Harper to Obama: I’ve got plenty of buyers for our oil

posted at 10:45 am on December 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Canada has patiently waited for Americans to help themselves improve our energy policy by installing a pipeline from Canada’s oil sands to our refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, but this week Prime Minister Stephen Harper signaled that their patience has limits.  Speaking to CTV, Harper reminded the US that they have a very thirsty China as a potential customer, too:

Canada could sell its oil to China and other overseas markets with or without approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the United States, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a year-end television interview, Harper indicated he had doubts the $7-billion pipeline would receive political approval from U.S. President Barack Obama, and that Canada should be looking outside the United States for markets.

“I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that,” Harper said in the Monday interview with CTV National News.

Harper’s comments were released a day after the White House sent signals it might kill TransCanada’s oil sands pipeline if it is forced to make a decision on the project in 60 days, saying there wasn’t sufficient time to complete a new environmental review.

Clearly, Harper isn’t enamored with Barack Obama’s stalling on the Keystone XL pipeline.  Kelly McParland got the same impression, and writes at the National Post that Harper kept it friendly but made no mistake about playing political and economic hardball if Obama continues to stall:

Stephen Harper sent a none-too-subtle shot across the bow of  our American friends and allies Monday when he indicated he’s dead keen on selling Canadian oil to buyers in Asia. He didn’t put it in so many words, but  he was telling Washington this: “You don’t want our oil, no problem. We’ve got lots of markets across the Pacific where we don’t have to beg to get a sale.”

It was a timely message and a good one for the Prime Minister to send. There is no need to be rude to the U.S., which is and always will be Canada’s best market. But there’s also no need to sit around and wait for the political circus in Washington to pause long enough to recognize the attractiveness of the opportunity Canada is offering. Given the state of absurdity that has the U.S. capital in its grip, there’s no telling how long that could take.

Of course, the compromise in the Senate over the payroll tax “holiday” would have solved the Keystone XL issue, or at least forced Obama to bite the bullet and make a decision on it.  Unfortunately, the House GOP has thrown that solution into doubt with its rebuke of their GOP colleagues in the Senate this week.  McParland aces the description of the standoff:

The ins and outs are too complex to get into, but it comes down to this: President Barack Obama wants to extend a tax break he introduced to offset the effects of the recession. Despite supporting tax cuts, Republicans don’t want him to get credit for this one. So they’re opposing the extension, even though they support it. In search of a compromise, the Senate voted on the weekend to extend the break for just two months, meaning everyone could go home for Christmas and renew the battle later. But Republicans in the House couldn’t bring themselves to accept the deal approved by Republicans in the Senate, insisting the extension should be for a full year, not just two months. But rather than vote down the deal — which would let Obama blame Republicans for refusing a tax cut, they simply refused to vote at all. The just cancelled a vote scheduled for Monday, and did nothing at all. Nice work, guys. Another vote was held Tuesday, which led to a House demand for negotiations, but the Senate has already left town.

Meanwhile, China is growing thirstier, and Canada grows impatient to sell its bountiful oil to someone who really wants it.  Maybe everyone should concentrate on the real economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline instead of the illusory differences between a 2- and 12-month extension of a tax holiday that produced no economic stimulus at all over the past year.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

liberal4life on December 21, 2011 at 11:25 AM
you know liberal4life-I’ve only been posting for a short time on Hot Air but there is no question you are the biggest whack-a-doodle on this forum

gerrym51 on December 21, 2011 at 11:58 AM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How do we do it?
I write my reps…but think it goes from the in box to the basket.

KOOLAID2 on December 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Oil? We don’t need no stinkin’ oil. We got the taxpayer subsidized Chevy Volt, Mr. Harper!

they lie on December 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM

You owe me royalties, or sumthin’…

Phhhhhhttt!!!! We don’t need no steenkin’ oil! Obammy’s gonna buy us all $250,000 Chevy Volts!

/powned by Canada…that’s gonna leave a mark

ornery_independent on December 21, 2011 at 11:02 AM

ornery_independent on December 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM

How do we do it?
I write my reps…but think it goes from the in box to the basket.

