Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Dept report: Yeah, we canít really think of a good reason not to build the Keystone pipeline
Hotair ^ | 03/01/2013 | Erika Johnsen

Posted on 03/01/2013 6:02:55 PM PST by SeekAndFind

TransCanada has only been waiting for the go-ahead for the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline for, oh, four or so years now, and the State Department has now several times concluded that the pipeline poses no real reason for environmental alarm — despite the vociferous protestations of its eco-critics. After having released an environmental impact review in 2011 that basically concluded that the project poses no real threats, State released another revised environmental impact review on Friday afternoon that… also basically concludes that the project poses no real threats. It very carefully avoids making any recommendations for specific action on the pipeline's fate, but at least fails to highlight any reason why the project shouldn’t be built:

A draft State Department report concludes that building the Keystone XL pipeline would not speed up development of Canada’s oil sands, dealing a blow to environmentalists who claim Keystone would worsen climate change.

The report from the State Department does not take a firm position on whether the proposed Canada-to-Texas pipeline would be detrimental to the environment or exacerbate global warming.

But the draft also says that “approval or denial of the proposed project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.”

To what I’m sure the department knew would be the eco-warriors’ chagrin, the 2,000 page report confirmed what the pipeline’s proponents have been arguing: Whether the pipeline is built or not won’t have much of an impact on climate change, because Canada is still going to develop those oil sands (since China will happily buy up the supplies if we won’t allow them to filter through our own markets), and the “implementation of the proposed Project in Canada would not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects.”

The Friday-night-news-dump tactic was to little avail, however; the highly invested green lobbies have been on nonstop Keystone watch and quickly went into fits of outrageous outrage upon hearing the news, reports Politico:

The Sierra Club, one of many environmental groups hoping for a clear thumbs-down, said it was “outraged” by Friday’s outcome. …

“We’re mystified as to how the State Department can acknowledge the negative effects of the Earth’s dirtiest oil on our climate, but at the same time claim that the proposed pipeline will ‘not likely result in significant adverse environmental effects,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune, one of dozens of activists who were arrested in an anti-Keystone protest last month after tying himself to the White House gate. “Whether this failure was willful or accidental, this report is nothing short of malpractice.” …

Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford warned that “letting corporations get rich off of environmental devastation will make Obama’s climate rhetoric look like the worst kind of greenwashing.”

Climate activist Bill McKibben, organizer of the mass White House sit-ins in 2011 and last month’s Keystone protests, called the report “Groundhog Day — we’re hearing the same rehashed arguments from the State [Department] about why a great threat to the climate is not a threat at all.”

Dang. If there’s one thing I just love about the green lobby, it’s that they always shy away from hyperbole and drama — they’ve really got a sense of perspective, you know?

Don’t get your hopes up, however, that we’ll be getting a final answer on the job- and economy-boosting project anytime soon; the administration is now saying we shouldn’t expect a decision until around the middle of the year. (Does anybody else remember when “we can’t wait for jobs” was a thing? Good times, those.)


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; keystone; keystonepipeline; keystonexl; oil; state

1 posted on 03/01/2013 6:03:10 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is why I asked on an earlier thread what the Secretary of State had to do with the pipeline. I was told it had to do with international borders. Okay. SOS Clinton must have told Obummer that the pipeline was bad. SOS Lurch must think it is good. They play for the same team !! What’s up?

BTW We’re still going to keep our little money maker running in Alberta.


2 posted on 03/01/2013 6:18:01 PM PST by Dartman (Mubarak and Gaddafi are going to look like choirboys when this is over)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The President of the United States of America is not the least bit interested in the welfare or prosperity of the nation of which he is purportedly the duly-elected leader.

I have gone beyond dislike and hatred.

May he and his rot in hell.

3 posted on 03/01/2013 6:21:34 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
North Dakota has more oil than Saudi Arabia. By buiding the Keystone Pipeline we could creat jobs, lower the price of gasoline and boost our economy in many secondary places.

BUT we must take care of the poor animules who would find their lives contorted. Prairie Dogs Rule!

4 posted on 03/01/2013 6:29:26 PM PST by Young Werther (Julius Caesar said "Quae cum ita sunt. Since these things are so.".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

The President of the United States of America is not the least bit interested in the welfare or prosperity of the nation of which he is purportedly the duly-elected leader.

I have gone beyond dislike and hatred.

May he and his rot in hell.

I vote with you!!! May he rot in Sheol!!!!


5 posted on 03/01/2013 6:42:06 PM PST by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
Country A wants to build an oil pipeline to pump oil from Country A to be refined in Country B. A private company in Country A will pay for the cost of laying the pipe and employ a lot of workers from Country B. Country B will be able to access all this oil cheaply and dependably. Additionally Country B will be able to develop their own oil fields, along the proposed route of the pipeline, where production is now shut out because of lack of transport.

If Country B does not allow Country A to build the pipeline, Country A will build a pipeline along a different route so that the oil will flow to Country Red, an arch enemy of Country B. Country B seems totally oblivious to this threat, and to the obvious benefits of the pipeline. Country B has delayed its construction for four years and threatens to nix the project altogether.

Exercise. Argue that Country B is acting in its own self interest. Further argue that Country B is a country to be taken seriously.

6 posted on 03/01/2013 6:44:11 PM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Warren Buffett owns the rail car systems that transport oil. That is one reason 0bama will not approve the pipeline. The other reason is, it would impact 0bama's brothers in the Middle East. Lastly, the pipeline involves private sector entities and isn't 100% U.S. government run, so 0bama hates it.

It's not King 0bama's decision to make anyway, so JUST BUILD THE DAMN THING. Make it a battle line and tell the government to meet you there at a certain date and time.

7 posted on 03/01/2013 7:06:00 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
State Dept report: Yeah, we can’t really think of a good reason not to build the Keystone pipeline

Becuz...

0bama don't like it...

Drillin' the Bakken, Drillin' the Bakken...

8 posted on 03/01/2013 7:17:10 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

If I tell obama that he will regret not speeding up Keystone, will I be in trouble with the SS?

If Woodward says the same thing, will he be in trouble with the SS?


9 posted on 03/01/2013 7:31:37 PM PST by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dartman

They play for the same team !! What’s up?
Yeah they do, but inspite of us thinking these folks are kicking our asses by skil, may be they are really just lucky Keystone Cops.


10 posted on 03/01/2013 8:35:04 PM PST by X-spurt (Republic of Texas, Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

11 posted on 03/01/2013 9:27:49 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson