Energy Tomorrow Blog
Coming Clean: The President and ‘Dirty’ Keystone XL Oil
keystone xl pipeline canadian oil sands crude oil greenhouse gas emissions president obama
Mark Green
Posted March 9, 2015
Apparently not content with the four Pinocchios he recently earned from the Washington Post for statements on the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama last week put in a bid for five with remarks aimed at the project’s environmental impact.
At an appearance in South Carolina, the president termed “extraordinarily dirty” the methods used to develop Canadian oil sands:
“The reason that a lot of environmentalists are concerned about it is the way that you get the oil out in Canada is an extraordinarily dirty way of extracting oil, and obviously there are always risks in piping a lot of oil through Nebraska farmland and other parts of the country.”
First, after more than six years of review by his administration, the president really should take the time to read the U.S. State Department’s environmental review of Keystone XL – the latest of five that all have cleared the pipeline on environmental grounds. As well, energy consulting firm IHS found that Keystone XL and the oil sands it would deliver would have “no material impact” on U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
American Energy and Consumers
american energy energy bills energy costs Economy jobs gulf exports keystone xl pipeline
Mary Schaper
Posted March 3, 2015
For Honesty on Keystone XL, Energy Technology and Innovation
keystone xl pipeline Economy jobs fracking texas
Mary Schaper
Posted March 2, 2015
American Oil, American Jobs
keystone xl pipeline american energy Economy jobs Energy Security canadian oil sands emissions
Mark Green
Posted February 27, 2015
President Obama, in an interview with a North Dakota television station, explaining why he continues to delay the Keystone XL pipeline:
“Part of the reason North Dakota has done so well is because we've very much been promoting domestic U.S. energy use. I've already said I'm happy to look at increasing pipeline production for U.S. oil. But Keystone is for Canadian oil. Sending it down to the Gulf. It bypasses the U.S., it estimated to create 250, maybe, 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing on American infrastructure for American jobs for American producers, and that's something we very much support.”
In the span of just six sentences, the president contradicts expert analysis of Keystone XL’s jobs and market impacts at least four times – about once for each breath.
Choosing Process Over Merit on Keystone XL
keystone xl pipeline president obama job creation economic growth state department Jack Gerard
Mark Green
Posted February 26, 2015
By continuing to delay the Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama continues to elevate politics over the pipeline’s merits and symbolism over acting in the U.S. national interest.
Instead of giving the go-ahead to a project that would create good, middle-class jobs, boost the national economy and strengthen America’s energy security, the president talks about preserving processes and procedures. That’s not leadership for the entire country; that’s once again giving in to Washington politics.
Keystone XL, Energy Exports and Infrastructure
keystone xl pipeline lng exports exports jobs Economy infrastructure
Mary Schaper
Posted February 25, 2015
Sustaining America’s Energy Renaissance with Good Policy
american energy policy exports lng keystone xl pipeline fracking
Mary Schaper
Posted February 24, 2015
Innovation Fuels America’s Energy Renaissance
american energy innovation technology fracking methane keystone xl pipeline anwr arctic
Mary Schaper
Posted February 19, 2015
Abundant, Affordable, Available
energy oil and natural gas development access keystone xl pipeline Jack Gerard economic benefits
Mark Green
Posted February 14, 2015
Some time ago the Keystone XL pipeline debate stopped being a discussion of energy infrastructure and whether the privately financed project was in the national interest. Thank Keystone XL’s opponents, who detached the debate from fact and scientific analysis to better serve their purposes.
Keystone XL’s most ardent foes readily acknowledged as much. They said that for them the pipeline was a symbol to be used in pursuit of political power. As one anti-pipeline activist put it: “The goal is as much about organizing young people around a thing. But you have to have a thing.”
Symbolism over substance, politics over the greater public good? Too often that’s the way it’s played Inside The Beltway. But at some point political power needs to give way to actual power, and public policy should be grounded in our energy reality, not symbolism. It should be fact-based and consider the impacts on the daily lives of real people, not narrow ideological agendas.
Good Energy Policy Key to Energy, Economic Growth
american energy policy growth methane emissions keystone xl pipeline taxes fracking
Mary Schaper
Posted February 13, 2015