As Steven Goddard notes, “he spent 6 years telling us it was about global warming”.
Obama: “I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil." http://t.co/UltOITVdXk
— Amy Harder (@AmyAHarder) March 2, 2015
“Part of the reason North Dakota has done so well is that we have been very much promoting domestic, U.S. energies,†the president said in response to Kealy asking why he vetoed the Keystone bill. “I’ve already said I’m happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf.
“It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs,†Obama continued. “We should be focusing more broadly on American infrastructure for American jobs and American producers, and that’s something that we very much support.â€
North Dakota is doing well despite Obama’s policies. As for the permanent jobs, Obama’s entire infrastructure part of the Stimulus created a number approaching zero of permanent jobs, as they were all temporary. In case he also missed it, those jobs would be in the U.S., and the money from the pipeline would spread through the economy. Of course, what would we expect from a community organizer with virtually no experience in the private sector?
He apparently forgets all the products that are imported from other nations to the U.S.
BTW, he doesn’t seem to have a problem with importing Mexicans.
Obama ignores the Bakken oil fields in the US that would also benefit from a pipeline.
Teach again I must say that pipeline would raise the price American consumers would have to pay. For fuel
Right now we are the only buyers for the tar dand distillate
If the pipeline goes to a deep water port we will have to compete with
And pay the world market price
Who will benefit from the pipeline? The Koch brothers who have bought the GOP
Wait. Is this why HFC dropped 5+% today? This guy is such a dickhead.
For the record, John, if the pipeline was installed, the big losers would be the Koch Brothers and Berkshire Hathaway (aka Warren Buffet (D) Missouri).
A pipeline would lower the cost of transporting the oil. Added benefits are a lower carbon footprint in transporting oil that will be transported pipeline or no. Plus the pipeline is safer for both human life and the environment.
See train wreck in West Virginia.
I am Canadian, so I am biased on this issue but John is in fact correct.
The U.S. pays 40 percent less for oil than the world price beause Alberta oil is land locked.
The pipeline will enable this to be sold at the world price. Though it is oil from Canada it is not Canadian oil per se. It is oil owned by corporations some of whom are American. Alberta/Canada gets a royalty.
Prime Minister Harper has been trying to build a pipeline to British Columbia so that we can sell oil to the world that way as well. He is facing the same opposition. He is also going to change the direction of an existing pipeline that goes from Alberta to the Marintines so that those provinces can buy oil from fellow Canadains instead of importing from abroad.
Now I heard but have not substantiated so prehaps it is not fair to say this until then but it may explain the mystery here. We think of oil companies as one big conglomerate when in fact they are many companies competing against each other. The rumor here is that those companies that derive their oil from Canada and North Dakota support the Republicans. Those companies that get their oil from off shore and abroad support the Democrats. Therefore, the oil companies that support the Democrats do not want the pipeline. I can tell you ALL Canadians with the exception of some fringe groups want the XL pipeline. They also want a pipeline to BC with the exception of some eviromentalists and Indigenous groups out that way.
This is going to happen. it’s just politics. Alberta and Canada are behaving as if it is a done deal. I think because they know that it is.
Also on another note. Oil Companies in Canada donate to vertually everyone. Most if not all universities, hospitals, etc. They donate to more warmer organizations than Skeptical ones. There is no strings attached. They do not care. They want the tax excemption. I suspect the same applies in the U.S.
Univerity students may vote to divest from fossil fuel companies but they still will take their grants, subsidies and donations. Their tuition would rise othewise.
Phil, what?! Alberta oil is indeed worth less, though not 40% less. And it’s only because there is no pipeline. It has nothing to do with the fact that the province is landlocked.
Obama is screwing you by making your oil about 23% less valuable. But it’s not because he hates Canadians. He just hates oil production. He’s trying to make ALL oil production less profitable. Lucky for us, state laws make it so he can’t screw us as much as he’d otherwise be able to do. Sadly, federal laws make it so he can screw you royally, which he’s doing.
But if you can just wait two years, this douchewad will be gone, a new president will be in charge, and Canada will experience
3. Profit!
Teach as a conservative how do you justify the taking of privately held land to benefit a for profit corporation ?
Dear Kevin:
Thank you for your comments. The fiqure used here is 40 percent, but it may be based on the Canadian dollar or your 23 percent may be after the oil dropped in price. No matter. it is less. Also, this was happening before Obama took office. It is merely a supply and demand thing. Aberta is land locked and the only place to refine the oil is Texas. (Soon to also be the Maritines) Currently the oil is transported to Texas by rail. Not as safe as a pipeline and as you say more expensive.
Canadians want to know why we do not build refineries in Alberta and sell the gasoline. The reply we get is that they crunched the numbers and it is not cost effective for some reason.
The delay is politics. I can tell you that Albert is behaving like it is a done deal.
More profit for Canada, yes. But once the North Dakota oil is up and running I think Americans will use this oil and more Canadian oil will be sold abroad. Win/Win :)
John makes an interesting point. During the feudal system the peasents grew the crops and got a royalty. The land owner got the lions share.
Then in the 1920’s the oil harvesters got the lions share and the land owners got the royality. What happened In Canada we get a much lower percentage than the Arabs. In Alberta (where i do not live), there is no provincial tax and University is free to all residents. That is fine, but where are their solid gold toilets. LOL