In yet another assault on American energy security, independence and abundance, Barack Obama formally rejected – once again – the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. “The State Department has decided the Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the interests of the United States. I agree with that decision,” Obama said.
This is your classic radical environmentalist point of view. Because it is part of the ‘green’ narrative that oil itself does not serve America. Yet there is no way to move cars, trains, trucks, buses or airplanes without oil, or heat tens of millions of homes.
Obama is simply putting the future energy supply of America at risk, which is exactly what his ‘green’ cronies want. Because their real goal is to push up energy prices through scarcity, so that we use less fuel. This will ruin our economy but the ‘greens’ don’t care.
Obama said that the pipeline would not be “a silver bullet for the economy, as was promised by some”. This is a significant deception. Nobody has ever said that any single oil source is ever a “silver bullet”. It in fact is the cumulative global oil supply that helps us to prosper. And if oil becomes scarce through ‘green’ obstruction, and prices rise, the prosperity of America, and the world, is threatened.
Environmentalists have claimed that the 1,179 mile XL pipeline would somehow contribute to ‘climate change’. Yet ‘climate change’ is an unproven theory. Even the name was altered from ‘global warming’ because not only was ‘warming’ unproven but outright debunked by a decade of frigid weather all over the earth.
Nikitas3.com believes that Keystone will eventually be built, and will carry 800,000 barrels a day of crude oil from the oil sands of Alberta, Canada through the Midwest to US refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.
It is interesting to compare Keystone to the 800-mile Alaska pipeline. Environmentalists also opposed Alaska, although Alaska is an above-ground pipeline, and Keystone will be underground. Alaska has at times carried 10% of America’s daily oil supply, up to 2 million barrels per day. The oil from the Prudhoe Bay field, which flows through the Alaska pipe, was originally estimated at 1 billion barrels but the pipeline now has carried 18 billion barrels.
Then remember how the “greenies” want to resolve Alaska. They included a clause in the original construction contract that the pipeline would be torn down after its useful life was over. And they are going to seek to do that even though there has since been found to be massive new amounts of oil in Northern Alaska that would need the pipeline. This teardown strategy will lead us to eliminate these new supplies from consideration, like the ANWR deposit (10-20 billion barrels), just as the “greenies” want.
The so-called Canada “oil sands” that would provide the crude oil for Keystone are composed of oil mixed with dirt. The dirt is scraped off the ground – sometimes to a depth of 50 feet or more – and heated with steam until the oil seeps out. Once the oil is removed, the dirt is spread back on the ground and trees and grass are planted, restoring the land. Underground in-situ wells heat the oil sands with steam and the oil then is piped to the surface.
The Alberta oil sands are estimated to hold 1 trillion barrels of oil, but could hold much more since initial estimates are often low, as at Prudhoe Bay. To compare, the whole world has used about 1 trillion barrels of oil in the last 150 years. There are other huge oil sands deposits in the Canadian province of Manitoba. These Alberta and Manitoba deposits alone could power the US and Canada for many centuries to come.
Meanwhile Obama said: “If Congress is serious about wanting to create jobs, this (pipeline) is not the way to do it” He then called for an infrastructure plan that he says would create more jobs. This conveniently ignores the fact that Obama spent $800 billion of taxpayer money on the 2009 infrastructure ‘stimulus’ bill and virtually no infrastructure was repaired. The money was almost all stolen by Obama’s political cronies.
The Keystone decision very likely is going to come back to hurt Hillary Clinton in 2016. Some labor unions favor Keystone because of the jobs that it will create. They very well may shift their traditional allegiance from Democrat to the Republican nominee who supports the pipeline (like Trump), along with hundreds of thousands of union votes in key electoral states.
Republican presidential candidate US senator Marco Rubio said, “President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL Pipeline is a huge mistake, and is the latest reminder that this administration continues to prioritize the demands of radical environmentalists over America’s energy security.”
Good for Rubio. “Radical” is the right word. The ‘green’ movement is truly an extremist movement. Meanwhile the far-left Democrat 2016 presidential hopeful US senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said that “As someone who has led the opposition to the Keystone pipeline from Day One, I strongly applaud the president’s decision to kill this project once and for all.”
Yet Nikitas3.com lived in rural Vermont for several years and witnessed the radical environmentalism there of the hard leftists who keep Sanders in power. And these militant ‘green’ Vermonters are totally dependent on their automobiles to get around, and thus their opposition to Keystone is a fraud. They guzzle much more gasoline than most other Americans do because they travel more miles by car in their daily lives.
(Note from Nikitas: Hello, readers, Please consider contributing to this website through the “support this website” link at the upper right. I have spent an estimated 5,000 hours over 8 years building this site and have received only a total of $30 in contributions. Otherwise I have never earned a single penny from this site but have spent many thousands of dollars of my own money on it. Anything would be appreciated, even $5. Thanks, Nikitas)