Cuellar comments on Obama’s veto of Keystone pipeline

But Keystone XL’s demise, weeks before a United Nations conference on climate change in Paris, will make it easier for Mr Trudeau to forge a national consensus on climate policy and to portray Canada as a helpful partner at the global gathering.

Though the defeat of the pipeline should be cause for celebration, it is only a temporary victory in the president’s administration concerning climate change. What was not mentioned was the oil glut in the United States.

Obama again returned to his bogus “climate change” position, a belief he holds with all the fervency of a cult member. It would be the fourth phase of the Keystone Pipeline System, connecting Hardisty, Alberta, and Steele City, Neb.

The project kicked off in 2005 and was successfully completed and in operation by 2010. It’s because the American oil and natural gas industry, through the use of horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracking unlocked an ocean of natural gas which is displacing coal in the generation of electricity in the U.S. Substituting natural gas for coal in US power plants has slashed the amount of Carbon dioxide produced annually by the production of electricity by 372 million tons since 2007.

Q – Proponents of the project – including Republican presidential candidates – argue the pipeline would advance US energy independence, but Obama cited falling gasoline prices as another argument against the project. Obama claimed that he rejected the application due to climate change considerations.

Eight hundred readers participated in this week’s poll, conducted November 9 and 10.

“The Keystone XL is a great opportunity to create thousands of good jobs in a vastly growing energy sector”. One way or another, that oil will be coming out of the ground. Without the Keystone pipeline, it will move in a much more hazardous fashion by truck or train, likely benefiting countries other than the U.S. This provoked an equal and opposite reaction from pipeline proponents, who came to portray the project as the wellspring of all American employment and cheap gas. In addition, the impact on jobs is 2,000 to 3,000 during the construction and less than 100 afterward. Those jobs are not needed in today’s job market, in my opinion. Therefore, the industry’s need for the pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast diminished.

I rarely agree with anything Obama does, but this time we are in sync. Completion of the project would have added another 10,000 jobs for four or five years, a small blip in an economy that saw nonfarm employment increase by 271,000 jobs in October.

That would have made sense.

“Third, shipping dirtier crude oil into our country would not increase America’s energy security”. Both decisions are ridiculous.

The path forward for proponents of the pipeline remains unclear, with a few USA lawmakers raising the prospect of trying to override Obama’s decision.

But as Wall points out, it’s still very significant because having to sell at a lower price deprives oil companies the chance to create the capital to reinvest. OPEC will not continue its excess supply strategy forever. It is, however, moving ahead with plans for a terminal in New Brunswick. Let’s build another casino! We should approve the pipeline and generate revenue from it. That money could be used to pay for infrastructure or our debt, or used for research into alternative energy sources.

This is all a big media “political” play. Alberta’s oil producers are still intent on shifting transport from rail to pipeline.