The petrostate of America: The energy boom is good for America and the world. The Economist. Barack Obama should lift it so that newly fracked oil can be sold wherever it makes the most cash. And he should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada’s tar sands to American refineries; an exhaustive official study has deemed the project environmentally sound.
Approve Keystone. Now . Bloomberg. So the wait on the Keystone XL pipeline is over. Just kidding. However, the State Department did release its final environmental impact report today. And what did it say? That the pipeline will not increase carbon emissions much, which is exactly what previous reports also found. So what’s changed? Well, with this report, President Barack Obama can give the pipeline the go-ahead. In 90 days. All that’s left in the bureaucratic process is for the administration to decide whether the pipeline is in the U.S.’s “national interest.”
Get cracking on the Keystone pipeline. Chicago Tribune. The U.S. State Department finally has given the Keystone XL pipeline an unexpectedly “green” light. In a Jan. 31 report, the agency found the pipeline wouldn’t cause significant environmental damage. It wouldn’t prompt more oil extraction. It wouldn’t increase demand at U.S. refineries. And, surely to the shock of many opponents of the long-proposed pipeline, its construction actually would lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the likely alternatives for moving oil. The State Department didn’t formally approve the project, but it did give direct answers to the key environmental concerns that President Barack Obama raised when he put a stall on the project last June.
Keystone report from State Dept. puts common sense back in the pipeline. Washington Post. Environmentalists have drawn a line in the sand on the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s the wrong line in the wrong sand, far away from any realistic assessment of the merits — as yet another government analysis has confirmed. It’s past time for President Obama to set aside politics and resolve this bizarre distraction of an issue. The State Department’s latest study — the product of more than five years of investigation — largely confirms the conclusions of previous assessments and those of many independent energy experts: Allowing the firm TransCanada to build Keystone XL, which would run across the Canadian border to Steele City, Neb., is unlikely to have significant effects on climate-change-causing greenhouse gas emissions.
No More Keystone Excuses. Wall Street Journal. Economic reality waits for no man. The only difference is how the oil is transported, and the green protesters should be chaining themselves to White House fences to get Mr. Obama to sign off as soon as possible. The hilarious irony is that the anti-Keystone campaign is creating more carbon emissions. Their political lobbying is harming the planet by their own standards. The State Department constructs an alternative scenario in which the
Keystone XL is not built and the oil reaches refineries via rail and tanker. That results in 27.8% more greenhouse gas emissions. If the oil is distributed instead by train to the network of existing pipelines, that’s a 39.7% carbon increase. Transporting by rail directly to the Gulf of Mexico, as some operations are now doing, means a 41.8% increase.
Barack Obama should finally OK the Keystone XL pipeline. Newsday. The latest environmental report on the Keystone XL pipeline should make it easier for President Barack Obama to climb down off the fence and finally approve the controversial, privately financed $5.3-billion construction project. He’s waited long enough trying to navigate a long-running dispute between key Democratic constituencies — environmentalists concerned about pollution and climate change and labor unions that want the 1,950 construction jobs the project will deliver. The pipeline could transport 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from oil sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. The report the U.S. State Department released Friday said that the pipeline would result in lower greenhouse gas emissions and less risk from spills than the alternatives of transporting the oil by truck, train or ship.
Time for a decision from Obama on Keystone XL pipeline. Omaha World-Herald. President Obama is running out of reasons for not making a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department’s latest report found no “significant” impact on climate change, which had been the president’s publicly stated reservation about the project. It also noted that Canadian officials are determined to extract the oil and ship it somewhere for refining — no matter what. If not the U.S. Gulf Coast, then maybe China. And in the interim? The oil-sands are being moved by truck, train and barge, all of which present their own environmental and safety risks.
Pipeline conflicts. Tribune-Review. There’s more motivating two congressional Democrats’ opposition to TransCanada’s proposed Keystone XL pipeline than their professed environmentalism: Both have invested in companies with competing pipeline plans, creating blatant conflicts of interest. That’s what the most recent financial disclosures by freshman Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Alan Lowenthal of California show, according to The Washington Free Beacon. Last year, in an anti-Keystone-XL Washington Post column that questioned “the wisdom of using oil sands crude,” Mr. Kaine did not disclose that he has invested between $15,000 and $50,000 in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners. Kinder Morgan has proposed expanding its Trans Mountain Pipeline, which carries crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands to Canadian West Coast refineries and export facilities, as a Keystone XL alternative.
