Peaceful Protest Underway against Tar Sands Oil Pipeline

[abasile]

thankyouOB: You seem to be awfully defensive with respect to President Obama. At the same time, you are quick to impugn the character of Tea Party Republicans. Personally, I think there is plenty of blame to go round. I am rather sick of the polarized politics, and would prefer to focus on ideas and solutions rather than character assassination. The great majority of folks who voted for Tea Party candidates are not evil people; they are just sick of the government growing without end. Most Democrats I know are well-intentioned people as well. Maybe we should just stick to discussing oil pipelines and energy policy here. At least we can agree that we are sick of oil addiction.

 

[thankyouOB]

thankyouOB: You seem to be awfully defensive with respect to President Obama. At the same time, you are quick to impugn the character of Tea Party Republicans.

I am not being defensive, just calling out when I see false statements repeated as part of right-wing talking points.
(i tune in to rush and sean, too, because I want to be prepared for the half truths i will hear later from their acolytes.)

I did not impugn the character of Republicans or their Tea Party friends nor did I engage in "character assassination". Instead, you pulled a typical RW tactic; you created a straw-dog argument so you did not have to deal with what I did say.
This is what i said:

We are watching, once again, as the Tea Party and other right-wingers refuse to make government work because they dont like government or governing. Gridlock and tanking the economy is their goal because they think a reviving economy guarantees Obama's reelection.

Obama had a budget. RW TPs claim that he didnt; actually, it was Congress that couldnt act, and apparently still cant act.

 

[abasile]

Many reasonable people can and will disagree with the policy prescriptions put forth by the Tea Party. But I think it is going too far to accuse Tea Partiers of seeking to sabotage the US economy. Even if one believes that is true, one is not going to build any bridges by leveling such accusations.

 

[thankyouOB]

I beg to differ.
And must ask why, all of a sudden, the Tea Partiers and their fellow GOPs in the House of Representatives are against tax cuts for the middle class, which was approved by their Senate GOP colleagues. Is it because they think that is good policy?

If you dont believe me or think I am overreaching, maybe you should listen to Scott Brown (R-MA)
“It angers me that House Republicans would rather continue playing politics than find solutions,” said Sen. Scott Brown in a Tuesday statement. “Their actions will hurt American families and be detrimental to our fragile economy.”

 

[AndyH]

The reason Congress (the opposite of progress, apparently) is locked is because too many of them are bought and paid for by the people that think it's ok to do this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xenYLY5lU58[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

...And must ask why, all of a sudden, the Tea Partiers and their fellow GOPs in the House of Representatives are against tax cuts for the middle class, which was approved by their Senate GOP colleagues. Is it because they think that is good policy?...

At this point, I think it's because a tax break and/or health insurance for the rapidly vanishing middle class is an inappropriate investment. Let's keep the money where it belongs - in the pockets of business and the 1% owners. The sooner the middle class ceases to exist, the sooner labor unions will have the wind knocked out of their sails. The remaining poor are the best employees because they're desperate and will work for scraps.


And from the information coming out of Alberta, it appears that the folks in Ottawa think the same way.

 

[Herm]

an article on fracking politics:

"The EPA's Fracking Scare
Breaking down the facts in that Wyoming drinking water study."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387490158.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[thankyouOB]

an article on fracking politics:

"The EPA's Fracking Scare
Breaking down the facts in that Wyoming drinking water study."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387490158.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

another media member of the Murdoch-Fox-News disinformation complex.
garbage in, garbage out. and it is not even a news story, but an unsigned editorial right out of the publishers's suite.
didnt murdoch fire the last editor after promising the Bancroft family they would keep him; all part of the sales agreement designed to ensure editorial integrity?

