting diversion to the SPR to oil priced no higher than $40 a barrel, and well over $4 a gallon in August). Dick Morris then used actual statistics on the price in January 2009 (including the last 3 weeks of the Bush administration) to imply that he left Obama with gas at $1.98 a gallon hyper hypocritically leaving out that it dropped by more than 50% because our economy tanked a little earlier than they would have wished. They still try to time shift the collapse at least a year and a half to hide the fact that the world derivatives notional value took a $142 trillion dollar hit and (as even Alan Greenspan admits) we lost nearly $17 trillion in the net worth of the United States during the tail end of the Bush administration. A look back shows it started in the first 9 months of 2001 when Bush cronies turned a $51 billion surplus $108 billion negative, all before the financial impact of 9/11. Their mismanagement also has us spending about $400 a gallon to buy and deliver each gallon of fuel to our soldiers too dependent on oil.
 
 
0 # John Locke 2012-01-11 07:37
The price of oil was also part of the cause of people losing their homes, as the price of oil went up, and incomes did not, people found they could not make their house payments and then the interest rates reset higher escalating the number of defaults then forclosures, jobs were not available in the US even before the bubble, the housing bubble allowed people to tap into their equity to keep the economy going, which really began to collapse in 2000. people were refinancing every year just to be able to keep their home, the money they borrowed made their house payments. we needed jobs even before 2000 and we needed to tax the incomes from the oil industry, an excess profits tax should have been implimented especially as we are subsidizing that industry...but for an honest congress we would have...
 
 
+12 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-08 00:35
trea•son
.[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation].

The overthrow of our democratic republic is already in progress – not by people with allegiance to a foreign nation, but by corporations without allegiance to any nation. Jack Gerard’s attempt to couch approval of the pipeline as "about jobs and national security," and failure to approve it as "inconsistent with the vast majority of Americans," is more of the same B.S. that serves to remind politicians who controls their political fate.

However, if we call this treason, then what do we call the behavior of politicians – including the president – who acquiesce to it? Or of those who participate willingly?
 
 
+3 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-08 23:08
"Enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC."
 
 
0 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-09 17:20
You're talking about the oath of office (see below). I'm specifically referring to treason.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
 
 
-1 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-09 18:55
You specifically asked: "However, if we call this treason, then what do we call the behavior of politicians – including the president – who acquiesce to it? Or of those who participate willingly?"

My response: Enemies, domestic.
 
 
-1 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-09 19:07
P.S. There is no requirement in the U.S. Constitution that a foreign nation be involved. " . . .whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them OR [disjunctive; emphasis mine] adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." Several subsequent statutes don't require a foreign enemy either.
 
 
-42 # angryspittle 2012-01-06 19:53
The big O will cave on this as soon as the polls close.
 
 
+13 # Capn Canard 2012-01-07 10:54
angryspittle, my guess is that Oil has far more power than all the negative thumbs! Oil will screw us before the election even is contested I believe that Obama will make defending the XL pipeline to show his cred. Goddamnit, I would like to wrong on that but I am not gonna hold my breath.
 
 
+186 # Tippitc 2012-01-06 20:06
Direct threat - indeed!! JOBS?? This 'mouthpiece' for the oil/gas lobby left out the part about a handful of TEMPORARY jobs for highly skilled workers - this is not a career maker or a job that you can count on to send the kids to college!! This pipeline will create more pollution than oil and when it springs a leak who will get the clean-up bill?!
 
 
+28 # noitall 2012-01-07 03:14
Good cleanup jobs in the near and far future, just make sure you get paid in advance...and that you don't breath nothin' BAD.
 
 
+30 # Todd Williams 2012-01-07 12:21
We all know the answer to that one: US taxpayers will get stuck with the bill. This pipeline is a boondoggle. As a matter of fact, there are a hell of a lot of ranchers out there (mainly Repubs) who are opposed to this pipeline because of the major threat to the aquifer. This shit has got to stop NOW!!!!
 
 
+1 # Dreamspirit 2012-01-19 10:51
Temporary jobs is the key here. The fog here about this is that those jobs would be temporary,perha ps maybe a few might be permanent, but the reality of it is that this is not going to be an economy saver. The other thing I have heard is that this will NOT reduce the cost of oil and gas to us here in the US. Keep in mind that this is Canada's oil, not ours. The sole purpose of this pipeline is to transport Canadian oil to US refineries to refine FOR THEM. That oil/refined oil/gas/diesel etc will then be sold to whomever CANADA wishes to sell it to. There are NO guaranteeing here, thus we allow this, things probably won't change for us to the better. Not unless these companies are held to their claims that there will be lasting, meaningful jobs and the price we pay at the pump goes down significantly. I don't believe they are willing to make that sort of promise because they have no intention of doing anything that would reduce their projected profits, nor help any of us out at the gas pump. Point to keep in mind here also is that the US Congress does not pass any laws that benefit "we the people" unless there is some sort of benefit to Corporate America to make profit off of it and US.
 
 
+208 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-06 20:44
Let me dumb it down for you President Obama:

1. You don't do what this clown wants and you will face serious political consequences.

2. On the other hand, if you actively support and push this pipeline through, then the American Petroleum Institute is going to support you for re-election.

Paragraph Number One, maybe. Paragraph Number Two? Well, if you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you.

Do you get it YET? Doing what the right wants will NOT endear you to them. They hate you, man. They fucking hate you. You could switch parties and join Skull and Bones and they'd still oppose you.

Doing what they want will only turn the three supporters you have left against you. If you haven't learned that lesson yet, there is no hope for you.

Learn from George Bush: Push everything as far and as fast as you can with no quarter, and as if your will be done. If any one gives you flack, well, we'll just tell them they are un-American for questioning you in a time of war. In fact, Jack Gerard is a traitor and a terrorist and you should have the SEALs roll him up under the NDAA and send him to Gitmo for some questioning.
 
 
+37 # disgusted American 2012-01-06 23:52
Love it, Huck Mucus. You should fax this to him and email it to his Organizing for American stoolies.

My first thought when I read the headline was that this is a the beginning of his excuse to vote for it b/c that's what he has intended to do all along.

