Keystone XL Pipeline: Canada Eyes Asia After U.S. Delays Project

HONOLULU (Reuters / November 13) - Canada will try to sell more of its energy products to Asia after Washington delayed a decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline project, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said.

"This does underscore the necessity of Canada making sure that we are able to access Asia markets for our energy products," Harper told reporters on Sunday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' meeting in Hawaii.

"That will be an important priority of our government going forward and I indicated that yesterday to the president of China."

The Obama administration recently said it would study a possible new route for TransCanada Corp's proposed $7 billion pipeline, which could end up killing the project altogether.

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

Harper's conservative government has voiced disappointment at the delay and some big businesses say the move by President Barack Obama's administration was purely political to push the decision out past the November 2012 election.

"It's important to note there has been extremely negative reaction to this decision in the United States," Harper said before a one-on-one meeting with Obama.

But Harper's concerns did little to sway Obama. At their meeting, Obama told Harper he stood by the decision to delay the verdict.

"The president underscored his support for the State Department's announcement regarding the need to seek additional information about the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood," the White House said.

Harper's office said he reiterated his disappointment to Obama and expressed hoped the project would be "decided on its merits and eventually approved."

(Reporting by Rachelle Younglai and Laura MacInnis; Editing by John O'Callaghan)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[banana republican]

06:17 AM on 11/27/2011

This is no big deal. Rather than selling the oil to Asia in return for revenue coming in, we can just wait until later and buy the same oil from Asia in exchange for revenue going out.

[chad798]

03:08 PM on 11/18/2011

Does anyone care about the workers anymore?????????? My friends will suffer from this delay...we will do a video this winter on the hardships they are no doubt do to face because of this decision

[Peter Zin]

10:48 PM on 11/17/2011

we need more oil drill this thing

[powder chowder]

02:28 PM on 11/16/2011

I wonder how much tans canada stock harper owns...

[virtualcboy]

06:51 PM on 11/15/2011

Obama continues to just mouth words and do nothing. He's a master. It's so comforting to know that pleasing the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Julia'Louis Dreyfus is more important to him than thousands of American jobs and billions in revenue. Let's just give some more business and money to China!!

[dragonlady620]

02:55 PM on 11/16/2011

Try educatinig yourself on this issue before you sit in judgement. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf http://www.nrdc.org/land/files/TarSandsPipeline4pgr.pdf

[chad798]

02:52 PM on 11/18/2011

Movie stars are the 1percent

[aligatorhardt]

03:09 PM on 11/15/2011

And exactly what would be the merits of piping 1700 miles across the country?  I cannot imagine any merits to the American people.  Why is the oil not processed near it's source? Then if the tar sands oil was refined in Texas, it is sold to the world market. Why should we suffer the leaks, expense and loss of environment,  why should we allow the taking of private land under eminent domain law for a project that only helps the profits of a small group of people, while offering nothing of value to the communities at large? This is not appropriate use of eminent domain law, which is supposed to be used only when necessary for the public good.  This pipeline is the exact opposite of public good. The amount of oil produced by this project is not enough to change prices or the need for imports. The tar sands oil offers only another source of great harm with no advantages.

[Athelstane]

04:43 PM on 11/15/2011

The merits are 1) we have unused refinery capacity in the gulf area and 2) we get some of the oil at cheap prices. And we employ a heck of a lot of people building and servicing the pipeline. And we reduce substantially our reliance on mideast oil. And you are wrong asserting that it wouldn;t change the price of oil.

[dragonlady620]

02:58 PM on 11/16/2011

If you think that this is going to result in cheaper oil for the average consumer you are very naive. ANd you might look up just how much these escapades are already costing the taxpayers. The numbers might surprise you.

[Free2BeMe]

04:38 PM on 11/23/2011

"2) we get some of the oil at cheap prices." I'm sure you know that oil is sold on the open market.

[kengault]

02:13 PM on 11/15/2011

Canada to Ship Oil to China as Obama Delays US Pipeline

He must hate us.

[dragonlady620]

01:29 PM on 11/15/2011

This is something everyone should see. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

[Hitchcockcameo]

06:27 AM on 11/15/2011

This oil was not for US consumption. It would be shipped around the world, regardless of which port the pipeline terminated at. It certainly wouldn't have lessened our dependence on oil, nor would it drive down prices.

[joe0147]

10:16 PM on 11/14/2011

Those people didn't donate to Obama's campaign fund. You have to pay to play. That is the way things operate in third world countries.

[muddywood]

09:46 PM on 11/14/2011

So Obama has guaranteed that we buy even more Unethical Oil from countries that oppress their peoples.
Nice.

[Robert Lee Harrington]

10:14 PM on 11/14/2011

Are you living under a rock drinking Tea?

"New Drilling Method Opens Vast U.S. Oil Fields"

"A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day -- more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers....


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/10/new-drilling-method-opens-vast-oil-fields/

[muddywood]

10:50 PM on 11/14/2011

I can't trust that source. It's Fox.

[dragonlady620]

01:30 PM on 11/15/2011

Fox? Seriously? http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

[Hitchcockcameo]

04:38 AM on 11/15/2011

This oil was being sold to China from day one. It was never intended for US markets. Try again.

[Electric Chuck Norris]

08:14 PM on 11/14/2011

Guys, if I may add a Canadian perspective to this, it isn't exactly a "you-vs-us who gets to rape their environment" deal right here.

