Obama says will address concerns on Keystone pipeline

A group of demonstrators rally against the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline outside President Barack Obama's fundraiser at the W Hotel in San Francisco, California October 25, 2011. REUTERS/Stephen Lam

A group of demonstrators rally against the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline outside President Barack Obama's fundraiser at the W Hotel in San Francisco, California October 25, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Stephen Lam

DENVER | Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:25pm EDT

DENVER (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said Wednesday his administration would address concerns about a proposed Canada-to-Texas oil sands pipeline and no decision on it had been made.

Three environmental groups sued the U.S. government on Tuesday, challenging claims in a State Department report that the controversial pipeline posed little risk to endangered species because spills on the line were unlikely.

Protesters have dogged Obama about the issue in Washington and throughout the country.

During an event with young people in Denver, one activist interrupted Obama's remarks, urging the president to reject the project.

"We're looking at it right now, all right?" Obama replied. "No decision's been made and I know your deep concern about it, so we will address it."

Protesters who held up a banner reading: "Stop the Keystone Pipeline Project" were asked to leave.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason, Editing by Sandra Maler)
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
Nullcorp wrote:
Clever signs. That Gotham typeface always looks good, it’s a clever subversion of his message.

Oct 26, 2011 4:53pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
KyuuAL wrote:
DRILL BABY DRILL! Aren’t these Republican states being the ones affected?

Oct 26, 2011 6:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:
So the oil is from tar sands in Canada, REAL dirty stuff even much more then regular oil btw, goes to TX before being sent to the rest of the USA? This makes zero sense, why ship it all the way across the country before going to rest of the country? Sounds like un-necessary risk/cost?

Oooo I know, I bet the oil companies determined they could make bigger profit that way as would not have to build new refineries. Well screw them, make them build the refineries in Canada or along the border on USA side, so no risk of sending it across the heartland. Even better yet, lets end our addiction to oil? Especially this dirty tar sands crap, which in fact has more then double the CO2 emissions from ‘normal’ oil due to production costs. Plus it has about a ~20-30% if not more cost premium over other crude oils. Kind of like a drug addict that right before they die they spend more money on less potent drugs, just cause that all they can get at the time.

So stupid, what would be smarter would be taxing ‘dirty’ energy by 50% of profit and dropping ALL that money into advanced energy techs, aka fusion/hydrogen power economy. Cost upwards of $100 billion over next 10 years to start, maybe even up to $500 billion, but when you think about the benefits that is cheap.

Oct 26, 2011 8:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
See All Comments »