Backstory: Obama's Ground Game and the Keystone Pipeline

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Kate Andersen Brower, reporter for Bloomberg News, takes a look at the size and scope of President Barack Obama’s reelection apparatus and his administration’s recent decision to block the Keystone XL Pipeline.


Kate Andersen Brower

Comments [5]

Martin Moore from Suagerties 12477

Why don't the Canadians build a refinary?

Jan. 19 2012 01:47 PM
Amy from Manhattan

If the Republicans say any jobs are good jobs, why did they limit themselves to this 1 project? They talk as if nothing else is "shovel-ready" (BTW, how shovel-ready would the pipeline really have been?) And there are major safety issues involved in the pipeline that couldn't be adequately evaluated in 2 months.

Jan. 19 2012 01:46 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

Although this pipeline is more to help Texas refiners than to decrease foreign dependence on oil, the simple reality is that alternative energy and nuclear energy are still both too economically uncompetitive to keep energy prices relatively low. We have little choice but to keep on using closer sources of oil for now despite the damage to the environment.

Jan. 19 2012 01:43 PM
mick from NYC

The fact that the house intentionally passed a bill with a review period too short for the environmental review is mentioned in 1 out of 5 news stories, at most. The pipeline company was invited by the Obama administration to reapply so that the review process can proceed. The pipeline company has been working with the Geological Service to work out a safe route, but it could not finish by the time the political trap deadline snapped shut. As a former Midwesterner myself, I would ask pragmatists like Chris, "What do you think will happen to agriculture in the Midwest, not to mention the region's drinking water, if the Ogallala aquifer is contaminated by an oil spill from a pipeline that was routed in the wrong place?"

Jan. 19 2012 01:08 PM
Chris from New York

I have a few questions about the pipeline... what is to stop TransCanada from building the pipeline to British Columbia and simply exporting the oil to Asia? Consensus thinking in the oil industry is that over the long-term, oil demand will decline in the USA and increase in Asia and Latin America.

Regardless of the environmental concerns on the project - which seem to be highly focused on the greenhouse gas emissions - it seems that the oil sands will be developed. Canada just pulled out of the Kyoto protocol emissions limits after the Durbin climate talks. It is obvious their national policy is to support oil and gas development. They're a sovereign nation and rejecting the pipeline won't stop them from developing the oil.

So why not be pragmatic, and transport the oil to the Gulf Coast and refine it in the USA by an American owned company?

Furthermore, wouldn't the Canadian oil displace Venezuelan, Nigerian or offshore Gulf of Mexico imports? Isn't that a better choice for an energy supplier?!?!?!

Jan. 19 2012 12:13 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.