The Obama administration's decision Wednesday to reject a pipeline that would have carried crude from Canada's tar sands deposits to Texas oil refineries isn't likely to end investment in the carbon-rich fuel, industry analysts say. In killing the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama blamed congressional Republicans, who he said "forced this decision" by requiring an expedited 60-day review of the pipeline as a provision of the recent payroll tax extension. Obama also reaffirmed his support for domestic oil and gas exploration and expanding fossil fuel infrastructure. "In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security," he said. But industry analysts question this rationale. "If your objective is improving our energy security, then Keystone should have been built," said Sarah Emerson, president of Energy Security Analysis, Inc., an energy forecasting firm. Environmentalists have reason to temper their excitement over the pipeline's defeat. They opposed pipeline builder TransCanada's project because of fears about spills and the climate-change implications of refining tar sands, which give off more carbon dixoide than traditional crude oil. But Obama threw his support behind additional U.S. drilling. And analysts say production of tar sands in Canada will continue. "Is it a setback? Yes," Emerson said. "Does it spell the end of the oil sands development? No." She predicts that America's northern neighbor will go forward with a stalled pipeline to its Pacific coast. "I suspect that [Canada looks] at this as a rejection and they'll say 'OK, well, you don't want our oil? We'll sell it to China.'" Investors in Canada's tar sands, who had been closely following the Keystone battle, are not likely to pull out just yet. "I don't know exactly what kind of message this sends, just because it's an election year," said Jacob Correll, a commodities analyst at Summit Energy, a consulting firm. "There's still money to be made."
Follow Corbin Hiar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/corbinhiar
Mr. McKibbin and those who throw in with the 350.org efforts, worthy as these efforts undoubtedly are, need to address the claims made in this article, or risk--IMO--the resulting ennui and marginalization that currently afflicts the American left's "Anti-War Movement" (enchanted as it is with temporary power in the form of a Democrat President).
The use of this dangerously polluting and rapidly depleting natural resource is too important an issue for us to fall uncritically for the blatant manipulations and promises of politicians, even while celebrating one recent political "victory".
There were already suggestion for an alternate route and Trans Canada was exploring their options.
But until the State Department rejected their current application it did not make sense for them to move forward on their back up plan.
With the quick State Department rejection, Trans Canada can now go to plan B on the pipeline route.
The real question is if Canada is selling their oil sands to China how are they transporting it and why can't the US do the same?
Why pump oil all the way to Texas and have to burn fuel in trucks and trains back up north. Isn't one reason that fuel cost is so high up north, transportation?
I thought environmentalists were all about efficiency? Do they feel Gravity is going to run out?
Does China know you're going to sell them the oil you already sold them, again?
The oil will be burnt either way. Notice that environmentalist aren't proposing we end free trade with polluters like communist China.
A combination of Rooftop solar, offshore wind, efficiency, plug in hybrids and waste bio char bio fuels is the only answer that is forever, 24/7, safe, clean, carbon land and water negative, ready to go now if we will shift our money and breaks away from fossil and nukes and apply that into instillation of green energy.
Already rooftop solar is cheaper than nukes, wind and waste bio char bio fuels are on par with fossils fuels, and efficiency is half that again.
The Keystone XL project was "rejected" until further studies can be done. It does NOT mean the U.S cancelled the project. Big difference. The question is, is Canada willing to wait 12-18 months for a final decision? From a cost benefit analysis standpoint, I think they will wait. There is simply too much at stake to not perform a comprehensive study on this project.
Tar sands are much more corrosive to steel pipe than normal crude and it takes 4 X the pressure to move tar sands through a pipe than normal crude oil. Don't forget that in the past 2 years there have been 2 big oil pipeline bursts related to the lack of pipe maintenance. One in Michigan and one in Wyoming.
As for the number of jobs the project will create is anyone's guess. No one knows the REAL number.
Another factor to think about is, even if TransCanada builds a pipeline to the west coast does China have the facilities to convert tar sands into usable oil/gasoline ? My guess is no.
This is one huge project where we need to slow down and DO IT RIGHT !!
Oil refining creates a lot of blue collar jobs.
Gasoline pipelines run from the refineries on the Gulf coast to cities all over America. It cannot be shipped to China from the Gulf. Tankers don't fit thru the Panama Canal. Our trade with China takes place thru ports on the West coast. That's fact. Just look at a world map.
TOTAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS – 2010
(Tonnage amounts are short tons)
Leading Trading Partners Combined Import and Export By Tonnage
Brazil 1,837,996
China 1,328,207