Even Liberal Media Declaring Rejecting Keyston Pipeline Insanity

,   ,  

**

                EVEN LIBERAL  MEDIA DECLARING REJECTING

                            KEYSTONE PIPELINE INSANITY

                                   By:  Edward P. Shallow

In a follow up to my editorial of December 16, Environmentalists Control Obama I received an e-mil from an astute reader (Jim K.)  In which he states, Ed- Look at Obama through the global redistribution lens.  The environment has little to do with his twisted logic.  Anything that sends our wealth out of this country to the benefit of some perceived aggrieved nation,is what this Marxist is totally in favor of. Don’t forget the billions he sent to Brazil for oil exploration  and drilling and then telling them that he wants the US to be their biggest  customer.

If we purchase more oil from  the Canadians then we’ll  be sending  less cash to the  Arabs. Imagine how much wealthier this country would be if we didn’t ship in excess of  500 billion dollars  to meet our energy needs.

Thanks Jim  I wish every every American concerned with are necessity to generat our own oil could read your inspiring thoughts.

This from Bloomberg News dated January 19, 2012:  President Obama’s decision  to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL oil pipeline may prompt Canada to trun to China  for oil exports.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in a telephone call , told Obama “Canada will continue to work to diversify its energy exports ,” according to details  provided by Harper’s office.  Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

The “decision by the Obama administration underlines  the importance of diversifying and expanding our markets.”

Currently, 99 percent of Canada’s crude exports go to the  U.S., a figure that Harper wants to reduce in his bid to make Canada a “superpower” in global markets.

Canada accounts for more than 90 percent of all proven reserves outside the Organization of Petroleum Countries , according to data compiled in the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.  Most of Canada’s crude is produced from oil-sands deposits in the landlocked province of  Alberta, where output is expected to double over the next eight years, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Given the length of the article, I have concentrated on its relavince to America  regarding our dependence on imports, and will conclude from this artice by indicating that Canada this month began hearings on a proposed pipeline by Enbridge Inc to move crude from Alberta’s  oil sands to British Columbia’s  coast, where it could be shipped to Asian markets.

In what must be a shock to the Obama administration, The liberal Washington Post published  “Rejecting the Keystone pipeline is an act of insanity  (1/19/12)  authored by Robert J.Samuelson. I quote in part.

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity.  It isn’t often that a president makes a decision that has no redeeming virtues and –beyond the symbolism–won’t even advance  the goals of the groups that demanded it. And it tells us that Obama is so obsessed  with his reelection that, through some sort of political  calculus, he believes that placating his environmental supporeters will improve his chances.

Aside from  political  and public relations victory, environmentalists won’t  get much.  Stopping the pipeline won’t halt the development of tar sands,to which  the Canadian government  is committed:  therefore, there will be  little  effect  on global warming emissions. Indeed, Obama’s  decision  might  add  to them.  If Canada  builds  a pipeline  from Alberta to the Pacific (as previously mentioned herein) for export  to Asia, moving all that oil  across the ocean  by tanker  will create  extra emissions.  There will also be the risk of added spills.

Now consider how Obama’s decision hurts the United States.  For starters, it insults and antagonizes  a strong ally; getting future Canadian cooperation on  other issues will be harder.  Next, it threatens a large souce of relatively secure oil that.combined with new discoveries in the United States , could reduce  (though not eliminate) our dependence on insecure foreign oil.

In conclusion:  The big winners are the Chinese. They must be celebrating their good fortune and wondering how the crazy Americans  could  repudiate  such a huge supply of nearby energy

                INSANITY  DOES INDEED PREVAIL !  

.

About edshallow

  • Karl Marx

    a moderate to centrist columnist at the Post. So he probably doesn’t speak for WaPo. I do agree with most of your points. Could you use the quote feature to mark off Samuelson’s text?