On December 13, 2007, shareholders representing more than 60 percent of Dow Jones's voting stock approved the company's acquisition by News Corp.[24] (Murdoch)
In an editorial page column, publisher L. Gordon Crovitz said the Bancrofts and News Corp. had agreed that the Journal's news and opinion sections would preserve their editorial independence from their new corporate parent:[25]
A special committee was established to oversee The Journal's editorial integrity. When the managing editor Marcus Brauchli resigned on April 22, 2008, the committee said that News Corporation had violated its agreement by not notifying the committee earlier.


More to the point, the House's walking out on the deal also does real damage to things we care about here -- alternate energy and green programs.
But there are a number of other measures that also will not get extended into next year, which in their own way will also have a detrimental impact on the economy. Because Congress is so hung up on the payroll tax, UI and the doc fix, the other expiring measures haven’t garnered much attention. But Brad Plumer points out a few, including the production tax credit for wind energy:
The production tax credit for wind power. This credit pays wind-turbine owners 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of electricity that they produce in their first 10 years of operation. It’s a boost that the wind industry says it badly needs to compete with coal, which gets to fob off its pollution costs on a breathing public. Thanks in part to the credit, wind power has grown 37 percent per year since 2009. (Technically, the wind credit doesn’t wind down until the end of 2012, but given that siting, permitting and construction for the projects take about a year, companies have effectively run out of time to qualify.)
How bad will this hurt the wind industry? One clue: Congress has let this credit lapse three times since 1999, and every time it does, new wind generation tends to plunge roughly 70 percent. A study released this week by Navigant Consulting found that, without the credit, investment in wind power would sink from $15.6 billion in 2012 to $5.5 billion in 2013 — though, fair warning, this study was commissioned by the wind industry itself.
In addition, a solar energy grand program, which makes it easier for the solar industry to qualify for tax credits, and a tax benefit for commuters who use public transportation are on the chopping block. And there are a host of other “tax extenders” that will go by the boards.

 

[AndyH]

an article on fracking politics:

"The EPA's Fracking Scare
Breaking down the facts in that Wyoming drinking water study."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204026804577098112387490158.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Herm - this has absolutely NOTHING to do with politics. And it has nothing to do with the Keystone pipeline. We do have a gas thread if you'd like to post there.

As for what appears to be your desire to paint this as another case of the "EPA Gone Wild" - absolutely incorrect. Science - and the scientists at or contracted by the EPA - are in the business of OBSERVATION and REPORTING. If they sample formerly clean water and find that it contains fracking fluids after wells are developed, that means something. If people can burn the water coming from their kitchen faucet, that means something. And if wildlife, plants, and people are dying as a direct result of a mining, extracting, or refining process, that too means something!

While some people and politicians are fanning anti-EPA flames, we MUST remember that the EPA was established by a REPUBLICAN president in a time when we could set our lakes on fire and when our people were dying as a direct result of the true culprits - "Bad Business Gone Wild"!

Facts don't have 'two sides' - they are what they are. Let's keep our conversations there. Let politicians and their mouthpiece media outlets operate in the spin realm. This is not a spin zone and therefore the 'lib baiting' you profess to enjoy so much is not appropriate here. Understand?!

 

[AndyH]

Dear Friends,

We’ve been doing our best the last couple of weeks to keep you up-to-date on the machinations about Keystone in Washington. “Our best” in this case has only been so-so, because the whole process has been incredibly confusing.

But it seems to be getting a little clearer now. Today the House agreed to legislation for a payroll tax cut that also includes language forcing the president to decide one way or the other on the Keystone pipeline in the next 60 days.

Our hope is that the president will use the opportunity to deny the permit, and sooner rather than later. His administration has made it clear many times over the past few weeks that the demand for quick approval attached to this legislation would result in the rejection of the pipeline.

As White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted a few days ago: the bill “simply shortens the review process in a way that virtually guarantees that the pipeline will NOT be approved.” No one could responsibly approve such a project under the gun; even the Canadian government announced this month that they would delay the review of proposed pipelines to the Pacific for a year because of environmental concerns.