Meanwhile, this is a beauty:

"After waiting more than three years for this pipeline while the country faces prolonged unemployment, the American people are fed up with the president's inaction on a project that can quickly create jobs," Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee, said in a statement.

Fred is really piling it on. I doubt the American people are cheering for the pipeline. Furthermore, most don't even know what is going on in the country and probably think XL has to do with something new for their gaming computers or a picture on the tube that surpasses HD.

(I wouldn't know what HD looks like. I love my old Panasonic CRT TV. Great picture, no pixelation or stretching, rich colors and not in your face bright.)
 
 
+14 # RLF 2012-01-07 10:41
XL is their waist size!
 
 
+43 # Barbara K 2012-01-07 11:02
Okay, disgusted, Fred Upton is my useless Representative in Michigan, a tbagger Republican. He is the one who wants to abolish the EPA, he cares nothing about the environment. He was also on the "Super Committee" and as useless as they get. He is one who votes NO on everything in the House. He is going to keep piling it on, he is making lots of money off the deal.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

our livelihood and future are at stake
 
 
+2 # Dreamspirit 2012-01-19 10:39
I also reside in Upton's district and can say without a doubt he is for corporate America and not the people. Wonder if he got a "Bonus" for "failure" for his outstanding performance on that Super Committee, which failed and accomplished absolutely nothing!
 
 
+51 # usedtobesupermom 2012-01-07 00:09
I agree with you. Jack Gerard should be the first one arrested & indefinitely detained as a terrorist-under the NDAA in fact he is making threats to the President & to influence the election unless he approves the XL pipeline. Outright election tampering-black mail,some kind of extortion.
There's got to be a number of crimes committed they can charge him with.
 
 
+43 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-07 04:25
The consequences of doing what the oil companies (and politicians from both the "right" and "left") want would be much more harmful than simply failing to endear himself to them. Dealing with climate change is imperative to avoid massive, global death and suffering. Extraction from tar sands, particularly at this scale, would be catastrophic for the climate. Obama’s choice is between short-term personal gain and the well-being of humanity.
 
 
+7 # James38 2012-01-07 21:35
Well said Stephanie! Few understand deeply the incredible global catastrophe that is headed our way. Gerard's threats are nothing compared to the threat to the planet his oil obsession represents. All of the Oil and Coal executives should be sacked if not in prison, the businesses should be nationalized so that all of the profit can be used to totally rebuild the energy process around modern Nuclear plants (that can use present stockpiles of "waste" as fuel), Geothermal plants, and all other possible alternatives. Modern (very safe)nuclear plants and geothermal generation represent the quickest way to replace coal and oil and Natural gas as major power sources. With those projects alone we can provide major employment that will last, and will involve people in something they can be intensely proud of. That matters. People need to know that they can help make a positive difference while they earn a living. Getting this done quickly is urgent. The longer we delay, thanks to utterly stupid maniacs like Jack Gerard, the worse the destruction will be and the harder it will be to salvage anything of our currently lovely planet.
 
 
+11 # James38 2012-01-07 22:15
An additional detail is that with all the talk about natural gas being "clean", it is important to explain (loudly) that using any fossil fuel is crazy, and natural gas is only "relatively clean" (meaning less CO2 emission, but still dangerous) compared to coal and oil. The fracking process is wrecking too many fragile balances. Earthquakes and contaminated water are just additional good reasons to leave that carbon in the ground. The tar sands oil is unspeakably filthy, and Canada will endure vast amounts of shame and censure if it keeps on with the exploitation of this sham "resource". Our grandchildren will all be asking "What were they thinking about?" as they struggle to survive in a world that will give them no chance for a comfortable life, if they survive at all.
 
 
+16 # Capn Canard 2012-01-07 10:58
Huck Mucus, well said. I lost faith in Obama when he renewed the completely unnecessaryl tax cuts for the wealthy and didn't try to push for single payer HC plan. This will be interesting to watch...
 
 
+1 # James38 2012-01-07 21:11
Yes, Cap, I had the same reaction. Since Obama hasn't opened up and discussed why he does some things like this, I have no idea what motivates him. I wish he had done everything "right", such as rejecting the tax cuts and pushing hard for the single payer plan, but he didn't. All I know for sure is that he is still significantly better than any of the totally goofball danger-zones running for Prez on the Repuglicon ticket. Obama's recent stance on the Cordray appointment gives me some hope he may yet turn around and start being tough and true to the sane approach to running the country. Have you read "Obama's Wars" by Bob Woodward? Interested to hear your reaction to that.
 
 
+20 # Todd Williams 2012-01-07 12:23
Right on Huck, right on. O has got to stand with the environment. Give no fucking quarter on this one. The API is a liar and is conning the American public. These folks are pure fucking evil, make no mistake about it.
 
 
+42 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-06 20:55
Oh, and if you're gonna do this, then run the damn thing right through the middle of the most populated cities and areas. People need to start bearing even more of the burden of their activities on this planet. Don't trash more open space or grass lands with this crap just because the animals that live there can't vote. Find out where all those workers union types live and let them put it through their neighborhood/fr ont yard.
 
 
+38 # DanBeach 2012-01-06 23:02
Keystone will actually cost American jobs-credible C ornell study points out 
http://tinyurl.com/7d7o4u3
 
 
+35 # DanBeach 2012-01-06 23:02
"Keystone XL could kill more jobs than it creates. There are alternatives to this kind of dirty energy
 
 
+31 # DanBeach 2012-01-06 23:03
Pipe Dreams? Jobs Lost by the Construction of Keystone XL, the institute says more jobs could be destroyed than created by the pipeline. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/092811_GLI_study_finds_Keystone_XL_pipeline_will_create_few_jobs.html
 
 
+29 # DanBeach 2012-01-06 23:04
Act Fast To Ban Gas Fracking Until Further Studies Are Made: http://bit.ly/rVpX7Q
 
 
+4 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-07 10:01
But I'm a frack addict, a frack whore, and I need my fix. Please don't turn your war on drugs against me now!
 