TransCanada corp is a private corporation. If anything, I'm happy that this didn't go through as it means that the few jobs that building even a short pipeline will remain on the Canadian side of the border, but this is not the whole picture. Building the pipeline is temporary work, but expanding the capacity of the refinery creates permanent full-time jobs. No one here has mentioned that if the line reached Texas, then the operational capacities of the refiners will have to be altered and even expanded, creating jobs in the USA? Oh well. Cost-benefit analysis: clearly your fearless leaders have decided it isn't worth the risk. More power to us.

True, the native nations will scream blue bloody murder, but that is so they can negotiate to get a fair piece of the profit when the line goes through. There already is a pipeline to and a refinery near Vancouver.

As to the comments that oil is a world market, that is an accurate assessment but it if it is refined on YOUR coast, then you are easily the first in line if you are able to afford it. Why would anyone pay transportation costs if there is a sufficient home market to sell to?

If anything, Canadians should want this pipeline here, so long as it is done correctly.

[Robert Lee Harrington]

10:10 PM on 11/14/2011

Totally incorrect. Once again someone who knows nothing speaks. The refineries have excess capacity. To pull off this Great Oil Dollar Swindle Exxon/Valero/Koch/Shell only need more bad tar sand crude. Their refineries on the Gulf have excess refining capacity. They will hire no more workers; they will build no new refineries.The tar sand oil will be refined into diesel fuel for Europe and Latin America and exported. The exporters don't even pay export taxes to the US, due to loopholes in the tax laws written to benefit "Big Oil."

[Electric Chuck Norris]

08:43 PM on 11/15/2011

"Once again someone who knows nothing speaks"

While I appreciate your ever-so 'enlightened' positions and adding to my admittedly limitted knowledge both on this subject and in general, I hope you realised that this smug superiority complex is a trait of the Left that I have come to despise almost as vehemently as the moral-high-horse nonsense of the Right. Just saying.

[Electric Chuck Norris]

08:45 PM on 11/15/2011

You have sucessfully refuted one of my points, now would you explain to your humble pupil, "o wise one", how are you so certain that the refined capacity is definately destined for Europe when the North-East sector of the USA is closer and thus cheaper to transport to?

[dragonlady620]

01:33 PM on 11/15/2011

"Done correctly?" Have you researched how it is "done" here?

[Electric Chuck Norris]

08:48 PM on 11/15/2011

To an extent. I do know that yes, it is a dirty process, but it has improved somewhat from the past decade and a half (from which most of the anti's stats are derived from) and furthermore almost every mining process is indeed a destructive one. But unless you propose that we go back to living in caves or we invest in renewables that currently aren't economically viable, then do you see many other pragmatic options?

[Electric Chuck Norris]

10:51 PM on 11/15/2011

Scratch that. It appears that I was wrong (see above).

[mikbox]

07:56 PM on 11/14/2011

Guess the government thinks we don't need the jobs.

[aligatorhardt]

03:18 PM on 11/15/2011

Clean jobs in renewable energy are what we need, not two steps backward to achieve one step foreword. Pipeline jobs would last a year or two and then be gone. the workers are subject to poor conditions and make low pay. Green Jobs by the Numbers

[mikbox]

05:28 PM on 11/15/2011

What we need and what is attainable within our scope of knowledge are 2 different things.

[PasnTime]

05:20 PM on 11/14/2011

If our friend and neighbor Canada is successful in finding alternative Asian markets for their oil, opponents of the pipeline should be ashamed. Leaders of the opposition, starting with Obama, should be charged with high treason. Let's hope it is simply a diversion...

The XL pipeline creates very real opportunit­ies and jobs for Americans now. Not to mention it offers steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and from people who seek our destructio­n.

There are not enough delicate French words to describe the absolute lunacy of the environmentalist opposition. Their foolish and short-sighted actions will destroy America long before any environmental concerns.

Many oil and gas pipelines already pass over the Ogalala Aquifer, and were built using much older technology...and have yet to cause any of the pollution protesters are claiming will be caused by the new pipeline built with new technology. Apipeline will be built that negates the risk of a spill.

Building the pipeline is critical. We've yet to hear a realistic alternative energy source from the opposition. The Canadian tar sands provide an important energy resource for the next 100 years. We must get them to market.

Let's end the nonsense, and build the pipeline that will create opportunities, jobs and friendly energy NOW.

http://www­.wpost.com­/opinions/­daniel-yer­gin-for-th­e-future-o­f-oil-look­-to-the-am­ericas-not­-the-middl­e-east/201­1/10/18/gI­QAxdDw7L_s­tory.html

[Robert Lee Harrington]

10:16 PM on 11/14/2011

NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE....

[PasnTime]

07:14 AM on 11/15/2011

It is ALL true. Apparently you have no counter.

[PasnTime]

09:02 AM on 11/16/2011

I did extend the respect of reading your links. Thank you.

Returning to YOUR earlier comment: "NONE OF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE."

Your views give aid and comfort to the enemies of this Republic.

[Athelstane]

04:57 PM on 11/14/2011

I don't think this is going to help Obama at the polls. It is too obvious to too many people that this is a chance for a major improvement in our energy picture and our economy, and Obama is killing it by kowtowing to the enviornmentalists.

[Hitchcockcameo]

04:41 AM on 11/15/2011

No. The oil from this pipe line was never going to the US market.

[dragonlady620]

01:39 PM on 11/15/2011

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_KeystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-13/green_sheet/30393379_1_keystone-xl-keystone-pipeline-tar-sands