Republicans press Obama to approve oilsands pipeline
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Republicans+press+Obama+approve+oilsands+pipeline/4540352/story.html
The heated policy debate over Alberta’s oilsands took centre stage Thursday in the U.S. Congress, with Republican lawmakers claiming President Barack Obama has “failed to act” swiftly enough to ensure a secure long-term supply of Canadian crude.
A day after Obama said the U.S. will need “steady and stable and reliable” Canadian oil as it slashes overall imports over the next decade, GOP lawmakers said there is an “urgent” need for the U.S. to further tap Canada’s market by approving Calgary-based TransCanada’s $7-billion Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta.
One by one, GOP lawmakers on a House foreign affairs subcommittee pressed Obama to sign a presidential permit authorizing construction of the controversial pipeline, which would ship more than 500,000 barrels of oilsands crude a day from northern Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
“We need to immediately concentrate on replacing foreign oil from thugocrats like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela with reliable, stable allies like Canada,” said Rep. Connie Mack, a Florida Republican who chairs the Western Hemisphere subcommittee.
Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican, said Obama’s policy on Canadian oil was to “delay, delay, delay” the Keystone XL project. His message to the U.S. president: “It’s time to start laying pipe.”
The Keystone XL pipeline has been in limbo as the U.S. State Department weighs whether to grant a presidential permit, required because the project crosses an international boundary.
State Department officials delayed the process further last month by ordering a supplemental environmental impact study to address concerns about pipeline safety and climate change issues around oilsands production. Several pro-pipeline witnesses at Thursday’s hearing said growing unrest in the Middle East poses the biggest threat to America’s energy security.
Oil from “quiet, stable, friendly” Canada “is not the perfect answer, but a step toward better energy security for the country,” said Paul Sullivan, a former National Security Council member and now a Georgetown University professor.
Increasing U.S. access to Canada’s oil resources of 175 billion barrels will “keep certain other countries in check,” said Sullivan, citing the price shocks often caused by disruption in supply from OPEC nations.
“Canada is not a member of OPEC. It could be a counter to OPEC.”
With the Middle East in turmoil, the witnesses said approval of the Keystone XL pipeline would provide Texas refineries with a source of heavy crude that could further offset declining imports from Venezuela.
Venezuela is currently the fifthbiggest supplier of oil to the United States -behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. Canada is the biggest supplier -providing about 23 per cent of America’s oil imports -but Keystone XL would provide a new link to Texas refineries.
David Goldwyn, an international energy consultant, said in written testimony that getting Canadian oil to Texas would help “moderate” gasoline prices.
The lone anti-pipeline witness at the hearing said Keystone XL’s construction would do little to shield American consumers from gasoline price spikes.
Jeremy Symons, vice-president of the National Wildlife Federation, said prices of Canadian crude had jumped $20 per barrel since the recent crisis in Libya began.
“Why do oil prices in Canada go up when there is conflict in North Africa? Because oil companies don’t care about energy security or price stability,” Symons said in his written testimony. “They care about profits. And if there is a crisis in one part of the world, you can bet they will gouge us with high oil prices everywhere.”
Symons told the congressional committee Alberta’s “scorched earth tarsands operations are the most destructive source of oil on the planet.”
Rep. Eliot Engel, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said he has not made up his mind about Keystone XL. But he said it was important for the State Department to take its time in examining the project’s environmental impacts -a lesson the U.S. should have learned from the regulatory failures prior to last year’s BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
pipeline/4540352/story.html#ixzz1IUt8V5Ak
This sounds bizarre to me. Do you know who this Gary Houston is? The article doesn’t make it clear. Whitney Houston’s brother?
I don’t know the Calgary Herald, but there seems to be an enviroslant here.
Where’s the oil from the Bakken going to be shipped? And how?
Remember how a few months ago you were speculating about an engineered economic crisis?
This is an article concerning a petroleum glut in our nation, yet we’re told just the opposite. Interesting. Wonder who’s behind this — Soros again?
Wall St. has to reinvest all of their 0% interest Bernake dollars somewhere, so the price of real goods and commodities goes up. Oil is just the easiest thing to see that its price has totally broken away from the demand curve, thanks to Bernake and his insider buyers.
Oil glut? Yeah, there’s so much oil, they had to jack the price up the last few months.
Or did the price rise cause the glut?
Cushing, OK, a major shipment point for Canadian oil, is struggling to build new storage facilities for the surplus. There is absolutely no reason for oil to be at these prices.
We have cut our driving by 20% this month and are aiming for another 5% now that prices have gone up eight cents per gallon in one week.
The velocity of money is as low as it's ever been...nobody borrowing and very few spending on what they don't actually need right now.
Since the American consumer is not borrowing and spending this deflation is still alive and well.
One day these folks will notice that every commodity has been priced to the point where nobody is willing to buy it and they will find there are surpluses of just about everything worldwide.
And the selling will begin.
The last man holding will find there is nothing behind him but a cold wind.