Asia a priority for Canada after U.S. delays Keystone

Comments (18)
jorge62 wrote:

This is why this president has got to go in 2012. This president has sided with a group of people who I think what to destroy the US. The next president and the people of the US will have to do something dismantle these supposed environmental groups.

Nov 13, 2011 8:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Harry079 wrote:

“Canada is already the largest foreign supplier of oil, natural gas, electricity and uranium to the United States.”

We treat Canada worse than Somolia, Yemen, North Korea and Cuba.

It’s to the point here on the Detroit River and Lake Erie where you have to have Canadian Worms to fish in or near Canadian waters. So people that still go fishing are buying Canadian Night Crawlers from bait shops in Michigan while our worms are ignored.

Nov 13, 2011 9:01pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WiseOne2 wrote:

I think the people who want to destroy the US are those companies that will not fix the environmental pollution they do. I know rivers right now you cannot drink from in the US and LIVE…….

Nov 13, 2011 9:15pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Intriped wrote:

Lame Duck Obama.

Nov 13, 2011 10:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
NeilKitson wrote:

As it turns out, Stephen Harper doesn’t speak for Canada.

Nov 13, 2011 11:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
txgadfly wrote:

It is hard to imagine Americans who think environmental protection is a bigger threat to the USA than our $1.2 trillion per year we blow in the Middle East. Nebraska sand hills are more important than destroying the American Government social infrastructure so that Jews don’t have to give Muslims the right to vote. I do not care if their religion tells them they are the “Chosen” masters of the Universe. But then that is more important to you than our land.

You know, some of us here in this country are going to have a serious disagreement someday. Again. As if anything notable would change if Republicans ruled again in Washington. It is easier to tell the difference between two varieties of rare tree frog than to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Nov 14, 2011 12:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
maltadefender wrote:

we will run a pipe out to BC … not that hard to do

Nov 14, 2011 2:09am EST  --  Report as abuse
BCerentano wrote:

I guess it would have made too much sense to take the pipeline to Nebraska then truck it the rest of the way or simply alter the pipeline route in Nebraska.

Nov 14, 2011 6:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
stambo2001 wrote:

Who runs Barter Town? Canada runs Barter Town!

Nov 14, 2011 6:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

Once again the majotiry of Americans will suffer from the “squeaky wheel” syndrome on the new pipeline. Pipelines are by far the most cost efficient and safe means of transporting petroleum. A few environmentalists have now got the attention of the “paralyzed” lawmakers and re-election bound Obama in Washington to delay this important infra-structure. Ask yourself, “does my President, Congressman or Senator really represent my best interests?” Upon review, I believe you will respond with a resounding “NO!”

Nov 14, 2011 8:55am EST  --  Report as abuse
maineidea wrote:

yes we would like the pipe line but we want it to be a environmentally safe pipeline. The fact that it passes over a major aquifer that is depended on by multiple western states has to be taken into consideration. Reroute the pipeline so it passes through an environmentally less sensitive area. Bottom line is people can not drink OIL.

Nov 14, 2011 9:13am EST  --  Report as abuse
JamVee wrote:

The Obama administration, once more, throws a stumbling block in the way of moving toward energy independence . . . Obama knows that no matter which way they go, build the pipeline or not, he will loose some votes. This delay is all about not loosing those votes next November.

What a narcissistic viewpoint!

Nov 14, 2011 9:27am EST  --  Report as abuse
jwab wrote:

Absolutely pathetic. Obama doesn’t care if there are more jobs or cheaper energy for Americans, he just worries about alienating his political base. All he cares about is getting reelected, not getting anything done. I’m sorry we have a horrible leader Canada.

Nov 14, 2011 9:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
jaxxon33 wrote:

Does anyone still need to be bludgeoned with more evidence of the permanent baggage of intimidation, bribery, and blackmail such as this which all surround dirty fuels?
For God’s sake people just ramp up he alternatives and leave this boondoggle to be perpetrated on someone else.

Nov 14, 2011 10:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
SteveAbbott wrote:

That’s what Harper thinks. We’re not having the bl**dy northern gateway pipeline either, or did Harper forget that minor detail? If the tarsands are viewed as a resource for the future, then let them remain in the ground until the future date when they discover how to extract them without polution, and can afford to do so. Let the fool in the PM’s office, for once, stop humiliating us as a nation.

Nov 14, 2011 11:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
afisher wrote:

The most obvious statement, that appears to being ignored by many here, is that this “project” is not about energy/gas for the US but about supplying gas to Asia.

What Canada is trying to do is sell the Risks to US and profits to Canada.
Wasn’t it recently reported that Canadians rejected the proposal that the pipeline being built across their own land.

While many here are busy trying to make this about politics and disregarding the hypocrisy of the study, that appears to have significant bias, one has to wonder what they care about. $$$?

The “job estimate” number has been debunked and yet some here either have not heard that or don’t care. Time to look at those silly but nerdy things called FACTS!

Nov 14, 2011 11:53am EST  --  Report as abuse

Anyone with a map would see that access to much closer ports which could handle oil tankers on both the east and west coasts of Canada are available. The most obvious route, a route to the East (which avoids having to cross over The Rockies) to Hudson Bay across Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to a port on Hudson Bay (Churchill) is about 700 miles, while it’s about 2200 miles from Fort McMurray Alberta to Galveston Texas, as the crow flies. The route to the port of Churchill, which is a deep port on west Hudson Bay, would be flat and almost entirely unpopulated Canadian government owned land.). In fact, both directions to the Canadian coast are far shorter than the proposed pipeline. So why send it all those EXTRA (~1500) miles to Texas? Why not build it in Canada? Oh yeah, Canadians already told Harper and the oil companies to bugger off and voted it down. Funny how that wasn’t part of their sales pitch to the U.S..

It’s very disingenuous for Harper to claim that the failure to approve the pipeline has anything to do with Canada trying to export more oil to China / Asia. That was the true intent of the pipeline from it’s inception, and claiming otherwise is truly a lie. The delay of the pipeline only delays shipping the oil to Asia. This I can live with. Being treated like a mushroom, not so much.

And kudos to SteveAbbott and afisher. You’re both right on!

Nov 14, 2011 12:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Duxan wrote:

Keep the pipeline on Canadian soil, Mr. Harper. Canadians need jobs too.

Nov 14, 2011 12:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.