KOOLAID2 on December 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Sorry- pasted in wrong comment.
Was trying to respond to putting the pressure on the tax-funded
Enviro groups. (:<)

KOOLAID2 on December 21, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Ed, you and McParland, and the WSJ are wrong on this. See on this thread for why…

DanMan on December 21, 2011 at 12:32 PM

or go to the link..http://culberson.house.gov/rep-john-culberson-%e2%80%9cthis-is-not-complicated%e2%80%9d/

Deanna on December 21, 2011 at 1:06 PM

please let the chinese have all the canadian oil. after all we enjoy paying $4+ a gallon for gas and jug ears getting re-elected is more important that us getting oil from an ally that’s a regular trading partner.

much better for us to ship it to jug ears friends over in the middle east.

we also don’t need the 20,000 high paying jobs. I’m sure the corrupt union stiffs will vote for jug ears regardless of whether he shuts down the pipeline project or not.

acyl72 on December 21, 2011 at 1:14 PM

The reason for Obama rejecting the Pipeline is environmental. Not in the least.

Obama is beholden to the Middle Eastern entities that supported his campaign and therefore he is bound to try to maintain our dependence on the ME as a primary source of our oil.

St. Nikao on December 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM

How are they going to get it to China? And it’s economically feasible at that price?

kunegetikos on December 21, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Also? Let’s see YOUR guy do THIS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-57ydwbqb_M

ConservativeTalkRadio on December 21, 2011 at 1:27 PM

First Obozo let the latest Gulf drilling rights go to another country (I don’t recall which country) by refusing to sign the permits, so I have no doubt he’ll be content to let the oil sands from Canada go to China to help them continue to dominate the US in the world market.

I hope the environmentally unstable folks he relies on so much are great in numbers because I woul hope the rest of America will see the socialist pig for who he is.

stacman on December 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM

America to Canada: Cool story bro.

Canada trying to show off to or impress America is somewhere between “cute” and “pathetic”. Mostly the latter though.

Daikokuco on December 21, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada? Somewhere centrally located, like Nebraska or Iowa so the product can be more easily shipped to more places in this country? The oil companies have made plenty of money over the last few years, so they can certainly afford a new refinery or two.

Win-win for everybody–shorter pipeline, lots of good jobs, easier transport of finished product.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Obama is beholden to the Middle Eastern entities that supported his campaign and therefore he is bound to try to maintain our dependence on the ME as a primary source of our oil.

St. Nikao on December 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM

As was GW Bush. New boss, old boss.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Ed,

Is it true that the “jobs created” numbers on the pipeline are faked up, in part by assuming a different employee for each job for each year, such that any construction job that lasted two years is doubled counted?

What’s up with the State Department estimate that the project would create only 5,000 to 6,000 construction jobs?

Are you calling the construction jobs “temporary” because they have a project completion date?

Is the steel going to be fabricated in the U.S. If not, aren’t the job numbers faked up for political purposes?

Have you done your typical analysis yet where you take the cost to taxpayers and divide by the number of jobs?

Is the sand oil technology feasible on the free market without government subsidy? If so, where is the oil shipping to now? If not, what happened to your principle?

Are the costs taxpayer funded while the profits are private? This is a regular refrain in the crony capitalism charges that you (not wrongly) advance regularly. If the answer is that the oil is needed, then don’t you have to abandon your “principle” and admit that what you have been calling “principled” or “ideological” or “dogmatic” objections in cases that you oppose are actually prudential judgments not bound by “principle” and that the “principle” is mere political rhetoric?

Are you looking into every political connections that TransCanada and the other companies that would profit have to the politicians supporting the pipeline?

Not against the idea of a pipeline, but would like some apples-and-apples type reporting.

kunegetikos on December 21, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Canada trying to show off to or impress America is somewhere between “cute” and “pathetic”. Mostly the latter though.

Daikokuco on December 21, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Pathetic what you have to do to make yourself feel good. Is that all you got left?

