The president’s decision to reject a proposal concerning the Keystone pipeline project is exceptionally disappointing. In short, the pipeline would have served as a major distribution corridor for crude oil from the oil sands of Canada to various refineries located throughout the United States. At a number of junctures in the lower-48, it was also expected to be a conduit for significant quantities of American crude.
No one can reasonably contest that the construction of the pipeline would have led to the creation of thousands of good jobs here in America, not to mention its role in increasing the worldwide supply of energy. I briefly touched on this world supply issue in an earlier post concerning the sensitive situation with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz.
The not-so-cynical view of Obama’s decision is that he was playing to his radical environmentalist base. That’s consistent with one of his major stated reasons — the threat of environmental damage from the pipeline — for rejecting Keystone. However, pipeline environmental disasters are rare and minor compared to oil tanker mishaps at sea. And now that Obama has rejected the pipeline, Canada will inevitably look to transpacific buyers, such as China, for their western crude supplies. And how will the crude get to Canada’s new partners? By seafaring supertankers, of course.
The cynical view of Obama’s decision is clear: he rejected the pipeline because it’s largely a private enterprise, created by market demands not government dictated economic policies. In other words, he doesn’t like it because it is not a project run by the federal government. But while Obama single-handedly destroys this guaranteed US economic opportunity from private investment, he has no problems sinking billions of US tax dollars to support failing energy businesses like Solyndra.
So what gives? Unlike Obama’s socialistic projects, private investment like the Keystone pipeline doesn’t allow for much corruption, campaign contribution kickbacks, cronyism, and other graft. Had the Keystone pipeline been constructed by government contractors using a government-run slush fund and Obama’s cronies, there’s little doubt that it would have been approved.
Such cynicism should be no surprise after nearly four years of Obama.
Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.
Follow Joe Miller at Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.
Help us Restore Liberty Donate Today: Donate
Jan says,
In addition I believe there maybe two more reasons for turning down the pipeline in addition to those that you mentioned.
a. When Obama was running for President he promised to give back the sioux their land……….the buffalo Commons. they want their land pristine.
b. Along with the Buffalo Commons to work agriculture (Agenda 21: sustainable Development signed in by Bill Clinton) has to be moved to third world countries that have low pollution. They feel that agriculture and ranching pollutes the environment. Remember how concerned the government was about cows pooping and polluting the air.
on 21 January 2012 / 2:52 PM
Myron says,
http://news.investors.com/Article/591960/201111161727/Billionaire-Buffetts-Bakken-Boom.htm
This is something referring to what his decision is about…crony capitalism…
on 21 January 2012 / 4:18 PM
Barbara J Struble says,
I would say marxism, not socialism. His masters, the king of Saudi Arabia and George Soros do not want USA energy independent and prosperous.
Peace,
on 21 January 2012 / 5:19 PM
sara says,
OR COMMUNISM !
on 21 February 2012 / 2:58 AM
Graywolf says,
There is also the need to keep the price of oil high to support our enemies in the Muslim countries. If the price of oil drops the funds for terrorists starts to dry up. We are financing the war against ourselves. The nasty red state of Texas has fought Obummer at every turn of the EPA screws so it must be punished.
on 21 January 2012 / 5:26 PM
Dave says,
I have some liberal friends and they say that it was rejected because they say 1) the sand in the oil-sand would be too abrasive for the piping and would wear out the piping quickly and there is some toxic substances in the mix and that they wouldn’t be hiring Americans for these jobs —I don’t know –I a conservative righty -But I will listen –you know-Fair and balanced –
on 21 January 2012 / 10:08 PM
Cristina says,
Why no motinen of the toxic, polluting process required to take the tar sands oil and make it into something useable. And why don’t the Canadians process the oil in Canada?
on 19 February 2012 / 9:07 PM
Lizelot says,
Perry laid out a solid proposal for reinvigorating our economy partly by allowing our own extensive oil and other energy sources to be exploited, such that we would be energy independent. The Iowans, New Hampshireites, and now the S. Carolinans apparently didn’t care, did they? If they didn’t care, why should Obama?
on 21 January 2012 / 10:46 PM
DW says,
Conservatives need to stop playing into the hands of the Media supporting of Obama. Stop calling his policies socialistic and start calling them what they are, Marxist Communistic. I read a study that asked people across the U.S. what is the definition of Socialism. The number one answer, anyone who uses social media like Facebook and Twitter. Americans are so dumbed down as to not even start to understand why Marxist Communism is so bad. It is our job to inform them. However we cannot do this without first letting them know that this is exactly what we are fighting.
on 22 January 2012 / 10:03 AM
R.Cook says,
If and when it becomes politically expedient or the left is dragged kicking and screaming to the realization that we must produce more energy domestically, they will spin the hell out of it. It might go something like this:
“After arduous investigation and the implementation of new controls that our party demanded for the safety of the environment and workers in the fossil fuel industry; we will begin to allow some drilling and exploration to meet our nation’s energy needs. The public should realize that we had to fight the entrenched fossil fuel industry backed by Republicans to institute these controls but it was done with the mandate that we have to protect our sacred earth and all its inhabitants. We are now sure that these new controls we fought so hard to implement will protect the public and the sacred environment while guaranteeing the energy sources we need to move our economy forward.”
If they were honest they would also admit:
Oh yea…by the way these new controls will necessarily cause energy prices to “skyrocket” and put numerous fossil fuel energy producers out of business and their employees out of work so we can artificially claim our push for green energy will seem valid.
on 22 January 2012 / 1:28 PM
Irving Schmidtlapp says,
Gosh, R. Cook, I wish you would quit sugar coating, this is too important!
on 23 January 2012 / 9:02 AM
JohnGault says,
One reason that Obama killed Keystone is that Oil is bound for TX. Charles Koch has a large refinery complex in Corpus Christi, TX. Obama is trying to defund/destroy his political opposition by any means necessary. Obama should be reject by ANY means necessary as he is a dangerous man. This is the year of the Newt.
on 23 January 2012 / 2:21 PM
Harold Clark says,
If Obama allows the pipeline that would that mean much less oil from his muslim freinds!
on 24 January 2012 / 5:26 PM
sara says,
Obama is MUSLIM…that is the only reason he is destroying America.
on 21 February 2012 / 3:00 AM
sara says,
We need to ABOLISH the EPA LOONIES !
on 04 April 2012 / 3:43 AM