 
+27 # psadave 2012-01-06 23:09
We do not need this oil or the certain pollution or the risk of more pollution of 'accidents' along the pipeline. Let them send it to China. Oil is a global market and we are already exporting gas and diesel fuel, so we don't need more of this more highly polluting tar sand and the processing in Texas and Louisiana. It is not a job creator, so don't buy that line.
 
 
+29 # Barbara K 2012-01-07 11:06
PSA, this oil is going from Canada to the Gulf to the open market. It is a lie that it is coming to us. It isn't. It never was. Let Canada build its own refineries.
 
 
0 # Dreamspirit 2012-01-19 11:11
Exactly! This is what I have also found. Canada does not want to build their own refineries due to cost and time to do it. The pipeline is cheaper and the oil companies that own these refineries would make tons of money. It would also burden down these refineries, causing a backup, more breakdowns and guess what....it shall make the cost of gas go way up for us, even though our consumption is and has been down. Creation of artificial demand is what will happen here, but it isn't demand coming from us.
 
 
+36 # Cactusman 2012-01-06 23:12
And, after all is said and done, there's not even a guarantee that the oil will remain in the US. the can-never-do-an y-wrong "free market" will ship a good portion of it overseas, quite probably to China and Japan.

All of this for a few thousand temporary construction jobs? The OIL-garchs won't care as long as you approve it.
 
 
+17 # Barbara K 2012-01-07 11:08
Cactusman, it will create no new job. It will provide 50 jobs for the present people who already work for the oil industries, not new ones.
 
 
+32 # DPM 2012-01-06 23:22
Get set to enjoy some oily tasting water. Too bad if the pipe leaks, because it is just that much less that can be exported, which is what will happen to this stuff. Why isn't it refined in Canada? That would be almost as cheap as building the pipeline. Then the refined products could be kept in North America. Damn! Forgot again. It isn't for us. It's for export! Remember. It isn't about jobs or national security. It is all about oil company profits. First! Last! And always!
 
 
+25 # paulanad 2012-01-06 23:32
I am fairly certain that any threat against America is considered TERRORISM, no? Can this piece of garbage not be charged and convicted of such? Pretty sure they have guys in custody for less....much much less...if anything has even been identified for some.
If he wanted to one would think he would make this go away....threats ....ha.
 
 
+18 # Capn Canard 2012-01-07 11:03
paulanad, you are correct but tthe law is just words that justify the actions of weatlhy industries, but it need not be applied to wealthy people! Their wealth gives them a free pass to be treasonous.
 
 
+32 # Texan 4 Peace 2012-01-06 23:34
What a blowhard. If "the vast majority of Americans" support this project, how does he explain the fact that 1200 of them got arrested trying to stop it?
 
 
+23 # peterjkraus 2012-01-06 23:41
Screw the oil guy and all his greedy ilk.
 
 
+38 # debbynicely 2012-01-06 23:56
Does eeveryone know that oil from Canada to Texas via the XL Pipeline would be refined by the big oil corporations so they can sell it to China? It has never been destined for the US. The Pipeline is needed ONLY to line the pockets of Exxon, Shell, etc. The US is already a major exporter of oil.
 
 
+15 # Capn Canard 2012-01-07 11:06
debbynicely, thank you, thank you, that tis the heart of the vast majority of American problems. The push for more profit is why we use oil. We need not use oil, it is just that oil makes far more profit than alternative sources! IMO, Hydrogen isn't used because it is the most common element in the universe and it will never be used by a capitalist economy run by banksters.
 
 
+30 # angelfish 2012-01-07 00:03
This IDIOT needs to STOP threatening our President, Stop pandering to Big Oil and START working for AMERICANS! How DARE he threaten our Commander in Chief! Furthermore, How DARE he threaten the American People with this Travesty of an Oil project that will not benefit ANYONE except the Oil Industry? They have ALREADY fed on the carcasses of poor, tired, overworked and Over-Taxed Citizens, NOW they want to continue to foul our Earth and destroy viable Water sources along the route of this "pipeline" of pollution. DISGRACEFUL!
 
 
+10 # brown.joe.e@gmail.com 2012-01-07 00:08
Oh NO, Mommy, big business is threatening to buy the government out from under the President if their demands aren't met!
Who else does this remind you of???
 
 
+29 # Regina 2012-01-07 00:08
The Oil Mafia is now threatening the President with retribution, with an "or-else" ultimatum? Their money is truly intoxicating! They're drunk as skunks with their power and their bought-and-paid -for immunities, all courtesy of past Republican administrations , which of course they bought in the first place, even before their "purchase" of the Supreme Court for Citizens United @ 5-4.
 
 
+7 # William Bjornson 2012-01-07 00:16
This is IMPORTED oil.

There is an existing refinery complex at Mandan, North Dakota which, for the price of the pipeline could be made the size of texas.

The energy necessary to pump this sludge 1700 miles is enormous compared to pumping it across the border to Mandan, and North Dakota is very conservative so won't mind having their real estate trashed by Big Oil.

The sludge will be pumped to the Gulf Coast to be refined and EXPORTED.

The refined products could be used to supply the upper tier of states which now must pay the cost of shipment from either coast. This would seriously enhance national security.

This project makes no sense at all economically.

The media talked only about the social security 'tax-cut' and said nothing about the attachment to the same bill which put this pipeline project back on a front burner.

BHO is in the pocket of Big Oil and corporate in general and will somehow be 'forced' to concede the pipeline for ...[pick any bullshit reason you like] although he may have "serious reservations" about fucking America in the ass again.

The corruption here is thicker than the sludge.

RON PAUL IN 2012! THE REAL 'RED PILL'. Who else is there?
 
 
-54 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-07 00:16
This controversy seems a bit weird to me. Why are the environmentalis ts so anti-Keystone?

One cannot reasonably argue that the alternative -- piping the oil to the west coast where it will be sold to and burned by China after a lengthy voyage in a tanker -- is environmentally superior. The pipeline distances are similar and the trip in the oil tanker is fraught with spill hazards.

Or does the environmentalis t lobby propose that we go to war with Canada in order for us to force them to forgo the oil revenues from the dirty oil?