BL@KBIRD on December 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Obama has a vested interest in doing away w/big oil. Let’s not forget about that little bank in Chicago called “Shore Bank”. Obama and a few close friends are apt to make billions if we go forward w/solar power etc. Why do you think the big push to alternative energy even when we can least afford it. Question, If Obama is caterning to the greeney’s, and thier concern of an environmental catastrophe of sort, God forbid, – which by the way from what I’ve read has already been sorted out – what would be the worst of two evils, having a spill inland or a spill out in the Straits of Juan de Fuca?

fistbump on December 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM

If he has plenty of oil tell him to shove it where the sun don’t shine. We don’t want any of it.

liberal4life on December 21, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Ok libby, take a short nap, then drink some orange juice, take a deep breath and try and see if you can perform better the next time.

rightoption on December 21, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Is it cheaper for a tanker to run from Kitimat to, say, Fushun than to a U.S. port? Don’t quite follow that part, either.

kunegetikos on December 21, 2011 at 2:20 PM

In other Canadian Oil news, Chiquita Banana has announced that it is boycotting our oil, so Canadians are boycotting their Blood Bananas.

No joke.

Even a couple of cabinet ministers are getting involved.

Here’s my hero, Ezra Levant, the author of Ethical Oil on the subject.

Johnny 100 Pesos on December 21, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Of course, the compromise in the Senate over the payroll tax “holiday” would have solved the Keystone XL issue, or at least forced Obama to bite the bullet and make a decision on it. Unfortunately, the House GOP has thrown that solution into doubt with its rebuke of their GOP colleagues in the Senate this week. McParland aces the description of the standoff:

this is not the house’s fault..they gave obama his 1 year extension, unemployment benefits and thee keystone pipeline in there.. the senate republicans are the one’s who betrayed the house

this is obama’s fault,pure and simple..he hates our alies and love our enemies..i mean that..he wants us to to be addicted to middle eastern oil and not take our from canada or drill…he needs to go asap

sadsushi on December 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada?

Because the EPA, and their supporters, both federal and local, have prevented new refineries for 30+ years. Even expanding an existing refinery requires years and $millions to get approved at various levels.

Texas is one of the few states which have plenty of existing refineries, reasonable regulation, and a well-placed distrust of Washington.

Try getting a new refinery built in, say, liberal Minnesota or even one of the relatively conservative Dakotas? Take 20 years or more.

Another factor is proximity. After crude oil is refined into consumer products (jet fuel, home heating oil, various other “distillates”), TX is in a unique position to export those products. If a refinery in ND refined heating oil, how would it get exported? Yep, a pipeline to a port somewhere.

One final point: Nobody seems to realize (or comment, anyways) that in the U.S. we have something like 600 *thousand* miles of pipelines already. You probably have one running within a few miles of your house.

What’s another 5,000 miles or so in the big picture? It’s all Obama pandering to the environuts…

–Al–
Austin TX

Al_H on December 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

There hasn’t been a refinery build in nearly 50 years. If you think the environmentalists don’t like coal powered electric plants they will fight refineries even harder. Hence, pipelines to existing refineries.

chemman on December 21, 2011 at 2:52 PM

@funky chicken:

“Why not build new refineries closer to Canada? Somewhere centrally located, like Nebraska or Iowa so the product can be more easily shipped to more places in this country? The oil companies have made plenty of money over the last few years, so they can certainly afford a new refinery or two.”

Alas, chemman beat me to the response. I can only add- your solution is far too logical and straightforward to ever work with the dopes we have in DC presently.

GrassMudHorsey on December 21, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Sorry Al_H, not buying it any more. The oil industry has made hundreds of billions a year in profits. They could and should plow some of those profits back into their industry’s infrastructure, which is what additional refineries are. And yeah, environmental regulations make it expensive, but they have plenty of ready cash to handle that.

What’s the point of “drill here, drill now” if the oil is just going to go to gulf refineries to be exported anyway? Aren’t we concerned with energy independence for our nation, and perhaps stabilizing prices instead of being at the mercy of the international speculators?

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Canadians are boycotting Chiquita Bananas over their refusal to use ethical Canadian oil and their preference for Saudi and Venezuelan oil (?!?)

http://www.ethicaloil.org/news/listen-to-our-chiquita-boycott-radio-ad/

ConservativeTalkRadio on December 21, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Obama is beholden to the Middle Eastern entities that supported his campaign and therefore he is bound to try to maintain our dependence on the ME as a primary source of our oil.

St. Nikao on December 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM

As was GW Bush. New boss, old boss.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM

It seems that you walk everywhere, don’t travel, wear burlap sacks and hunt with arrows/garden for your food and roast it on an open fire in front of your hut. It must also be cold and dark for you in the winter.