You have patiently and firmly explained to the president for the last six months why this pipeline is a bad idea—and by “you” I mean the twenty top scientists who sent a letter explaining the climate impacts, the ten Nobel Peace Prize laureates, the dozens of tribal leaders who signed the Mother Earth Accord, the 1253 people who got arrested, the 12,000 who circled the White House, the 500,000 who filed public comments on the plan, the many many more who sent letters and emails and made phone calls to the White House and Congress.

You’ve done an amazing job; we’ll know before long whether we need you to make one more grand push, and as soon as we know you’ll know.

In the meantime, please enjoy the holidays. We’re getting our first small snowfall of the season in Vermont, which I’m taking as a good omen.

So many thanks,

Bill McKibben for 350.org

 

[thankyouOB]

can one of my MNL friends explain to me what the gop response to this is?

Why is the Tar Sands pipeline running to the gulf and its ports, if the oil is for domestic use? Shouldnt it just run to the refineries in OK and TX?

 

[evnow]

http://physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v64/i10/p39_s1?bypassSSO=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At its heart, global warming is a physics problem, albeit a messy one that cannot proceed far without bringing in meteorology, oceanography, and geology. (See the article by Raymond Pierrehumbert in PHYSICS TODAY, January 2011, page 33.) The climate debate has spread far beyond the confines of any of those scientific circles and into the media and public sphere, where politicization and vitriol are legion.
...
...Some insights may be gained by noting that global warming is not the first “inconvenient truth” in physics. Consider this description of another, bygone debate:

The decision [whether to accept the new theory] was not exclusively, or even primarily, a matter for astronomers, and as the debate spread from astronomical circles it became tumultuous in the extreme. To most of those who were not concerned with the detailed study of celestial motions, Copernicus’s innovation seemed absurd and impious. Even when understood, the vaunted harmonies seemed no evidence at all. The resulting clamor was widespread, vocal, and bitter.2

Thus does science historian Thomas Kuhn describe the difficulties experienced by astronomers in convincing the public of the heliocentric theory of the solar system, which ultimately ushered in the scientific revolution. The “clamor” prevailed around the time of Galileo Galilei, more than a half century after Nicolaus Copernicus, on his deathbed, published the heliocentric model in 1543. Copernicus’s calculations surpassed all others in their ability to describe the observed courses of the planets, and they were based on a far simpler conception. Yet most people would not accept heliocentricity until two centuries after his death.

Why did it take so long? To modern minds, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, with its nested cycles and epicycles, seems rather silly. Surely, the need for a new tweak to the model each time more accurate observations came along should have been a tip-off that something fundamental was wrong. The heliocentric model’s elegance and simplicity, on the other hand, are now appreciated as the hallmarks of credibility for a scientific theory.

 

[thankyouOB]

I always wonder why an electrical engineer or a coal extraction engineer wants to or thinks he (not usually a woman) is competent to dispense serious economic analysis and advice. I am not talking about the relatively simple task of advising about investing, but true economic analysis of the kind that wins Nobel Prizes or gets you appointed to a tenured seat at a major university.

I wont unpack it here; suffice it to say I have a day job and no time for that.
Also, suffice it to say that much of what is put out above (by our resident rightwingers) about Tar Sands (and confusing it with a US domestic supply) and how to get the US out of our immediate economic malaise will not survive any scrutiny by anyone who knows anything about economics.

Flame me if you want, but you cant equate household economics (with regard to overspending) and what a nation needs to do to stimulate its economy.

Perhaps, it is time to borrow some money ourselves -- at negative interest rates -- and start rebuilding our infrastructure, employing more teachers and police, and giving the states some help with their budgets?

The U.S. government received record demand for its bonds in 2011, pushing longer-maturity Treasuries to their best performance since 1995 in a sign that President Barack Obama may have little difficulty financing a fourth consecutive year of $1 trillion budget deficits.

