Alberta may offer more to smooth way for Keystone: envoy

Comments (6)
COindependent wrote:

With the Keystone pipeline North America has a real opportunity to be energy independent by 2017. That means we will not need to import any energy from the middle east, Africa or South America. We would be completely disengaged from the Middle East and OPEC–and they can shift their focus to China. Just think, $600 billion in foreign exchange stays in North America where it is benefits our two largest trading partners–Canada and Mexico–and is reinvested in our own economy.

This is a game-changer for the long term–politically and economically. It means real jobs for Americans, and it will dramatically improve the economy of Mexico where an expanding middle class would eliminate the economic motivation to emigrate.

It would also diminish the need for the U.S. military to be the world’s policeman–exactly what this President desires. So, someone please explain to me why he is dragging his feet for an initiative that fits his “lead from behind” philosophy.

Feb 05, 2013 9:15am EST  --  Report as abuse
JohnGaltIII wrote:

Canada should not trust Obama for a second. He can always shut off the pipeline once built. Canada is planning a pipeline into Eastern Canada right now as well as a rail line to Alaska to ship the oil from Valdez. Canada should go ahead with these plans and tell Obama to stick it.

Feb 05, 2013 9:33am EST  --  Report as abuse
sharonsj wrote:

Energy independent, my patootie! The tar sands oil is destined to be shipped out of the U.S. and sold on international markets. It will create only 200 permanent jobs for U.S. citizens.

Aren’t you curious why Canada doesn’t just send its own oil to its own refineries and ports? It’s because the provinces refused to have their environment destroyed. But here, in the good old USA, everything is for sale to the highest bidder and no doubt a lot of folks in Congress are going to get rich off the pipeline.

Feb 05, 2013 10:47am EST  --  Report as abuse
sharonsj wrote:

Energy independent, my patootie! The tar sands oil is destined to be shipped out of the U.S. and sold on international markets. It will create only 200 permanent jobs for U.S. citizens.

Aren’t you curious why Canada doesn’t just send its own oil to its own refineries and ports? It’s because the provinces refused to have their environment destroyed. But here, in the good old USA, everything is for sale to the highest bidder and no doubt a lot of folks in Congress are going to get rich off the pipeline.

Feb 05, 2013 10:48am EST  --  Report as abuse
line1 wrote:

Any discussion of energy independence in relation to the Keystone XL is a complete non sequitur. As the article points out:

“…limited export capacity has played a big role in pulling the price of its heavy oil to less than half the value of a barrel of international benchmark Brent crude.”

Why would TransCanada invest in a new pipeline project simply to sell us oil at the same devalued rates we’re already getting? The intent of the Keystone XL — and this isn’t a secret, it’s been widely discussed — is to allow TransCanada’s oil to be distributed to international markets, allowing them to raise their prices and effectively increasing fuel costs for their current customers (i.e. the midwestern US).

This pipeline’s only direct benefit to the US will be in the creation of jobs, and the only people claiming there will be any significant job creation from this project are the same people who stand to profit the most from its approval.

Feb 05, 2013 11:03am EST  --  Report as abuse
Igloo wrote:

If the world uses the Alberta tar sands oil in large quantity it will be game over for our climate and for the human race. Tar sands oil is dirtier than coal!! We don’t want your nasty tar sands oil, Canada!!

Feb 05, 2013 5:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.