Obama's Rejection Of Keystone Pipeline
The reason White House gave for not finishing the project was:
"The Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States,"Notice I said finishing the project, not doing the project. Several hundred miles of pipe line have been laid. Millions of dollars of private money have been spent. The project was waiting on some final sections of pipeline to finish up and connect the Alberta Oil Sands with refineries in Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois and Nebraska.
The project was OK'd some time ago. This is about finishing a job, not starting one.
How is it that exactly that the; "The Keystone XL pipeline would not serve the national interest of the United States,"?
To answer that we need to answer another question, "What would be the result of finishing the Keystone Pipeline"?
The Pipeline would:
- Deliver crude oil and other petroleum hydrocarbons from Canada to the United States
- Pipeline delivery would have a lower marginal cost than trans Atlantic or trans Pacific shipment of crude
- Pipeline delivery would have a lower marginal cost than rail transport of the same quantity of petroleum hydrocarbons from Canada
- Pipeline delivery would have less of a environmental impact than other shipment methods
- Pipeline delivery has a statistically lower chance of a major accidental spill
- Canada is a trading partner with the US that buys as well as sells products here
- Trading with Canada doesn't have the political and military encumbrances that trading with various parties in the Middle East does
- Importing from Canada is more cost effective than importing from other countries, potentially reducing the price of gas at the pump for most Americans.
- Companies that ship oil from the middle east
- George Soros
- Companies that ship oil from Canada
- BNSF-owned in large part by Warren Buffet
- Companies that currently produce and ship oil in the middle east and their partners
- The House of Saud
- Companies who would have to compete with a lower marginal cost for raw oil products
- People who want gas to sell for over $8 a gallon in order to make less efficient technologies viable for ideological reasons
- Those eager for the economic harm of the United States
- Every member of the Democratic Party
- The companies who have invested in it
- The companies who sell oil and gas products delivered by the pipeline
- Consumers who would enjoy lower or more stable prices at the pump
- The recipients of Canadian mineral royalties
Not true, it would serve some Americans and Canadians very well. The ones most "helped" by marginally less expensive petroleum hydrocarbons are unfortunately not the ones who count in Obama's book.