Yes, I do expect Obama to cave in on the construction of this pipeline. He will cave because this is the most environmentally beneficial plan short of starting a war with Canada.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
+37 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-07 09:02
The most environmentally friendly thing to do is to raise the price of fossil fuels to the point where it reflects the true cost of it (as capitalism would demand). Then cut off all it's subsidies. Take the two sums (increase in price and former subsidy money) and put it into alternatives.
 
 
+17 # Todd Williams 2012-01-07 12:30
Lee, give it up dude. You're reasoning is fraught with errors. You, sir, need to read more and become more informed. You must be working for an oil company.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-07 14:07
Lee is a woman. She works as a maintenence engineer for a university - hence the official sounding professorial name she's given herself.
 
 
+3 # Ken Hall 2012-01-07 21:59
Thank you, BB. The url implies a deep thinker, why use it otherwise? A reminder to all of us to ask, as I learned to do in high school, who is saying this, and why are they saying it?
 
 
+2 # Stephanie Remington 2012-01-08 01:15
I wonder how much funding Dartmouth gets from oil companies. Working for a university that gets a lot of money from oil companies for "research," could inspire loyalty similar to that of an official employee.
 
 
0 # X Dane 2012-01-11 17:42
NUTS, NUTS, NUTS
 
 
+26 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-01-07 00:20
This is great; this is just great! I agree with the posts and it's amazing how quick and facile our minds are when it comes to connecting the dots. Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute would be a great candidate for the first use of that draconian section of the newly passed NDAA. Number one: He's an American citizen. Number Two: He resides on American soil. Number Three: He has made threats, serious threats against a sitting American President, in public. Let's test this out and have him detained indefinitely at some secret military facility without charges. If the threat of "serious political consequences" does not qualify as a Federal offense I don't know what does. We all know how these people veil their threats in words that are coded to set in motion actions that create dire consequences.
If the military does not act, then we have to act. Write a letter to this guy at his place of business telling him that it's not nice to threaten the President of the United States of America. You can add all the correct facts you want; like about how the jobs numbers are overblown; how the jobs are short term; how the oil sent to the Texas port through a pipe that transverses the heart of the nation does not need to be sold to anyone in the USA, but can be sold to anyone they want, even the Chinese. Play it safe, though. Use gloves when handling the envelop & paper. Use self stick stamps, no licking, no return address. Drop off the letter in a mail box away from home.
 
 
+14 # Todd Williams 2012-01-07 12:33
How about this: if the project gets the green light, that activists start sabotaging the line as soon as it crosses the US border. Blow the fucker up. Destroy the coinstruction equipment. Do anything at all to stop this terrorist assault on the American environment. Take it to the oil companies big time.
 
 
+24 # CL38 2012-01-07 00:32
"the Obama administration will face serious political consequences"

what is the greedy oil industry going to do? Buy the election? They've already have. Steal it? The GOP are working on voter suppression. And they've stolen other elections, like Bush vs. Gore.

Assassinate Obama? Like the nuclear industry did to Karen Silkwood? Like they have to inventors who've created free energy systems?

See THRIVE: What on Earth Will It Take? http://worldwidetippingpoint.com/2011/11/the-thrive-movie-an-exclusive-interview-with-foster-gamble/
 
 
+24 # balancingact 2012-01-07 00:48
First of all, why has a decision of such magnitude apparently been entrusted to one person, the President? Why is this not a policy that would need approval by Congress? Having said this, I think that it is vital to seek legal means to stop this project. Renewable energy needs to be developed and deployed and with it will come jobs. And national security is served by creating these jobs and protecting the environment and doing all that is possible to mitigate severe climate change.

Let us be clear, those pushing to build this pipeline are more than willing to destroy the Boreal Forests, sink a pipeline across the entire United States! and release what undeniably will be immensely vast amounts of more green house gasses into a climatic planetary system which is already threatening devastating upheavals.

This Keystone XL pipeline project is nothing less than a powerful expression of utter disdain towards the environment (both in the US and Canada), water supplies, climate science, and future generations.

Please- rest of the world speak up! Do you think atmospheric CO2 will stay above North America! Climate change is global. Why am I not hearing about world leaders who are speaking out unequivocally against what Canadian and American governments are even contemplating? Enough is enough!
 
 
+14 # Regina 2012-01-07 13:07
This "decision" was not "entrusted" to the President. It's an ultimatum passed by the NO Party out of their ongoing spite and bratty obstructionism. Wake up and smell the skunks!
 
 
+24 # Sir Real 2012-01-07 01:07
Occupy the American Petroleum Institute.
 
 
+21 # Sir Real 2012-01-07 01:10
This sounds like a terroristic threat against the U.S. This could be a great time to make an example of this Gerard clown with a little stint in Guantanamo.NDAA anyone?
 
 
+36 # Bill Clements 2012-01-07 01:40
What a disingenuous pile of crap from the American Petroleum Institute. Nice try there, Gerard, with your transparent spin on this pipeline. You don't give a rat's ass about jobs and national security, and you sure as hell don't give a damn about the environmental and health issues that this pipeline raises. It's all about the money.

No surprise that the Republicans are 100% on board this disaster because these are the only kind of constituents they really care about.

Canadians need to wake up and shut this operation down from their end. If they care about the environment, their health, and global warming, doing nothing is tantamount to a crime against humanity.
 
 
+13 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-01-07 02:10
This is just great! I agree with the posts and it's amazing how quick and facile our minds are when it comes to connecting the dots. Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute would be a great candidate for the first use of that draconian section of the newly passed NDAA. Number one: He's an American citizen. Number Two: He resides on American soil. Number Three: He has made threats, serious threats against a sitting American President in public. Let's test this out and have him detained indefinitely at some secret military facility without exact charges. If the threat of "serious political consequences" does not qualify as a Federal offense I don't know what does. We all know how these people veil their threats in words that are coded to set in motion actions that create dire consequences.
If the military does not act, then we have to act. Write a letter to this guy at his place of business telling him that it's not nice to threaten the President of the United States of America. You can add all the correct facts you want; like about how the jobs numbers are overblown; how the jobs are short term; how the oil sent to the Texas port through a pipe that transverses the heart of the nation does not need to be sold to anyone in the USA, but can be sold to anyone they want, even the Chinese. Play it safe, though. Use gloves when handling the envelop & paper. Use self stick stamps, no licking.No return address. Drop off the letter in a mail box away from home.
 