Unless you do the above, you are part of the problem. Now would you rather be beholden to nice, overly polite people who live in igloos or the nice people who would blow up your buildings and hate you?

Lots of villages missing their idiots lately.

kim roy on December 21, 2011 at 3:15 PM

Enjoying a modern lifestyle does not require me to support kissing Saudi ass or to support government policies that make us dependent upon their oil. Work on your reading comprehension before you call somebody an idiot.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 3:24 PM

…then drink some orange juice…

rightoption on December 21, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Kool-aid is her beverage of choice.

CurtZHP on December 21, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Enjoying a modern lifestyle does not require me to support kissing Saudi ass or to support government policies that make us dependent upon their oil. Work on your reading comprehension before you call somebody an idiot.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 3:24 PM

What part of equating Bush to Obama is not idiotic? He was only doing as the people insist. Plus, to think that Bush wouldn’t have been on top of this offer or handled the Gulf issues is idiotic as well.

So maybe I should have called you out in this manner rather than the way I did. Either way, what you said “old boss, new boss” is just plain idiotic. There’s no comparison.

kim roy on December 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM

I can only add- your solution is far too logical and straightforward to ever work with the dopes we have in DC presently.

GrassMudHorsey on December 21, 2011 at 2:59 PM

And for the past 30 years, which is what’s most frustrating. It’s left us vulnerable to serious disruptions in supply caused by single weather events like gulf hurricanes, etc. 30 years ago the oil companies didn’t have the extreme cash reserves they have now. But that’s all changed–they have tons of cash and the political winds have changed enough that people would support the construction of new refineries now.

But they won’t even try because they make more profits the way things are now.

It’s similar to offshoring manufacturing to China, IMHO. Lines executives’ pockets but hurts the nation.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Our President is out to destroy us.

BBReggie on December 21, 2011 at 4:16 PM

That ‘shining city on a hill’ is about to have a brown out thanks to the New Fascist Party f/k/a the DemocRATic party.

madmonkphotog on December 21, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Thought you might like this quote, from 2,000 years ago:

Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so
enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss
of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions.
… Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the
“new,wonderful good society” which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to
mean “more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the
expense of the industrious.”
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

Jpalm on December 21, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada? Somewhere centrally located, like Nebraska or Iowa so the product can be more easily shipped to more places in this country? The oil companies have made plenty of money over the last few years, so they can certainly afford a new refinery or two.

Win-win for everybody–shorter pipeline, lots of good jobs, easier transport of finished product.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Nice suggestion, but Obama and the EPA have final say in issuing permits. If he won’t approve the pipeline, what makes you think he’ll sign permits to build new refineries?

The reason for Obama rejecting the Pipeline is environmental. Not in the least.

Obama is beholden to the Middle Eastern entities that supported his campaign and therefore he is bound to try to maintain our dependence on the ME as a primary source of our oil.

St. Nikao on December 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM

We have a winner! I would love to see somebody dig up proof that this is the reason Obama is stifling America’s ability to produce it’s own energy needs through oil drilling and exploration.

Just thinking outside the box.

timberline on December 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM

It amazes me how rapidly Congress and the President can reload and shoot the other foot. Washington is like a car that has been in bad crash, do you repair it?, or just total it and start over. Problem is it’s a really nice car and they don’t build em like that anymore.

sammus on December 21, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada? Somewhere centrally located, like Nebraska or Iowa so the product can be more easily shipped to more places in this country? The oil companies have made plenty of money over the last few years, so they can certainly afford a new refinery or two.

Win-win for everybody–shorter pipeline, lots of good jobs, easier transport of finished product.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Perhaps we in Canada should build a refinery or two (actually, Canada boasts off 25 refineries, the same number as Texas). And there are a few refineries not far from Canada.

Meanwhile, here’s a map of existing oil pipelines: Can’t see Keystone adding too much to the already existing mix.

Johnny 100 Pesos on December 21, 2011 at 5:12 PM

More “Smart Power” at work! No, we will screw this up and the Canadians will end up selling the oil to China, who isn’t encumbered by stupidity, like we are. What a joke of a president.

Johnny 100, good point. If people would just look at all the pipelines running throughout our country they would realize that the Keystone pipeline is no real big deal.

