Slippery patch: Obama ignores benefits of transporting oil through pipeline

Keystone shouldn’t be sufficient, activists allege+ READ ARTICLE President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline marks the complete of seven years of time of time of activism by environmentalists across the country.

On the heels of years of politically charged discourse about the Keystone XL pipeline on both sides of the border, US president Barack Obama has rejected the energy company’s proposal.

Washington (CNN)Secretary of State John Kerry is recommending the USA reject the Keystone XL pipeline, senior administration officials told CNN, concluding the controversial project is not in the country’s national security interest.

“And in the coming weeks senior members of my team will be engaging with theirs in order to help deepen that cooperation”.

President Obama on Friday rejected the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project. The completed pipeline would move roughly 830,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

Additionally, backers of the oil pipeline are likely going to contest the US president’s decision in court, and Congress could attempt to override the president, but this move has failed in the past.

He says the USA has become a global leader on that issue – and that the project “would have undercut that global leadership”.

Both Calgary-based companies are trying to build new transportation capacity to carry rising volumes of oil-sands crude out of Canada.

“We continue to see the impact this administration’s attack on our energy sector is having on IL families”. Its proponents could challenge the decision in court and its construction could yet be approved if a Republican is elected president next year.

Republicans, the oil industry, and several Democrats from oil-producing states such as North Dakota have supported the project as one that would create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

“Addressing climate impacts is the new normal for major energy infrastructure projects”, Dyer said.

“Because ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this Earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep a few fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more risky pollution into the sky”, he said.

“The president’s decision today has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with politics”, Gardner said.