The Treasury Department attracted $3.04 for each dollar of the $2.135 trillion in notes and bonds sold, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 during the George H. W. Bush administration. The U.S. drew an all-time high bid-to- cover ratio of 9.07 for $30 billion of four-week bills it auctioned on Dec. 20 even though they pay zero percent interest.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-26/obama-wins-most-demand-for-debt-of-u-s-presidents-since-before-first-bush.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

can one of my MNL friends explain to me what the gop response to this is?

Why is the Tar Sands pipeline running to the gulf and its ports, if the oil is for domestic use? Shouldnt it just run to the refineries in OK and TX?

I can't speak for all in the GOP but hopefully this view from 'down here' will provide some insight. (These are constituent responses - you might want to put on rubber gloves before reading these. )

From Senator Cornyn on December 15th, '11:

Dear Mr. AndyH:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Keystone XL Gulf Coast Expansion Pipeline (Keystone XL). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important issue.

Energy prices are a direct result of worldwide demand, and America's ability to stabilize fluctuating prices and ensure energy security is strengthened with increased domestic energy production. However, it is imperative that the United States is able to rely on stable allies, such as Canada, when domestic supply falls short.

As you know, the Keystone XL is a proposed 1,700-mile oil pipeline—under consideration by the Department of State since 2008—that would run from the United States-Canada border to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The Obama Administration has continued to obstruct the development of our domestic resources in the form of restricting access to federal lands for exploration, and imposing onerous new regulations on oil and gas production. This, in combination with the inaction on the Keystone XL, will force the United States to rely on foreign nations to meet our energy needs, some of which are hostile to the United States’ interests.

Not only does this important program bolster America’s energy security, but the Keystone XL would also create more than $20 billion in new private sector spending and over 20,000 new American jobs. At a time when unemployment remains high, American families are struggling to make ends meet, and unrest in the Middle East continues to unfold, it is critical that the Administration takes all steps to approve the Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL.

I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States Senate, and you may be certain that I will continue to advocate for comprehensive energy legislation that reduces America's dependence on foreign nations. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator


517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on Dec 9th, '11:

Dear Friend:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Keystone XL Pipeline. I welcome your thoughts and comments.

The potential economic significance of the Keystone XL project is substantial -- for Texas and for the entire United States. Completion of the pipeline would provide our country with a stable energy source from a friendly trade partner. Linking to refineries in Texas would be a key part of meeting our nation’s growing energy demands. Current estimates are that the pipeline will create more than 250,000 permanent jobs and add more than $100 billion in annual total expenditures to the nation’s economy. In addition to the new, permanent jobs, capital investments in pipeline development and construction is forecast to be as much as $2.3 billion in Texas.

The economic potential of such a large, complex project does not diminish the importance of environmental and public health considerations. The U.S. State Department has collaborated with several other federal agencies, as well as various state and local agencies responsible for issuing permits, in order to evaluate potential environmental and other impacts of pipeline construction and operation. The State Department has concluded that the Keystone XL Project would have limited adverse environmental impacts during both construction and operation.

I appreciate hearing from you. I hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue that is important to you.

Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
United States Senator

284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-5922 (tel)
202-224-0776 (fax)
http://hutchison.senate.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OilChangeInternational has done some excellent debunking - like this article for example:

http://priceofoil.org/2011/10/06/the-keystone-xl-energy-security-sham/

Canada has been America’s largest source of oil imports since 2005 (Excel Document). Today the United States imports over 2.5 million barrels per day (Mb/d) of crude oil and petroleum products from Canada. This is more than double the imports from Saudi Arabia and 38% more than current imports from all Persian Gulf states. Yet this increasing reliance on Canadian oil has not protected America from oil price spikes.

http://priceofoil.org/2011/08/31/report-exporting-energy-security-keystone-xl-exposed/

But a closer look at the new realities of the global oil market and at the companies who will profit from the pipeline reveals a completely different story: Keystone XL will not lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil, but rather transport Canadian oil to American refineries for export to overseas markets.

It seems like we're witnessing proof of parallel universes. On one hand the oil industry and their purchased politicians keep beating the drum for maintaining the oil flow, yet in the other universe, the US demand for oil and gas continues to decline, US companies are closing refineries, and we're exporting more finished petroleum products.