 
+11 # noitall 2012-01-07 02:37
This will show us just how powerful oil money is. This IS a test...
 
 
+9 # Capn Canard 2012-01-07 11:22
noitall, I agree but I fear that NOTHING will be done to prosecute assclowns like Jack Gerard. I just can't see the Government doing anything to someone as wealthy and powerful as Jack Gerard. I suppose that the intent of the law will fail the test.
 
 
+20 # James38 2012-01-07 02:59
The entire government of Canada has gotten caught up in the quick-fix quick-profits greed-rules horror show. They are either willing to ignore the fact that their actions will bring climate change disasters sooner and make them worse, or they are abysmally ignorant of these facts. Mr Gerard is a fool and an absurd part of the "destroy the planet who cares we want money now" clique.
The real issue is being ignored by too many people who should have better information. Tar Sand oil is the most polluting and globally dangerous fuel anybody could use. It is totally foolhardy to develop this oil.

The CO2 generated by producing the oil is far more than for any other energy source, and then burning the oil pumps much more CO2 into the atmosphere. We will push the planet into a hot phase even sooner, and the ocean level rise will happen much more rapidly. We are in severe danger from climate change, and Mr Gerard is sporting an amazing vacuum between his ears. Please, all concerned, read the following books: "Storms of My Grandchildren" by Dr. James E Hansen, "Fixing Climate" by Wally Broecker and Robert Kunzig, and "The Vanishing Face of Gaia" by James Lovelock. These excellent books will dispel all doubt about the crisis we face. The science is overwhelmingly solid, and establishes beyond doubt that the world must face this crisis or humanity faces vast destruction and possible extinction.
 
 
+14 # James38 2012-01-07 03:01
We must not place destructive jobs and greed for profit ahead of the survival of the Earth as a home for humanity and most of the other life forms we share the planet with. The good news is that even more jobs can be created by starting a properly planned non-polluting power system. One of the ingredients is geothermal plants, which with new technology, can be built in many parts of the US and the world. Biofuels must be de-emphasized. They only looked good at first, but by present analysis, are destructive to existing forests and compete for needed farm land. Modern nuclear plants are extremely safe, and are part of the picture.

All of the climate change denier propaganda is false and dangerous. Please read the books listed in my previous post, and you will see the real situation. The world we live on is in danger, and quick action to stop burning fossil fuels is desperately needed. There are other things that must be done, but accomplishing this first step will both create needed jobs without causing more problems, and get us involved in the essential process of saving the only world we have.
 
 
+27 # bunbytes 2012-01-07 05:09
I'm not sure what Obama has to worry about. The oil lobbies already hate him and wouldn't vote for him any way. Most of the people in the oil business are conservatives and they're not voting for Obama. Remember that the Republican in congress have pledged to thwart Obama at every turn and they have.

So, Obama should do what's right for the environment and at least keep his base and those who are concerned about our environment.
 
 
+20 # MainStreetMentor 2012-01-07 06:29
The head honcho of the biggest oil lobbying group just might possibly be prejudiced on the side of the ultra-greedy mega-rich oil companies, don’t cha’ think? And … his threat is the blaring horn of irrational avarice-driven banner under which all of Wall Street stands, as well as the elected “I’m-for-hire-t o-the-highest-b idder” congressional corporate sycophants voting our country into financial oblivion.

This is the same constant, continuous mantra of the ultra-greedy right-wing conservative: Threaten and intimidate; cause or attempt to cause diversions from fundamental root issues; divide and conquer; money/profit is our God.

The people of the United States KNOW the disasters inherent in this pipeline, as does the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The people have spoken out against it – the EPA has, for some reason, actually considered it.
 
 
+2 # Bill Clements 2012-01-08 00:12
"....the EPA has, for some reason, actually considered it."

For "some" reason? How about an all-out industry lobbying campaign where fearmongering and lies, not facts, are irresponsibly employed to great effect.
 
 
+18 # grandma lynn 2012-01-07 06:42
Mr. Gerard leaves out what happens to the oil after refining - it gets shipped overseas, right? On to China to manufacture crap for our dollar stores. The greed / madness of the energy industry is endemic. Don't they have some grandchildren getting fine educations who could tell these dumbos what a dead end it is to make big money through depletion of resources, including clean water and clean air?
 
 
+4 # Bill Clements 2012-01-08 00:15
Grandchildren? All they know is the present moment. They're not seriously considering the impact on their own kids, let alone grandchildren. Shortsighted decisions based on greed and profit: that's the GOP!
 
 
+12 # wwway 2012-01-07 07:14
Only the people will decide and if the people are Chickens for Col. Sanders then they'll eat the chicken feed and vote for the Col.
People get the government they deserve. So, what's it going to be? By and for the people or by and for the corporation?
 
 
+21 # jooberdoober 2012-01-07 08:07
PetroChina, Asia's largest oil and gas company, will take full ownership of the MacKay River oil sands project in Canada after Athabasca Oil Sands Corp announced Tuesday it sold the remaining 40% of the development for US$673 million.
This is one of the companies that will be involved with the XL pipeline. The GOP and oil lobby is essentially proposing selling US land to what probably will end up being a wholly owned project of China, which in case you tea-partiers forget is a COMMUNIST country. Isn't that what you are supposed to fear most? I'm sure that you will enjoy their kind of "socialism" better than the made up fear of Obama's "socialism".
 
 
-19 # MidwestTom 2012-01-07 08:14
Dig deep, Warren Buffett bought the Burlington Northern railroad two years ago, and it is the only RR serving the Bakken Shale area where over 100 billion barrels of oil have been found. His RR is hauling 100 car train loads of oil several times a day from the area to Texas. Is he funding the opposition to the pipeline? The long term environmental effect of the pipeline is far less than four or five or trains per day polluting the air as they haul the oil to refineries.
 
