Obama Rejects Keystone LX Pipeline; Fed Oil Leases Down 40%
January 19, 2012 9 Comments
President Obama rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline yesterday. In doing so he blamed Republicans for only giving him 60 days to review the proposal. Never mind of course that the Federal government has known about the Keystone pipeline for years and has already before rejected it. Interestingly the President has until mid-February to make a final decision and yet he rejected it a month early. Such suggests he was always going to reject it and didn’t take the proposal seriously.
This is a pipeline that would create 20,000 jobs immediately and would create many more residual jobs. The President believes there are more jobs in unemployment benefits and tax rate extensions than in the Pipeline. But of course when has this President ever been rational about energy. He won’t allow new offshore drilling in the US, which would create American jobs. But he’s willing to pledge to buy offshore oil from Brazil. He won’t make it easy for Americans to buy Canadian oil but apparently we’re to continue to buy oil from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations that hate us. Or does he think the Chevy Volt coal powered car is going to suddenly take off?
This administration is engaged in a full scale war against energy independence. While Obama is running around declaring that we produce more oil than ever in this country, none if it is thanks to the Federal government. It’s all thanks to private land owners in Texas and North Dakota. Under Obama, Federal oil leases are down 40%. The Federal government only issued one offshore lease in 2011.
It should come as no surprise that Federal oil leases are down considering that Ken Salazar is in control of them. As a Senator Salazar repeatedly opposed Federal oil leases, especially offshore. Salazar has said that he isn’t opposed to $10/gallon gas. While the media isn’t reporting this, it’s important to note as the election heats up. The GOP candidate, whoever he may be, is a supporter of energy independence. Obama is a supporter of energy dependence with a dash of utopian environmentalism nonsense.
Keep in mind, in 2008 Obama said he supported higher gas prices. As President he’s done everything in his power to make sure prices rise and stick. Gas was $3.50 last year on average. Here in Michigan the average price today is $3.45. Keep in mind, January is a slow driving month. Prices are usually less during the winter. One can imagine that we’ll be looking at $4 gas come summer. This is exactly what Obama wants. Higher prices.
Obama has no interest in the Keystone Pipeline because he has no interest in energy independence and a return to cheap gas. He wants American dependant on the government and if there’s one thing that makes us less dependant and more free it’s the automobile. Couple that with Obama’s environmentalist agenda and it’s the perfect storm of higher gas prices and foreign energy dependence.
We can only hope the Canadians wait until after the election before selling their oil to China. If the GOP wins, we’ll finally start seeing cheaper gas. The Pipeline will be built and more permits will be issued. Oil can become the new natural gas. (note the left loved natural gas as a clean burning fuel until it could be extracted from shale rock and the price dropped dramatically. Then the left hated it) We can return to gas under $2 a gallon but not so long as Obama is President. This President is hellbent on increased gas prices and continuing America’s energy dependence.
About Steven
This “decision” is a gift to Republicans. In one swoop, Obama denied cheaper oil, new jobs, and energy independence.. If gas prices climb to record highs this summer as analysts predict, this will come back to haunt him.
Agreed. In the very least Obama handed the Senate to the GOP. If gas is upwards of $4.50 next summer Obama could be in very serious trouble.
Pingback: Republicans fume as Obama rejects Keystone pipeline - Watchwoman on the Wall
Vote for anyone but a Democrat in 2012, from President to dog catcher, unless you want $5 a gallon for gas — heading towards $10 so his fellow Muslim brothers can get richer and completely destroy America and the Western way of life. Obama knows exactly what he’s doing, his plan is right on schedule — destroying America! We have Chairman Now in the White House!
Yup, nothing screams ‘national security’ and ‘energy independence’ and ‘job creation’ like a foreign-owned pipeline carrying foreign-owned bitumen through the US to an FTZ designed specifically for exporting activities. We are saved!! Nearly free fuel and jobs for all tomorrow!! Wheee!!! Obviously, the only reason anybody would be against this pipeline is if you hate America and want the Muslims to take over and impose Sharia law and whatnot. There are absolutely no other reasons.
Let’s put it this way. Canada may be a foreign country but they aren’t a hostile foreign such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. I more than adequately explained why we need the pipeline and why Obama was wrong. He’s beholden to environmental extremists and he believes higher gas will limit our freedom and make us more dependant.
You didn’t explain anything, Steve. As usual, you assert with precisely zero attempt to understand or refute the myriad other elements of the decision. As usual, the only possible explanation is a cabal of nefarious ‘others’ coming after you personally (in this case, environmental extremists and a Marxist president). You must be exhausted from being in perpetual fight or flight mode…
There is no legitimate reason to reject this pipeline. Obama’s stated reason, which is that the Feds didn’t have enough time to review the proposal, is patently ridiculous in light of the fact that the Feds have known about the proposal since 2010. So in light of that, there aren’t legitimate reasons out there as stated by Obama.
It is that that leads one to speculate as to what his reason really is. In that, I’ve more than adequately speculated. Perhaps you could enlighten me to some legitimate reasons why Obama might have rejected the pipeline.
Sorry, Steve. Completely forgot about this one.
I’m glad that you now acknowledge that you are ‘speculating’.
Legitimate reasons to reject the project? Temporary job creation is a weak return for decades of risk (pipelines can and do break). Wild uncertainty about the number of jobs (temp and perm) to be created. Wild uncertainty about the actual effects on fuel costs. Uncertainty about the actual effects on ‘energy security’. Doubling-down on an energy policy that consists entirely of setting things on fire.
All of these are perfectly reasonable concerns with the project itself that have nothing to do with socialism or an agenda of taking away freedoms or a desire to have people dependent on government. Certainly, back the project if you like, but just acknowledge that you are choosing to accept the most optimistic outcome on every single variable and that if one were to be more balanced, the obviousness of the project quickly wanes.