Pay no attention to the hysterical voices from behind the curtain - fossil fuels are on their way out and there's nothing the American Petroleum Institute can do about it. They know it too - that's why they're scared enough to toss more threats into the airwaves.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2...ll-have-huge-political-consequences-for-obama
http://priceofoil.org/2012/01/04/ap...aign-is-thinly-veiled-election-year-bullying/

 

[DaveEV]

I can't speak for all in the GOP but hopefully this view from 'down here' will provide some insight.

Wow - complete lies! The Keystone XL pipeline does very little to stabilize supplies of US oil. All it does is increase flow directly to Louisiana where it can then be very easily shipped off to other countries.

Right now Canadian oil is a key factor in keeping oil prices low in the middle of the country. Building the Keystone XL will RAISE oil prices in the heart of the country.

Canada has admitted as much - saying that if they can't get the oil to port in Louisiana, they'll simply go west instead.

 

[evnow]

Right now Canadian oil is a key factor in keeping oil prices low in the middle of the country. Building the Keystone XL will RAISE oil prices in the heart of the country.

Canada has admitted as much - saying that if they can't get the oil to port in Louisiana, they'll simply go west instead.

That is correct. The main beneficieries of the pipeline are
- Canada
- A few US oil interests
- Republicans who can use this issue to pit Obama against the greens and watch the fun

Here is an interesting post on this in TOD.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8781#comment-861509" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

x - FYI: Around 99% of "Texas oil interests" don't want to see the pipeline built. Thus most Texas politicians, even though they wouldn't admit it publicly, don't want the pipeline built. Only a small handful of US companies want the p/l built. It's not difficult to understand. I've been getting $100+/bbl for my Texas crude that's barged to La. and sold at La. light prices. Dumping that Canadian crude into the Gulf Coast will cost Texas operators (and the Texas state govt) $billions by reducing the price we get for our production.

If folks are going to understand the dynamics of the US energy scene they need to get the idea out of their heads that the oil industry is one giant monolithic entity with a single goal. It's the Canadian producers who would do anything to see the p/l built. It could mean an increase in revenue for them and the Canadian govt of $15 to $20 billion per year.

And while I'm at it, that same 99% hope they never drill another well on the North Slope. And around 90%+ wouldn't mind not seeing another DW GOM well ever drilled.
...
wt - At the moment I could care less what they are paying in PA. My crude buyer is barging my oil from 100 miles west of PA to Lake Charles, 80 miles east of PA. My crude buyer is paying me the differential less transport. No idea how much oil he's moving like this but I doubt we're the only ones he's doing this for. I'm sure a lot of that Canadian oil would make it to Lake Charles and there goes my $20-$30/bbl price bump.

NO KEYSTONE!!! NO KEYSTONE!!! NO KEYSTONE!!!

 

[Ready2plugin]

Here is the lastest update from Bloomberg:

Obama Said to Reject Keystone Pipeline, Let TransCanada Refile
2012-01-18 18:42:06.35 GMT


By Kate Andersen Brower and Jim Snyder
Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration will reject TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL oil pipeline and let the company file a revised route that avoids an environmentally sensitive area in Nebraska, according to two people familiar with the decision. The shares fell as much as 4.8 percent.
The decision may be announced as soon as today by the State Department, which has been reviewing the project crossing six U.S. states. Environmental groups immediately issued statements backing Obama’s decision.
“President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs” by not approving the $7 billion Keystone pipeline, Brendan Buck, a spokesman for U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in an e-mailed statement.
Labor unions and Republican lawmakers have urged President Barack Obama to approve the pipeline, which would carry 700,000 barrels of crude a day from Canada’s oil sands to refineries on the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast, because they say it will create jobs and help the nation become more energy independent.
TransCanada said the project may add 20,000 jobs.
TransCanada fell 64 cents to $41.10 at 1:39 p.m. in New York, and earlier today touched $39.74.
Terry Cunha, a TransCanada spokesman, said in an e-mail that the company wouldn’t respond until the administration announces a decision.
Canada will continue to support TransCanada Corp.’s plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline, Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird said, adding that it is in the best interests of both Canada and the United States.

