Tuesday, April 3, 2012

The gift that keeps on giving

The US is still reaping the bitter fruits of Obama's inexcusable decision to veto the Keystone XL pipeline:
Even if President Barack Obama approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, at least some Canadian oil would still flow to Asia, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
In a public one-on-one interview here with Jane Harman, head of the Wilson Centre think-tank, Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline -- even temporarily -- stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oilsands crude.
And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.
"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.
"We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position."
His wide-ranging question-and-answer at the influential non-partisan think-tank -- which also touched on border security, trade, the Arctic and Syria among other topics -- followed a meeting with Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the White House for the sixth North American Leaders' Summit.
Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.
So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

"We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy," Harper said. "We're still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn't our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.
"That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing."
Earlier this year, Obama rejected TransCanada's bid to build the $7 billion pipeline that would carry crude from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.
Three words for Obama: Nice going, jerk.

The lovely and talented (if often wrong -- I mean, she supports Rick Santorum, for cryin' out loud)) Tina Korbe at Hot Air explains:
The damage is done. Even if President Barack Obama decides to approve the Keystone XL pipeline at some point in the future, he already sent a message to Canada that our northern neighbor can’t rely on us as its only energy customer — and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper heeded it.


This fallout from the president’s decision on Keystone XL underscores the truth that Obama does not make policy decisions in a vacuum. He’ll do what he will — and other countries will respond accordingly. Our famously “cerebral” leader might have preferred to have had more time to “sufficiently review” the project, but he didn’t. In the time frame he was given, he made his priorities perfectly clear: He cares more to retain the support of certain constituencies than to approve a project that would have created thousands of jobs and signaled to Canada that we’re committed to ensure a supply of affordable energy for ourselves. The American Energy Alliance had it right: The president’s energy policies have done nothing to secure America’s energy future. We’ll be ever more at the mercy of the oil-producing countries the president likes to blame so much.
More than any other single decision Obama has made, the veto of Keystone XL by itself warrants his removal from office.


  1. Maybe if the pipeline would have avoided the Sand Hills, maybe if the pipeline would have fed the US market...the whole thing is just a profiteer's wet dream. Nothing in it for me.

  2. So it's a brighter idea to let China proceed with cornering our remaining natual resources as quickly as possible? Even if I agree with the need to get off fossil fuels and the definitive history of energy profiteering, it's difficult to think of a less-strategic and more politically self-serving decision that is not in our national interest. You think China cares about any interest besides their own?

    If the decision were actually based on environmental convictions, why promote Brazilian drilling? Why hasn't our speed limit been dropped to 55 mph again?

    The only deep-seated conviction I'm convinced our President has is his re-election will enable punishing capitalism he deems overly successful. I don't question there are excesses and drawbacks of our country and economic system. I disagree with the President's magnitude of polarization and circumvention in trying to change them.