 
+5 # Ken Hall 2012-01-07 22:13
MT: The impact of harvesting shale oil is a disaster for the environment no matter how it is brought to market. And whose crystal ball are you using to foretell the future? A giant spill from the pipeline, a la the BP gulf gusher, would be an additional disaster to add to the disaster of processing shale oil. The obvious answer is for gov't to step in and ban the extraction of shale oil as an environmental hazard. The US gov't did much the same thing in banning DDT many years ago. The benefits of banning DDT have been well documented, but, in your world view, any gov't regulation is unwarranted and an intrusion into the "free market", which, in your world view, will regulate itself so all outcomes are hunky-dory. I dare you to pitch that to the West Virginians whose lives have been shattered by mountain top removal.
 
 
-11 # Sweet Pea 2012-01-07 08:45
Was this issue started as a selling point for an election year to distract us from other big issues? For some reason I smell a rat?
 
 
+4 # Ken Hall 2012-01-07 22:21
SP: This is a Big Issue, probably the Biggest Issue facing us, and it involves the presence of Big Money in continuing to subvert the will of We The People. It is not a distraction, it is the velvet glove being removed from the iron hand, an overt show of force. Welcome to the Plutocracy of the United States. This isn't the way I want important issues decided.
 
 
-18 # rhgreen 2012-01-07 08:50
I just want to say something I've said before that took some abuse. Tar sands oil extraction is up to Canada not the US, and under the current political and economic circumstances in Canada it will go forward whether the US approves the XL pipeline or not. That oil can go west to the coast via an all-Canadian route and supply an abundance of customers in Asia. The US will gain nothing and lose the security of a next-door neighbor oil supply. The US State Dept said this re. their initial approval of the pipeline. Sure the US could coerce Canada in a variety of ways short of invasion. They have in the past when they wanted to badly enough - including invasion or threatening it. But at least be honest, people! That will just prove that American conservationist s, liberals, and lefties are just as good as right-wingers at ignoring the sovereignty of other countries and bashing them into doing what "America knows best" folk decide they should do. As a Canadian, I don't like what the tar sands development is doing to the environment. But in Canada resources AND environment are provincial jurisdiction, not federal, and anyway we currently have a right-wing federal govt with a Prime Minister from Alberta. So do I value environnment at all costs or do I value democracy higher? When push comes to shove it's democracy. And sovereignty. Back off, Americans, whether you're lefties or righties! I hope we defeat Harper's Conservatives next election, but it's our business not yours. Eh?
 
 
+17 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-07 09:26
That's like saying we should look the other way when the House Of Saud abuses their people because, well, better we get the oil than alienate the King and have China move in.

Sometimes you shouldn't do wrong just to keep someone else from doing it. I mean, if it's wrong, let China and Canada do it. We should be better than that.

Go ahead, Canada, sell your soul; we did, and we know how much you want to be like us.
 
 
+8 # rhgreen 2012-01-07 12:03
I abhor Saudi domestic policy and I think the US could do a lot for that region by refusing to give them (and Israel) military aid. I certainly don't look the other way. But there's a long history of a country's domestic policy being its own business, even countries with nasty governments. God knows the US has a history of cozying up to nasty governments when it's profitable to do so. And let's not be hypocritical. There are plenty of things about how the US does things or allows things to be done "at home" that could stand some changing, but when people abroad (even the vast majority of people abroad) criticize them, many Americans freak out and are taken seriously. The way too many Americans would have it, it would be one-sided. Americans can tell other countries what to do but no-one else is to interfere with US domestic matters. Sorry, no thanks. It is the US that is sovereigntist in the extreme, not Canada or most other countries. Witness its refusal to ratify the International Criminal Court and the Law of the Sea. Having said that, Ido agree that the current political trend in Canada borders on selling its soul. I couldn't agree more. But, again, it's our soul and our business. Americans both left and right should stop trying to run the rest of the world - until they let the people in the rest of the world vote in US elections, and change the system to a really democratic one in which US and multinational corporations can't block all the outcomes they don't like.
 
 
+3 # Huck Mucus 2012-01-07 20:55
Maybe I am misunderstandin g you, or you are misunderstandin g me. You said: "The US will gain nothing and lose the security of a next-door neighbor oil supply." That sounds like OUR decision and OUR sovereign question which WE in the U.S. are debating. I'm not telling Canada what to do with THEIR oil. Sell it to the devil for all I care. I don't want to "gain" anything except energy independence from Canada, Saudi, etc., based on alternatives, and I don't want "the security of a next-door neighbor oil supply." Thanks for for thinking of us, but please don't confuse the fact that some of us don't want your oil with our telling you what to do with it.
 
 
+4 # James38 2012-01-07 22:38
rhgreen, you say "The US will gain nothing and lose the security of a next-door neighbor oil supply." Obviously you really don't get it. The issue isn't the pipeline, it is the utter insanity of developing the tar sand oil at all. No kind of oil, (or coal or natural gas), will give anybody any security. We are facing a major global disaster from Climate change. We need to stop burning all fossil carbon as soon as possible. We need to convert our energy infrastructure to non CO2 producing sources. Modern Geothermal plants can be build in many places, and the latest Nuclear Designs are extremely safe and can use present stockpiles of Nuclear "waste" as fuel. All oil and other fossil carbon used as fuel will only hasten the onset of destructive climate change, and will create the absolute opposite of security - it will create disaster. In order to understand the solid science behind all this, read the excellent book, "Storms of My Grandchildren" by Dr. James E Hansen, eminent climate scientist with NASA.
 
 
-1 # elmont 2012-01-07 08:55
While I certainly agree with much of the sentiment expressed in these posts, the unvarnished unpleasant truth on this one is that (to use angryspittle's phrase) 'the big O' is going to give the go-ahead for this pipeline. Oh, there may be a couple of meaningless conditions imposed, but the pipeline is a wrap--a done deal. Any other decision would run completely counter to Obama's track record so far, which is to talk about middle ground before ceding to the demands of the wingnuts. I hope you guys don't have a lot of emotional attachment to any other outcome, because you're going to be disappointed.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-07 20:53
I'm afraid you're right. I don't know why you got so many negatives. I guess the truth hurts.