Environmental Opposition

Environmentalists have opposed the project, saying it will contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions and endanger drinking water supplies in Nebraska. They have staged demonstrations outside the White House and vowed to withhold financial support to Obama’s presidential campaign if he approves the pipeline.
“The entire purpose of the pipeline is to move Canadian oil to the crude refineries in the Gulf so that it can be shipped overseas,” Jeremy Symons, a National Wildlife Federation vice president, said today in a phone interview. “If the pipeline is built, Canada gets the jobs, China gets the oil and American families get the oil spills.”
Protests in Nebraska and at the White House have focused on the risks of a spill tainting the Ogallala aquifer in Nebraska’s Sand Hills region. TransCanada has discussed alternate routes with state officials that would pose less risk to drinking-water supplies.

‘Big Oil’

“We’re glad Keystone hasn’t been approved, but we’d like to see the pipeline rejected outright,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, in a phone interview. He said producing petroleum from oil sands releases more greenhouse gases and requires more water than conventional oil production.
Wendy Abrams, who raised from $50,000 to $100,000 for Obama in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, had said rallying her friends around the president would be hard if he approved the pipeline. She said Obama has since shown that he’s not “in the pocket of Big Oil.”
She said if Obama rejects the pipeline, it’s going to be tough on him “either way because the energy folks that have money to be made, will spend a ton of money on ads and it’s a one-way street because the environmental groups don’t have the billions to spend on ads defending their position.”
The administration in November delayed approving the project until after the 2012 election, saying it wanted to study an alternate route that would take the pipeline away from environmentally sensitive areas in Nebraska. Congress last month set Feb. 21 for the U.S. to issue a pipeline permit.

‘All In’

The State Department said the review could be completed “as early as the first quarter of 2013.”
Obama’s jobs council yesterday called for an “all-in”
approach, urging an expansion of oil and gas drilling and an acceleration of projects including pipelines.
“We should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” the year-end report by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness said.
The American Petroleum Institute, the Washington-based group of oil and gas companies, plans to lobby Congress for legislation that would take away Obama’s power to make a final decision on the Keystone pipeline.

Creating Jobs

“The president’s decision today makes us question if he’s truly interested in jobs creation,” API President Jack Gerard said today in an interview before an appearance in Washington.
TransCanada applied for a U.S. permit in 2008. Advocates such as Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican who sponsored legislation to set the February deadline, said further delay compromises U.S. efforts to import more oil from a friendly nation.
“The studying time is done,” Lugar said today in an e- mailed statement. “The environmental concerns have been addressed. The job creation, economic and energy security arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of building it. The president opposing pipeline construction is not in the best interest of the United States.”
Patrick Parenteau, environmental law professor at Vermont Law School in South Royalton, said Obama has other options based on the fact that a new route through Nebraska has yet to be determined.
“The middle option is, ‘I can’t say it’s in the national interest based on what I know,” Parenteau said in an interview.
“I don’t think he’s boxed in. He’s going to be in another one of these situations that makes him look indecisive.’

 

[evnow]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/18/statement-president-keystone-xl-pipeline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Earlier today, I received the Secretary of State’s recommendation on the pending application for the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment. As a result, the Secretary of State has recommended that the application be denied. And after reviewing the State Department’s report, I agree.

This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people. I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. 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 –including the potential development of an oil pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma to the Gulf of Mexico – even as we set higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and invest in alternatives like biofuels and natural gas. And we will do so in a way that benefits American workers and businesses without risking the health and safety of the American people and the environment.

 

[GaslessInSeattle]

I doubt the war is over but this is good news for now!

 

[evnow]

This year everything is a political football ....