Robert-A on December 21, 2011 at 5:40 PM

ODS on display.

residentblue on December 21, 2011 at 6:33 PM

ornery_independent on December 21, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Wow, HA commenter plagiarizing from another HA commenter in the same thread no less.
Never saw that before.

JellyToast on December 21, 2011 at 6:42 PM

St. Nikao on December 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Most of our imported oil comes from Canada and Mexico, not the ME. It’s not even close.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada?

The answer is in electing a GOP President and getting a GOP congress with 60+ seats in the Senate. 70 would be good. If we get just 60, unfortunately, that will empower McCain. He will continually create “gangs of 7 or gangs of 8″ or something with the Democrat to undermined conservatives.
It’s what he does.

JellyToast on December 21, 2011 at 6:47 PM

It should become American policy to buy as much Oil as possible from Canada.

N. America and the West in general needs to become 100% self reliant on energy . We should not be supporting or importing our dollars into the economies of our ideological enemies.

Every petrol dollar that get’s funneled into Madrassa’s in Saudi Arabia, or Yemen is another nail in the coffin for the West.

100% Isolation from Mid East economies and OIL.

Where is our sense of self righteousness and self preservation?

Scalpeloftruth on December 21, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada? Somewhere centrally located, like Nebraska or Iowa so the product can be more easily shipped to more places in this country? The oil companies have made plenty of money over the last few years, so they can certainly afford a new refinery or two.

Win-win for everybody–shorter pipeline, lots of good jobs, easier transport of finished product.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

We already have 148,622 miles of oil pipelines in the US. And that includes 50,214 miles of oil pipelines for crude oil only.

We also have 1,539,911 miles of gas pipelines here. That includes 301,896 miles of transmission pipelines.

(Cite: DOT)

We had absolutely no problem building and maintaining such a huge infrastructure, until the Leftists came along and told us they knew better than us.

Thanks for the laughs!

Del Dolemonte on December 21, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Harper to Obama: I’ve got plenty of buyers for our oil

It’s not “our oil”…it belongs to whomever owns the land above it or leases it for $.

They can sell it to whomever they want for whatever price they can get.

They aren’t “our jobs”…nor can we continue sitting around expecting these companies to hire folks just to help the country out. There were those a loooong time ago that took pride in doing that, and in contributing to society, but those types are pretty much in urns and marble mausoleums these days…have been for decades.

There is no dearth of flag-waving, Patriotic, ultra-Conservative Americans out there hiring illegal Mexican immigrants in order to save themselves a few bucks (I doubt the OW crowd, Bill Ayers, and other assorted ‘tards are in much of a position to hire anyone), but these are the ones who bit@h the loudest against organized labor and illegal immigration.

It’s a rather slippery slope when one moans on and on about Socialism and yet extolls the virtues of Nationalism, and expect Capitalists to do what’s best for the country rather than what is profitable for themselves.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 21, 2011 at 7:21 PM

These are the same people who import from others what they cripple domestic suppliers from providing ,all on the grounds of environmentalism . This is the height of hypocrisy.

These are the very same people that history will record as subverting and weakening Western civilization.

Liberalism is a policy of appeasement and denial.

Scalpeloftruth on December 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Why not build new refineries closer to Canada? Somewhere centrally located, like Nebraska or Iowa so the product can be more easily shipped to more places in this country? The oil companies have made plenty of money over the last few years, so they can certainly afford a new refinery or two.

Win-win for everybody–shorter pipeline, lots of good jobs, easier transport of finished product.

funky chicken on December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM

The problem is that the government won’t allow them to build refineries in their beautiful Northern states, just in the South.

Anyways, with all of the regulation these days, building a new refinery _anywhere_ is a super-expensive nightmare.

Theophile on December 21, 2011 at 8:31 PM

With all due respect Mr Morrissey, your analysis of the stand off between the House, the Senate and the White House over the Payroll fight is deeply flawed:

I’m with Boehner
http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/12452/im-with-boehner/

Newt slams Harry Reid for leaving DC amid Payroll fight
http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-slams-harry-reid-for-leaving-dc-amid-payroll-fight/

john.frank on December 21, 2011 at 9:29 PM

There’s a strong correlation between energy use and economic growth. I guess we know where Obama wants to take us. Canadians have been very patient with us for a while and I’ve very glad that Harper is telling it like it is. We are absolutely stupid to turn that oil away.