Yes to Keystone. Richmond Times Dispatch. For more than two years, the Keystone XL pipeline has been something of a Rorschach test: People saw in it what they wanted to. Conservative supporters of fossil fuels, and unions that favor new jobs the project would bring, have treated it as an economic bonanza. The hard left has fought the project, arguing that it would despoil the environment and exacerbate global warming. And there, for a long time, the debate has stood. Until the other day, that is, when the State Department issued a report finding the project would not be the environmental bugbear its critics feared. This is probably not the conclusion the Obama administration wanted to reach, as evidenced by the fact that it released the news on a Friday afternoon ‹ the unmarked grave officials use to bury news they don¹t like.
Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline is symbolic at best. Iowa State Daily. With so much buzz around TransCanada¹s proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would transport oil from Canada¹s oil sands to the Texas coast, almost anyone new to the discussion would think a major battle with large effects on job creation, environmental protections and carbon emissions is being waged. Few would gather the actual significance of the pipeline on these fronts: minimal at best. That¹s right, with the State Department¹s final environmental impact statement, released Jan. 31, comes revelations that only a few thousand temporary jobs would be created and the risks of spills or other negative environmental impacts are likely less than those of traditional oil.
Obama should act on Keystone. Greenville News. President Barack Obama has a chance to approve the Keystone XL pipeline while pointing to a report from within his own administration that says the pipeline will not contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. He should take advantage of the recent report from the State Department and move ahead with this project that is a jobs creator and that meshes with his long-running theme of building infrastructure to generate jobs. In a speech last year, Obama said he would approve the pipeline to bring oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast if the pipeline would not create additional greenhouse gases. The report indicates that the oil sands crude would still be extracted at the same rate even if the pipeline were not built, therefore the pipeline has no greater negative impact on carbon emissions.
Embrace pragmatism, build Keystone XL. Duluth News Tribune. The Obama administration’s dilemma about whether to approve building the Keystone XL oil pipeline is coming down to a simple choice: Does the president embrace pragmatism or symbolism? In the wake of the U.S. State Department’s finding Jan. 31 that the 1,179-mile pipeline from west-central Canada to Nebraska is unlikely to alter climate change, President Barack Obama should embrace pragmatism and signal to the rest of his administration that he supports construction. Doing so could help this proposal, already under federal study for five years, get through the eight federal agencies still examining it.
Best route to oil markets: Montana. Montana Standard. TransCanada has agreed to safety measures that go be beyond usual pipeline requirements. The Keystone XL would be built with 59 special conditions recommended by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Opponents claim the Keystone XL would be a major contributor to the greenhouse gases linked to climate change. However, the voluminous supplemental environmental impact statement released Jan. 31 makes no such finding. This oil is going to market one way or another. The pipeline won’t significantly impact the greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing the crude in Alberta or North Dakota. The pipeline won’t change emissions associated with burning products refined from this crude.
Obama must quit waffling on Keystone. Dallas Morning News. President Barack Obama should have applauded the State Department’s recent finding that the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf Coast would not produce a significant net increase in carbon emissions, a major cause of global climate change. Instead, he continues to sit on his hands. During a speech at Georgetown University last summer, Obama said, “Our national interest would be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” But now that word has come that the pipeline passed that test, Obama will wait for a recommendation from Secretary of State John Kerry. And in an interview last weekend, the president said the proposal still must run a gantlet of other reviews from multiple federal agencies.
Time to stop stalling on Keystone XL pipeline. Opelousas Daily World. It’s time to build the Keystone XL pipeline. President Obama has been delaying the start of construction for five years while our closest friends and allies in Canada have been waiting to begin this $5.4 billion venture. The U.S. State Department environmental impact statement has declared there will be no significant environmental harm done by the pipeline. But with elections ahead, the stalling continues. On a recent episode of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” White House chief of staff Denis McDonough dismissed the report as “one department with a study.”
Time for Obama to act on pipeline . The Sentinel. Throughout his term as president, Barack Obama has insisted his administration could not allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry Canadian oil to the U.S. unless the State Department signed off on it. Well, on Jan. 31 the State Department revealed - at last - that it can find no reason to believe the pipeline would be detrimental to the environment. Radical environmentalists hate the pipeline proposal - but they have not been able to come up with a reasonable objection to it, either. Time’s up, Mr. President. Your list of excuses for blocking the pipeline has been exhausted.
Best route to oil markets for U.S., Montana. Billings Gazette. After another year of exhaustive review, the U.S. State Department found no good reason to deny TransCanada a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline. There are many good reasons for President Barack Obama to issue the long-sought construction permit: The pipeline will enhance trade and relations with America’s northern neighbor and ally. It will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil from volatile regions of the world. The heavy Canadian crude transported will be refined in Texas Gulf Coast plants, supporting U.S. jobs. The pipeline will create an estimated 3,900 construction jobs for one year and about 50 permanent maintenance jobs …
Mr. President, approve Keystone XL . Bismarck Tribune. President Barack Obama should finally approve the Keystone XL pipeline. The U.S. State Department released yet another study a week ago that finds the northern stretch of the pipeline, which will carry oil sands from Alberta, Canada, to Nebraska, will pose no major environmental objections. Five years of multiple studies have given the same answer. Delay no longer, Mr. President. Approve the pipeline. With the Keystone pipeline blocked in the White House, trucks and trains are hauling oil sands from Alberta to refineries in northeastern states. That’s a more precarious process, raising environmental and safety risks.
