US signals intention over Canadian oil sands

SS109 wrote: So is the project approved or not?

Nothing's been decided yet.

In order from most recent to older:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/01/140117187 ... n-tar-sand
For Protesters, Keystone Pipeline Is Line In Tar Sand
by Richard Harris
September 1, 2011

The Obama administration says it will decide by the end of the year whether to approve this pipeline.

If Obama approves this, he will definitely not be re-elected.
http://www.truth-out.org/why-im-protest ... 1314814147
It's Time to Take Sides: Why I'm Protesting the Tar Sands Pipeline
Thursday 1 September 2011
by: Robert Naiman

The key political fact about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is this: at the end of the day, the decision of whether to approve the permit for the pipeline or not will be a political decision wholly owned by President Obama. The final determination on the permit will be based on whether approval would be in the "national interest" of the United States. This is an inherently political determination.

If, on the other hand, President Obama were to approve the permit for the pipeline, then he would be acting to promote climate chaos, and this decision could not be blamed on the dispute over the nation's projected debt in 2021, Republicans or the Tea Party. It would be President Obama, standing alone, breaking a campaign promise to act to protect the climate from chaos induced by human action.

http://www.grist.org/climate-change/201 ... -go-global
Tar-sands protests go global
by Bill McKibben
1 Sep 2011

Protests against a proposed tar-sands pipeline, which have already mushroomed into the largest civil disobedience actions in America in many years, broke out across the globe today, with solidarity demonstrations at U.S. and Canadian embassies and consulates on six continents.

Today, 144 protesters were packed into police vans in front of the White House, bringing the total number of people arrested since Aug. 20 to 843. The sit-in in front of the White House will continue through Sept. 3

"I've been amazed every single day of this protest," said Jamie Henn, who helped organize the protest. "Most of the people here have not only never been arrested at a demonstration, they've never been arrested period

http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-09-01-whi ... ests-video
Which side are you on, Obama? Live from the tar-sands protests by Jay Mallin 1 Sep 2011 [quote]More than 700 people have been arrested in front of the White House over the two weeks since protests against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline began.[/quote] [url=http://www.desmogblog.com/new-infographic-shows-how-keystone-pipelines-are-built-spill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.desmogblog.com/new-infograph ... uilt-spill[/url] [b]New Infographic Shows how Keystone Pipelines are ‘Built to Spill’[/b] Emma Pullman 29 August 11 [url=http://www.desmogblog.com/reliance-canadian-tar-sands-threatens-u-s-energy-security" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.desmogblog.com/reliance-cana ... y-security[/url] [b]Reliance on Canadian Tar Sands Threatens U.S. Energy Security[/b] This is a guest post by Glenn Hurowitz 30 August 11 [quote]If there’s a single idea that the oil industry has peddled to persuade the Obama administration to approve the controversial Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, it’s this: Tar-sands oil might be more polluting than even dirty old regular oil, but it’s better to get our energy from our ally Canada than from unstable oil suppliers in the Middle East or elsewhere. In practice, the opposite is true: Drilling in North America is the single greatest threat to our nation’s energy security. Here’s the reality: Protecting the United States’ energy security means keeping our continent’s oil in the ground for when we need it in an emergency. The United States and Canada combined [size=4]hold less than 5 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves[/size]. Thanks in part to expanded domestic drilling during the Obama administration, we’re depleting those reserves at a high rate. To understand how urgent it is that we curtail domestic drilling, consider this: If the United States were cut off today from all sources except Canada, we’d have only eight years left at current consumption levels. And that amount gets lower every day as the government issues additional domestic drilling leases. It’s important to contrast this depletion reality with the old canard that the oil industry and its backers continue to push: that drilling domestically somehow reduces the flow of money to the Middle East and other unstable oil suppliers. In practice, basic oil-industry economics show the opposite. Because Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil is so much cheaper to produce and more plentiful than remaining domestic oil reserves, those countries can almost always outcompete domestic U.S. competitors and still maintain their enormous profit margins and high levels of production. Saudi and Iraqi oil, for instance, costs just $4-$6 per barrel to produce with another $2-$3 tacked on for transportation costs (costs are similar for Iranian oil). Production costs for tar-sands oil clock in at a minimum of $30 per barrel; costs for other domestic sources are similar. What we need to do instead is move as rapidly as possible to get off oil entirely by fully implementing and further tightening the Obama administration’s strong fuel-efficiency standards, putting a price on carbon pollution, ending oil subsidies, electrifying our vehicle fleet with clean energy, boosting mass transit, and using the full force of our diplomacy to get other major consuming countries like China to do the same.[/quote] [url=http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-27/why-keystone-pipeline-will-weaken-us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;]http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... -weaken-us[/url] [b]Why Keystone pipeline will weaken the US[/b] by Andrew Nikiforuk May 27 2011 [quote]Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky member of the Grand Oil Party, explained why: "In a time of oil hovering at $100 due to geopolitical unrest, high unemployment and $4 gasoline, a pipeline that can eliminate our Middle East imports and create tens of thousands of jobs should be a top priority for any administration." And on goes the lobbying. Unfortunately, not a word is true. [b]Blunt reality exposed by an expert[/b] Big, long pipelines don't create resilient communities let alone healthy energy appetites for that matter. And in the case of Keystone XL the pipeline will actually raise, not depress prices at the pump. Nor will it improve energy security by one gallon. That blunt analysis comes from the internationally celebrated oil and gas consultant Philip Verleger. The U.S. economist has studied the behaviour of oil markets for decades, recognizes hubris when he sees it, and has written 100 articles and books on the weird world of energy economics. The MIT graduate has also worked for the president's Council of Economic Advisers, the US Treasury, the Institute for International Economics and now presides over his own consulting firm, PKVerleger LLC based in Carbondale, Colorado. In a snappy 16-page analysis published this month, Verleger takes a hard look at the economics of the Keystone XL and guess what, it's not what it seems. For starters, the money only looks grand if you work for TransCanada. It gets nasty if you drive a car or farm in the U.S. Midwest. In fact, Verleger draws from an overlooked Purvin & Gertz study that shows "how the pipeline would allow Canadian producers to manipulate U.S. crude oil prices to extract another $2 billion to $4 billion from U.S. consumers." How the pipeline will raise US prices: see article for more Verleger also debunks the tired security argument. He notes that the United States has invested billions to create a 700 million barrel strategic reserve and all for energy security. Why should Americans pay an additional $5 billion per year to further reduce the risk of market interruptions? The incredible subsidies and low taxes granted to the U.S. hydrocarbon industry, he argues, has retarded the U.S. economy. Oil companies, he notes, simply don't create much. Nor do they innovate in the way Apple, for example, does, explains Verleger. "Yes, they discover, transport, transform and deliver energy. In general they profit, not through ingenuity, but through commodity price increases." [/quote][VIDEO]
by Jay Mallin
1 Sep 2011

