Posted on 06/06/2011 5:43:43 AM PDT by thackney
A controversial $13-billion pipeline project originating in Hardisty, Alta., will accelerate U.S. addiction to Canadian oil, says a newly-released report from Natural Resources Canada.
"The Keystone XL project is seen as both furthering U.S. dependence on oil, and enabling more oilsands crude to enter the U.S. market," said the document, released through access to information legislation.
The document, which assessed the ongoing debate about the project in the U.S., noted a growing opposition that was stalling the U.S. State Department from issuing the presidential permit required to authorize the project.
"Although the Keystone XL pipeline was certificated in Canada in late April 2010, the company continues to wait for approvals in the U.S. before it can begin construction," said the report, obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin. "This . . . has been caused by U.S. opposition to imports of 'dirty' Canadian crude oil from the 'tar sands.'"
If approved, the 90-centimetre pipeline proposed by TransCanada, an Alberta-based energy company, would connect the oilsands region with the U.S. Midwest through to Texas along a 2,700 kilometre route.
But opposition has been mounting since the summer when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raised concerns about the project's impact and questioned whether it should be approved.
Environmental groups have suggested the oilsands produce "dirty oil" because of a large environmental footprint in production that they say pollutes the land, air, and water.
President Barack Obama also weighed into the issue in April by raising his own questions about the "destructive" nature of what he also referred to as the "tarsands."
The Natural Resources Canada report, entitled "Current Pipeline Issues," was finalized on Oct. 22, 2010, and listed senior bureaucrats, John Foran, Bruce Akins and Lisanne Bazinet, from the oil and gas policy and regulatory division of the department as its key contacts.
It noted that Canada's chief negotiator for international climate change discussions, Guy St. Jacques, had also publicly endorsed the Canadian government's support for the Keystone XL project in June 2010 when he was deputy ambassador at the Washington Embassy.
It also speculated that there could be mixed consequences of remarks made during an Oct. 15 speech in San Francisco by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she "let slip that 'we've not signed off on it (the Presidential permit), but we are inclined to do so.'"
"Although this sounds positive for the Keystone XL approval, Ms. Clinton's remarks have led to charges that she has pre-judged the outcome of her department's decision," said the Natural Resources Canada report. "Finally, note that there is also considerable support for the project within the U.S., given its economic benefits. Several congressmen and large trade unions have pledged their support."
“will accelerate U.S. addiction to Canadian oil,”
heaven forbid, we should instead be addicted to Chavez oil.
Another great graphic, Hack! We especially need that lower segment running south from Cushing.
“addiction” to Canadian oil?
Like improving air quality will increase people’s “addiction” to breathing?
Like more restaurants will increase people’s “addiction” to eating?
Please, this is beyond silly. Advanced industrial nations NEED oil to stay advanced. Otherwise, you wind up like Bangladesh.
...not to mention Mideast oil. ROFLOL, what a STUPID headline.
If you’re like me, you have a huge pile of books to read.
However, as you are a oil/gas historian, you need to read “Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.” It tells extensively about John D’s dealings with the railroad and his use of pipelines for distributing his products.
John D understood early on that refining was merely one part of the process, and that distribution was even more important.
Pipelines or other oil/gas transportation projects have been at least half of my career.
More and more it sounds like the Canadians are getting fed up with Obama’s stalling tactics on the Keystone Pipeline expansion.
It is not all that far from Hardesty to a port in British Columbia.
Canada could build a pipeline or use a unit train to move this oil to a Pacific Coast port and then ship it to Japan.
Obama would be held responsible for letting a secure source of oil get away from us.
It just occurred to me that maybe Saudi is promising to increase production to keep the Keystone pipeline from being built...
Looks like a proposed new 36 inch line all the way except for the section between Steele City and Cushing. It would would bring a lot of new product to the Gulf Coast for refining.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Titan.html?id=Mleb5acWQF4C
Titan: the life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr
by Ron Chernow
Supposedly, this is the definitive bio of John D. However, Chernow still does not give him his due, imo.
Rockefeller saved more whales than all the bunny huggers put together ever did. He produced and marketed a superior illuminant at an inexpensive price - kerosene - and put the whale hunting industry out of business.
His single-minded business purpose was to improve his production and distribution process with the intent of providing superior products at the most economical prices possible, thereby benefiting the customer.
He was IMO the greatest businessman ever.
We should support Independence for Quebec. The rest of Canada couldn’t function-think 51st state.
I’d rather pay for Canuck Oil than Raghead Oil.
Bring it on.
I think Alberta would do rather well without Quebec socialist policies holding them back.
Idiots. All it will do is substitute Canadian oil for Raghead oil at best. It may not even be sold here at all. Oil is global commodity and the pipeline will enable export.
I guess this is the enviro version of Reefer Madness.
I have friends in Yukon Territory who would love to secede.
If no agreement is reached by the end of the year, watch China to move to tie-down tarsands oil exports. It cannot be shouted loud enough: Democrats hate oil, and if they cculd, Democrats would destroy the oil industry.
In his book “Ethical Oil”, Canadian Ezra Levant poses the question, why is the country of origin not on gasoline. It is on absolutely everything else. Put the country of origin on the pump at the gas station so people know where that product originated.
I am curious, as someone in the industry, if you have an opinion about his idea. If the consumer gets to vote, with their fuel dollars, I think American and Canadian oil and gas products would be much more popular than Venezuelan or Saudi Arabian oil and gas. Is there any good reason the country of origin should not be posted on the pump?
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.