Canada's XL pipeline: Storm in a barrel?
The controversial Keystone XL pipeline project which would have carried oil from Canada to US refineries on the Gulf coast has been rejected for now.
But the decision by Barack Obama, the US president, is causing a political storm.
The proposed $7bn Keystone XL pipeline extension would have carried more than 700,000 barrels of crude oil per day from Canada to Texas.
TransCanada – the company behind the project – first made the application in 2008.
Obama decided to hold off making a decision until after the 2012 election, but Republicans forced him to make quicker decision.
On Wednesday, the US State Department rejected the application on the grounds that it could not be adequately reviewed within the 60-day deadline set by the US Congress.
TransCanada says it will apply for a new permit to build along a similar route.
The proposed pipeline would cover more than 2,700 kilometres from Canada to the US state of Texas. It starts from Hardisty in Canada's Alberta province, where the tar sands are located.
The pipeline enters the US in the state of Montana and goes further down to Nebraska, where many have raised fears it will contaminate their main water source – the Ogallala aquifer.
The pipeline then snakes further south, ending in Port Arthur and Houston in Texas.
Meanwhile, opponents have objected on environmental grounds, saying it would further the US' dependence on dirty fuels, and that would contribute to global warming and threaten ecological disaster.
But supporters say it will create thousands of jobs, most of which would be temporary construction work.
They also say that it will be good for energy security in that it will help wean the US off oil imports from the Middle East.
So is the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline plan a blow to energy security and job creation in the US? And are environmental concerns really behind the decision by Obama, or is it just a political ploy?
To discuss this, presenter Anand Naidoo is joined by Damon Moglen, the Climate and Energy Director at Friends of the Earth; Jeremy Carl from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University; and William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a public policy organisation dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty.
"It's certainly politics. It wasn't an unequivocal rejection. Obama was in a bit of a pickle, had he made a decision one way or the other. Had he approved the pipeline he would've alienated environmentalists. Had he outright declined or disapproved it, he would've alienated the unions. This way, it's the best possible political solution for the president."
- William Yeatman, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Follow us and post your comments: in Twitter Facebook
William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst and
Assistant Director, of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
He holds a Master's in International Administration from the Denver Graduate School of International Studies, and a Bachelor's in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia. Petroleumworld does not necessarily share these views.
This commentary was originally published by Aljazeera, on Jan 20, 2012. Petroleumworld reprint this article in the interest of our readers.
All comments posted and published on Petroleumworld, do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of Petroleumworld. All comments expressed are private comments and do not necessary reflect the view of this website. All comments are posted and published without liability to Petroleumworld.
Use Notice:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
All works published by Petroleumworld are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.Petroleumworld has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Petroleumworld endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
Petroleumworld encourages persons to reproduce, reprint, or broadcast Petroleumworld articles provided that any such reproduction identify the original source, http://www.petroleumworld.com or else and it is done within the fair use as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Internet web links to http://www.petroleumworld.com are appreciated
Petroleumworld News 01/17/2011
Follow us in Twitter
And post your comments in our Facebook site
Petroleumworld welcomes your feedback
and comments, share your thoughts on this article,
your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and
comments about this article, write to firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright© 1999-2010 Petroleumworld or respective author or news agency. All rights reserved.
We welcome the use of Petroleumworld™ stories by anyone provided it mentions Petroleumworld.com as the source. Other stories you have to get authorization by its authors
Send this story to a friend Any question or suggestions,
please write to: email@example.com
Best Viewed with IE 5.01+Windows NT 4.0, '95, '98, ME,
XP, Vista, W7 +/ 800x600 pixels