More than 700 people have been arrested in front of the White House over the two weeks since protests against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline began.

http://www.desmogblog.com/new-infograph ... uilt-spill
New Infographic Shows how Keystone Pipelines are ‘Built to Spill’
Emma Pullman
29 August 11

http://www.desmogblog.com/reliance-cana ... y-security
Reliance on Canadian Tar Sands Threatens U.S. Energy Security
This is a guest post by Glenn Hurowitz
30 August 11

If there’s a single idea that the oil industry has peddled to persuade the Obama administration to approve the controversial Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline, it’s this: Tar-sands oil might be more polluting than even dirty old regular oil, but it’s better to get our energy from our ally Canada than from unstable oil suppliers in the Middle East or elsewhere.

In practice, the opposite is true: Drilling in North America is the single greatest threat to our nation’s energy security.

Here’s the reality: Protecting the United States’ energy security means keeping our continent’s oil in the ground for when we need it in an emergency. The United States and Canada combined hold less than 5 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves . Thanks in part to expanded domestic drilling during the Obama administration, we’re depleting those reserves at a high rate.

To understand how urgent it is that we curtail domestic drilling, consider this: If the United States were cut off today from all sources except Canada, we’d have only eight years left at current consumption levels. And that amount gets lower every day as the government issues additional domestic drilling leases. It’s important to contrast this depletion reality with the old canard that the oil industry and its backers continue to push: that drilling domestically somehow reduces the flow of money to the Middle East and other unstable oil suppliers. In practice, basic oil-industry economics show the opposite. Because Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil is so much cheaper to produce and more plentiful than remaining domestic oil reserves, those countries can almost always outcompete domestic U.S. competitors and still maintain their enormous profit margins and high levels of production. Saudi and Iraqi oil, for instance, costs just $4-$6 per barrel to produce with another $2-$3 tacked on for transportation costs (costs are similar for Iranian oil). Production costs for tar-sands oil clock in at a minimum of $30 per barrel; costs for other domestic sources are similar.

What we need to do instead is move as rapidly as possible to get off oil entirely by fully implementing and further tightening the Obama administration’s strong fuel-efficiency standards, putting a price on carbon pollution, ending oil subsidies, electrifying our vehicle fleet with clean energy, boosting mass transit, and using the full force of our diplomacy to get other major consuming countries like China to do the same.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... -weaken-us
Why Keystone pipeline will weaken the US
by Andrew Nikiforuk
May 27 2011

Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky member of the Grand Oil Party, explained why: "In a time of oil hovering at $100 due to geopolitical unrest, high unemployment and $4 gasoline, a pipeline that can eliminate our Middle East imports and create tens of thousands of jobs should be a top priority for any administration." And on goes the lobbying.

Unfortunately, not a word is true.

Blunt reality exposed by an expert
Big, long pipelines don't create resilient communities let alone healthy energy appetites for that matter. And in the case of Keystone XL the pipeline will actually raise, not depress prices at the pump. Nor will it improve energy security by one gallon. That blunt analysis comes from the internationally celebrated oil and gas consultant Philip Verleger. The U.S. economist has studied the behaviour of oil markets for decades, recognizes hubris when he sees it, and has written 100 articles and books on the weird world of energy economics.

The MIT graduate has also worked for the president's Council of Economic Advisers, the US Treasury, the Institute for International Economics and now presides over his own consulting firm, PKVerleger LLC based in Carbondale, Colorado. In a snappy 16-page analysis published this month, Verleger takes a hard look at the economics of the Keystone XL and guess what, it's not what it seems. For starters, the money only looks grand if you work for TransCanada. It gets nasty if you drive a car or farm in the U.S. Midwest.

In fact, Verleger draws from an overlooked Purvin & Gertz study that shows "how the pipeline would allow Canadian producers to manipulate U.S. crude oil prices to extract another $2 billion to $4 billion from U.S. consumers."

How the pipeline will raise US prices: see article for more

Verleger also debunks the tired security argument. He notes that the United States has invested billions to create a 700 million barrel strategic reserve and all for energy security. Why should Americans pay an additional $5 billion per year to further reduce the risk of market interruptions? The incredible subsidies and low taxes granted to the U.S. hydrocarbon industry, he argues, has retarded the U.S. economy. Oil companies, he notes, simply don't create much. Nor do they innovate in the way Apple, for example, does, explains Verleger. "Yes, they discover, transport, transform and deliver energy. In general they profit, not through ingenuity, but through commodity price increases."