Get off the fence, move forward on Keystone pipeline. Herald Times Reporter. Then, there is the Keystone XL pipeline. On it, the administration’s position officially has been yet to be determined. Fence-sitting is going to be harder now. A new State Department report is out on the impact of the pipeline, which would deliver daily over 800,000 barrels of heavy crude oil from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries in the Midwest and the Gulf Coast. While it supplies no recommendation, positive or negative, the report strongly indicates that concerns about the pipeline are overblown. As advocates of the Keystone XL project long have argued, the crude oil is going to be extracted from the Canadian oil sands of Alberta one way or the other.
Keystone Pipeline proponents get some good news. The Republican. The State Department has released its long-awaited report on a proposed 1,179-mile oil pipeline from Western Canada to a hub in Nebraska. To call the environmental report exhaustive would be to badly understate the scope of the study, published in 11 volumes. But for all the verbiage, the most important finding could be scribbled on a Post-it note: Building the Keystone XL pipeline will have no significant environmental impact.
President Barack Obama should approve Keystone XL Pipeline. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Environmentalists have made the Keystone XL Pipeline project a litmus test for President Barack Obama and anyone else with an opinion on climate change. Approve this dirty project, they argue, and you can’t possibly be with us. The Keystone XL is a symbol, they say. But here’s the thing: Obama has to deal with the world as it is, not the world that he or his supporters in the green movement desire. The president should approve the pipeline. Doing so is not inconsistent with his values or his desire to reduce carbon emissions as long as his administration continues to aggressively push for alternative energy.
No more excuses, Mr. President; approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Tribune-Review. Now that his own State Department has declared the proposed Keystone XL pipeline a climate “wash,” undercutting environmentalists’ objections, President Obama has little choice but to approve its construction. But don’t count on any quick decision. The State Department has a major say because of the project’s cross-border nature. While it concludes that the Canadian crude the pipeline would carry — from Alberta oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries — emits more carbon when burned than does crude oil from other sources, it’s going to be used with or without the pipeline. And with fiery, often deadly accidents on the rise as producers increasingly ship Canadian crude to refineries via rail, that makes the pipeline a public safety boon.
Let the oil start flowing. Detroit News. The State Department has given President Barack Obama cover to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, despite stubborn objections from environmentalists. He should use it. The president asked the department to assess the carbon impact of allowing Keystone to be built. The answer: None. And, in fact, the study concludes that constructing the pipeline is the most environmentally friendly way to carry heavy crude from Alberta oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries.
Stop stalling on pipeline . Arizona Central. The official Obama administration attitude toward traditional sources of energy in the U.S. has been consistently wary. Through the Environmental Protection Agency, the administration has been outright hostile to the coal industry. It has been suspicious of the profound expansion of U.S. natural-gas extraction, which is based on hydraulic fracturing technology that many environmentalists suspect is harmful to geology and water supplies. And like pretty much everyone else since the disaster in Fukushima, Japan, it has been cautious in the extreme about proposals to build new nuclear plants. Then, there is the Keystone XL pipeline. On it, the administration’s position officially has been yet to be determined.
Finally approve the Keystone pipeline. Post and Courier . Secretary of State John Kerry has displayed great urgency in his likely fruitless quest for a peace treaty between our key ally Israel and the Palestinians, a task he insists must be accomplished by the end of April, although Israel, for one, seems in no hurry to come to terms. But when it comes to the interests of another close ally, Canada, in getting a long-overdue decision from the secretary of state on whether the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the United States can be constructed, Mr. Kerry has indicated that he is in no hurry. And President Barack Obama has been keeping Canada waiting for a pipeline answer since long before Mr. Kerry became Secretary of State.
Delaying Keystone delays safety and jobs. Charleston Daily Mail . Five years ago, Transcanada, a major operator of oil and natural gas pipelines, submitted an application with the State Department for approval to build the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Obama Administration has yet to act, even though this pipeline would strengthen the nation’s energy security and economy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide thousands of union construction and permanent jobs in United States. The Keystone Pipeline would carry crude from Canada’s Alberta oil sands to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refining. It also would include an extension to carry Bakken crude oil from North Dakota.