After the 2010 mid-term elections, Americans
heard the refrain “jobs, jobs, jobs” from both the
public-at-large and their elected representatives.
President Obama’s decision to immediately deny the
Keystone XL Pipeline undermines that objective. But
his choice is procedural and not philosophical,
which means he will bend.
On the surface, the president’s rejection of the
1,700-mile pipeline that would tread through
multiple states appears to be politically motivated.
But such a re-election strategy would backfire:
Republicans are already hammering away at the
perceived hypocrisy while the typically supportive
labor movement is outraged.
True, if he had approved the $7 billion line, he
would still be unable to recruit the political
opposition or those aligned against him in the oil
and gas industries. And, by refusing current offers,
he is solidifying his environmental support.
But, for the most part, the president ought to be
taken at his word: Nebraska ordered that parts of
the XL line be redirected because it would run
through sensitive habitat and aquifers there. And
the state has yet to provide an alternative path for
anyone to evaluate. Therefore, the White House can’t
approve something that has not yet been proposed.
Nevertheless, if Obama wants to see the line built,
he could insist that all subsequent reviews be
expedited.
For now, greenies are happy, noting that the
president must have all the facts before making any
decision that would impact millions of lives. That
will ensure “the pipeline won’t pollute their air
and water before it’s reviewed by those with the
expertise to conduct such an assessment without
bias—not the foreign oil companies or their
lobbyists who stand to profit,” says Daniel Weiss,
director of climate strategy at the Center for
American Progress.
In almost every case where pipeline operators
propose a route, the regulatory process will require
them to come up with new pathways. They often get it
done but after long and laborious exercises.
Keystone is no different: It has been under review
since 2008.
TransCanada, which would own and operate the
line, has 14 different proposals in the queue. It
says that a new offering is coming soon -- one that
may or may not placate Nebraska’s citizens.
Jobs v. Environment
Originally, President Obama was to have already made
a decision with respect to the Keystone project. But
the pipeline has become a lightening rod, with both
proponents and opponents calling it “ground zero” in
their battle over jobs and climate change,
respectively. For its part, Canada has said it would
find customers for its oil derived from tar sands --
whether they be in the United States or in Asia.
When Nebraska balked, the president was let off the
hook, noting that the state said it would take 15
months to devise its new plan -- well after the
November 2012 elections. The Republican Congress,
however, included language in a bill to force the
president to decide by this February. Obama said
“no” and Nebraska seems to be in no hurry. Still,
the Canadian government and TransCanada want the
line up and going by 2014.
“We remain confident Keystone XL will ultimately be
approved,” says Russ Girling, chief executive of
TransCanada. “This project is too important to the
U.S. economy, the Canadian economy and the national
interest of the United States for it not to
proceed.”
If job creation is central to the American economic
recovery, the president should pave the way for a
streamlined review of what will soon be a new
proposed path. While the environmental movement
would give him a tongue lashing, the
administration would nonetheless get credit for
putting people to work, which will appease the labor
unions.
Beside the political benefits, there’s also the
practical ones: The president’s own Department of
State that was required to weigh in, gave the XL
line the thumb’s up. It has said that line could
move forward with minimal environmental harm, noting
that the overall carbon emissions would not be much
greater than those of other heavy crude oils that
the United States refines.
Many are also saying that if the pipeline is not
built then the Canadian company would construct a
different line heading west. The fuel would then be
carried by ship to Asia, where even more greenhouse
gases would be released. Because the global demand
for oil will continue to rise, it is imperative that
this country find a friendly and reliable source
that will create an infrastructure to help rebuild
this country too.
EnergyBiz Insider is the Winner of the 2011 Online
Column category awarded by Media Industry News, MIN.
Ken Silverstein has also been named one of the Top
Economics Journalists by Wall Street Economists.
Follow Ken on www.twitter.com/ken_silverstein
energybizinsider@energycentral.com
Comments
Copyright © 1996-2011 by
CyberTech,
Inc.
All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to:
http://www.energybiz.com
Ken Here
To the previous letter writer:
Today, the world community uses 85 millions barrels per day while the United States consumes a quarter of that. Demand for oil is expected to rise by 54 percent in the next 20 years, meaning global production would have to jump to 44 million barrels of oil per day, says the U.S. Department of Energy. (My words from a different story.)
Note: I would agree with your inference that forecasts take into account a lot of variables and that such variables can change, and are up for debate themselves. The ppurpose of today's column was to provide a generic forecasts -- noted above -- that oil demand is expected to rise.
Is that accurate? Well, that's what the forum is for and to the extent someone wants to debunk that notion, please do. As many of you have heard me say, my thoughts are merely a starting pointing and never to be taken as the last word on any subject.