COgirl on December 21, 2011 at 9:45 PM

PM Harper has a Masters Degree in Economics and has been working to develop foreign markets for Canada’s resources and manufactured goods.

Harper will not let a little twerp like Obama stand in the way of making money for Canada.

Sparky5253 on December 21, 2011 at 9:55 PM

Barry was always planning to buy oil only from his pal Hugo… until the fatso dissed him a week ago.

galtani on December 21, 2011 at 10:06 PM

The two month “tax cut extension” that never was included pipeline wording that teh Filthy Liar would have easily had a stooge czar evade. Just how many of those offshore post Gulf spill contracts are being worked or even worked on?

IMHO gasoline would long since have been $5+ but other poverty policies have limited demand. No demand, low price.

Silly D’rats keep meeting themselves as they retreat. Were it not for Rep. idiot “leaders” and their “Philosphy of phear”, D’rats would have already become unelectable for three generations.

Caststeel on December 21, 2011 at 11:36 PM

That’s some fine leadership you folks have got down there when both the left and the right are willing to watch you freeze in the dark.
On the other hand it might be a good thing because at least China can pay in cash. Do any of you remember cash? It’s that stuff you used to have before Obama and his pals took over.

G-man on December 22, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Two months or twelve months, makes no difference. Obama is never going to allow that pipeline to be built. To do so would if not correct the downfall of America it would at least stave it off until Americans can come to their senses and elect an actual American as president.

Obama has no, nada, zip, zilch, zero interest in anything that helps America.

clippermiami on December 21, 2011 at 10:55 AM

—-

This ^^^^
I follow american, european and international politics (as well as Business) to a “t”, and I am 90% sure that not only did he punt it, but will NOT approve it by Dec 2012

After all, why would he, after he has presumably won in Nov 2012

He’ll have no downside, he’ll be a ‘Apres moi est le Deluge” 2nd term (i..e he won’t give a crap…) and will be able to really stick it to teh Oilsands, that conservative PM in canada, and get the adoration of the Green whack-jobs for life, for his inveitable After-Presidency a la Carter; Thug hugging, moralizing, NGO’s, you name it, he’ll be Al Gore II, without the fatness :)

No way, Jose that KeyStone flies , I’m sure of it; the US has developed into BANANA country (i.e. Build absolutely nothing anywhere at any time..). KeyStone is DEAD unless The Repubs win in November, I guarantee you.

Refineries, pipelines, Nuclear/Coal/NG Plants, hell even green garbage like windmills, people don’t want them. I am a TCPL shareholder, and have written them already to forget about it, and ally themselves with Enbridge and build Northern gateway

In other news, while I am all for US-Canadian relations to be warm, friendly and cooperative, I have never been more proud of a Canadian PM than right now; the US is under occupation, by the Coastal / University credentialed elites, and they are bat$hit crazy

TC all
JMG

Gauthijm on December 22, 2011 at 7:16 AM

Please, please, please, Canada, give us a chance to kick that incompetent, Marxist prince out of office before you give up on us! Our next president will be better, we promise!

RebeccaH on December 21, 2011 at 11:58 AM

————–

I’d like to, really we would; While I don’t speak for Canada, I am not at all convinced America will get rid of him

What is it, 70% of the US population actually LIKES this guy still ? His personal approval is STILL sky-high… and a more uninteresting and negative sourpuss has not been seen in teh US since what, Kerry ?
Can’t they read (i.e Ayers, Chicago, Rezko, MF Global, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Black Panthers, Rev Wright, Corzine, darn that’s a long list..)

I think Canada should either build it’s own refineries and/or Northern Gateway, so if ever another American President decides to hold us canadians hostage , and treat us like dirt, we can tell him (not the US population, I love the US…) to go play in the traffic and/or jump off a very short pier..

TC all
JMG

Gauthijm on December 22, 2011 at 7:42 AM

We already have 148,622 miles of oil pipelines in the US. And that includes 50,214 miles of oil pipelines for crude oil only.

I’ve heard that the crude produced by these wells (tar sands) is different from regular crude: thicker, “dirtier” (whatever that means), etc. Could it be that existing pipelines are either unable to transport it, that they already are being used to capacity, or some other factor requires a new pipeline?

Al_H on December 22, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2