Obama has every opportunity to prove you wrong if he only cared.
 
 
+23 # Billy Bob 2012-01-07 09:13
Unless Mr. Tar is referring to a Dealey Plaza kind of threat I don't think Obama should be worried. The President would do well to listen to a threat by little ol' me.

I hate what he's done to our intentions when we voted for him in the first place. I'm still willing to vote for the liar again, if only to keep repugs out of office.

If he caves in on the tar sands, the DEAL IS OFF.

My threat carries a lot more weight than the billions the oil/tar/sludge inudstry plans to spend destroying him. Let's face it, Obama's only political threat is that the people who voted him into office will stay home. He has COMPLETE CONTROL over that all by himself.
 
 
+8 # cordleycoit 2012-01-07 09:14
We must remember that the real power in America are the CEO's who pump the money pipeline to Washington. The multi millionaires in the House and the real rich in the Senate need their money and if we thepeople fail to deliver they will steal it anyway.
 
 
+17 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-01-07 09:55
The oil and gas industry says the country needs the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport 700,000 barrels per day or more of Canadian oil sands crude to US Gulf coast refineries.’

If so, then why is it planned to export all that oil to the Far East???
 
 
+14 # shortonfaith 2012-01-07 10:24
This, the first big election after "Citizens United" with money coming from all parts of the globe & this guy thinks he's somebody special. Get in Line will you. 40 new mega $million PAC's on the right & the Chamber taking $ in faster than they can count it. Koch brothers promising to put in the entire purse after basically 4 years of abuse & shutting down the governments in many states. The destruction of the Eco system in the Gulf by BP. etc. etc. etc.

What makes this guy think he's so special? He's just another oil dripping 18 Century mind in a 21st Century world. Go back to school & learn something.
 
 
+11 # Fraenkel.1 2012-01-07 10:37
Just another swindle. Once the thing is built the builders will lose their jobs. What with all the pollution and carbon dioxide and as sea levels rise and we all start to suffocate there will be no jobs and no economy. On the other hand with careful energy conservation and development of clean energy sources the human race will have some chance to survive. Kootenany Coyote is quite right. The pipeline was planned to supply oil refineries in the Midwest and the Gulf coast. These refineries operate below capacity due to inadequate supply of oil. Gasoline output would be exported to the far East.
 
 
+14 # reiverpacific 2012-01-07 12:11
Plutocracy moves one more shift to the right to you-know-what.
When corporate bosses threatens the president we have another part of the "corporate state" jigsaw.
If you are not an environmentalis t, then what are you?
Does the welfare of the planet mean nothing?
The double-whammy of rattling sabers at Iran (Straits of Hormuz can be easily plugged) is even stupider in this light. Anybody remember Suez?
Let the rubbish stay in the ground and focus on clean energy and infrastructure, especially mass rail transport.
 
 
+14 # shortonfaith 2012-01-07 12:43
Once again I want to bring up the need for pipelines transferring water. Vegas & many desert cities see their water supplies running out in 30 years. Build a pipeline for water if you really feel the need to make steel pipe. Criss-cross America with fresh, clean water. If you want to be a bully & throw your fat weight against everyone then at least make it a good idea. What a foolish little man.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-07 14:09
Better yet, move people to regions with water.
 
 
+2 # futhark 2012-01-07 14:46
XL Pipeline: Environmental Advocacy Community Threatens Obama.

Who is going to vote for a guy who was supposed to be a "transformation al" president and then has become Caver-in-Chief to big business interests?
 
 
+6 # heraldmage 2012-01-07 15:07
Just another GOP and Big Oil lie using election politic to force the President to approve a project that could devastate the ecology, increase pollution and destroy the aquifer.

An article published by thinkprogress.o rg exposed the truth. The GOP EPA killing budget is preventing massive job creation in programs similar to The Chesapeake Bay environmental clean-up project which has already created 240,000 new full time permanent jobs with more to come as the true extent & cause of the Bay's pollution is exposed. This is compared to Keystone's actual #'s of 6000-6500 temporary jobs (2 yrs or less).
Plus instead of cleaning up industrial pollution we are setting ourselves up for massive destruction of ecology & water table. We can't turn our backs on the less then stellar performance of the oil industry when it comes to protecting the environment. Is the creation of 6000 temp jobs building a taxpayer funded dirty oil pipeline that will traverse pristine forests & aquifer worth the environmental risk when we look at big oils past performance in Alaska, South America & the Gulf of Mexico?
Let's spend tax$s developing new clean energy sources, cleaning our polluted waterways,rebui lding our infrastructure, develop mass transit & upgrade communications systems not putting billions into the pockets of the 1%.

http://thinkprogress.o rg/romm/2012/01/04/397397/job-killing-epa-regulations-chesapeake-bay-create-many-jobs-keystone-xl-pipeline/
 
 
+7 # old cynic 2012-01-07 15:35
All of that Canadian oil will go to Asia. It will be sold to the highest bidder. It will not bring lower gas prices in North America by one cent.

The poor US and Canadian suckers will live with environmental consequences. The Koch brothers and their band of brothers will be far more wealthy. They believe excessive wealth is their "God Given Gift."

Dirty Oil and dirty Republicans want to bring the President of the United States down if he doesn't take his marching orders from them. What corrupt and audacious asses they are.
 
 
0 # AlexBrown 2012-01-07 16:45
There are many indications that the Candian and US oil shale industry, with the help of the US DoE, is moving towards use of mobile railcar nuclear reactors to heat steam used in "Steam-Assisted Gravitational Deposition (SAGD)" extraction of the oilbearing tar from shale layers. This is very likely a matter of national security because of the difficulty of maintaining military credibility, esp. aircraft, after this peak oil era, in the event that foreign oil supplies become inaccessible. This is the only way to build a nuclear-powered air force, for example.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-01-07 21:10
Quoting AlexBrown:
There are many indications that the Candian and US oil shale industry, with the help of the US DoE, is moving towards use of mobile railcar nuclear reactors to heat steam used in "Steam-Assisted Gravitational Deposition (SAGD)" extraction of the oilbearing tar from shale layers. This is very likely a matter of national security because of the difficulty of maintaining military credibility, esp. aircraft, after this peak oil era, in the event that foreign oil supplies become inaccessible. This is the only way to build a nuclear-powered air force, for example.

"National Security" my ol' kilted arse!
The US Armed forces are already the biggest threat to any kind of global security as well as the biggest polluters on the planet.
The last thing we need is to pander further to their needs especially with dirtier fuels including nuclear on railcars or plants. In fact I hope that O'b abandons this foolishness and in fact shrinks the military as he is currently talking about.
Nationally accessible hub-to-hub high speed rail over long, medium distance with branch lines to smaller communities is a better use of rail in a back-to-the-fut ure use of resources and newer technology, more community building and HUGELY job creating.
The era of the automobile is near over and we don't need new wars, more military spending and adventurism nor international skullduggery to try and keep it alive.
 
 
+4 # SenorN 2012-01-07 17:37
The worst of it is that, if approved, the pipeline will lessen the pressure on us to seek green energy sources. In the end, even the oil industry knows that's the only way to go. The longer we wait, the less competitive we will be internationally and the lower our standard of living will become.
 
 
+4 # Miss American 2012-01-07 21:55
When you take a good look at the way the tar sands oil is extracted, it's hard to imagine how it could go on for very long before the earth itself just pukes US off. These money junkies don't even care if the pipeline is only used for a short time. Everything they do is so illogical, but as long as it LOOKS like they'll make money, all life is at risk. To make that 700,000 barrels A DAY,would use 2,800,000 barrels of fresh water and 350,000 barrels of oil to produce. The Canadians are criminal to allow this plundering of their land and water, and this collosal mistake is just getting started. It WON'T work. There's already big increases in deaths from the pollution and the Alfbaska river in Alberta is already visibly drained down and horribly sickened.

www.EndCiv.com

The part on oil sands is at the 44 min mark.
 
 
+3 # Kimberly999 2012-01-08 04:38
Trans-Canada has an abysmal environmental record -they average 1 pipeline leak per month and the giant pools of poison water left over from processing the tar sands are big enough to be seen from space. The US State Department's own study indicated that 95% of the oil coming through the pipeline will be shipped abroad and the number of permanent jobs created by the pipeline number less than 100.
 
 
+1 # billybookworm 2012-01-08 13:11
The words of John Roberts in Citizen's United: "...this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 2252, 173 L.Ed.2d 1208, distinguished. Pp. 908 - 911.
Now in the wilderness occupied by Scalia's "common herd" beyond the ivory tower, I hear the Independent voice of a Senator from Vermont...
http://www.care2.com/causes/bernie-sanders-files-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united.html
Of course the corporatists on the Insane Court knew exactly what they were doing turning the table on end.
 
 
+1 # Cassandra 2012-01-08 15:58
Hey folks. The debate is not just about oil per se, but about HOW it is extracted and HOW it is transported domestically, meaning throughout the North American continent.

FRACKING and PIPE-LINES are the issues here. Fracking pollutes the water table (lots of evidence on record to this fact) and pipe-lines are highly vulnable to sabotage and spills (also have recorded evidence of these happenings).

Normal/regular land drilling activities and transport in double-walled tanks via rail arguably would not encounter the same public resistance.
 
 
+1 # noitall 2012-01-08 23:35
The transport of the oilcrap, whether by rail or pipeline is one thing, but the big thing NOW is the hideous damage to the environment and habitats in Canada where this stuff is being extracted. That is the huge sin. The First Nations People and others with a soul are fighting that war and we all need to join them. If they don't curb that threat to us all, we can bet they are going to move it one way or another and spread it (the fumes, run-off, etc.)far and wide.
 
 
+2 # FarMor 2012-01-09 10:18
The truth is that although the plans call for the tar sands oil to be refined in Texas, it will be sold on the world market with almost none of it going to the U.S. Another little sordid lie is that there will be temporary jobs created for the building of the pipeline, but very few long term jobs once construction is completed in a couple of years. These facts need to be repeated and repeated so the American public can see through the scam.
 
 
+2 # JonathanLogan 2012-01-10 00:38
I say we threaten BIG OIL back. We are the 99% and we're tired of being threatened.

I say we organize & start a movement to show BIG OIL what a democratic public does when we're tired of being tarred and beaten by K-Street, Tea Bagers,Wall Street, Big Oil and Big Money:

(1) Vote. Vote to take away ALL tax incentives, credits and deductions to the oil & gas industry – they are the most profitable industry on earth and because of the USA’s absolute reliance and dependence upon oil, they have a guaranteed market, and thus virtually zero risk.

(2) Quintuple all Oil and Gal Lease fees on Federal Land

(3) Mandate Consumer Protection style laws, rules, disclosures and “waiting periods” for all leases signed on private property

(4) Repeal the 2002 laws that provide exemption and exclusion from liability and environmental laws for fracking, and any other similar extraction
 
 
+1 # JonathanLogan 2012-01-10 00:40
(5) Require full environmental impact studies for every oil & gas well in the USA

(6) Subject all imported oil to massive taxes and fees

(7) Support $75B a year in tax incentives and deductions to companies and individuals who buy American made (built) solar, wind and geothermal, and $25B a year for similar imported equipment purchases and installations.

(8) Constitutionall y Repeal Citizen’s United - city by city, county by county, state by state if necessary.

I'm Jonathan Logan, I'm part of the 99%, I approve this Message.

Who's with me?
 
 
0 # sheila Cee 2012-01-15 22:29
SO, here we have it.

THREATS.

I wonder how many subtle threats he has received since becoming Preident that have caused him to back off from keeping some of the promises he made to us.

For example: "Do you love your children?" or...
"You have a lovely wife."

What would you do under the circumstances? Cave or proceed to push for the programs you support.

You see, I 'm a conspiracy theorist because I put NOTHING beyond those who have control of the country. They are sociopaths and don't care who they destroy to achieve their goals.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN