Keystone Kop serving as president

President Obama continues to pander to left wing environmentalists who have no intention of doing what is best for the American people or the environment. His decision to block the Keystone pipeline was calculated entirely on a reelection strategy and not on creating jobs for those looking for work.

If you ask (almost) anyone in this country if they would rather import oil from Canada or OPEC, the answer is simple. Even Obama’s job council disagrees with his decision not to mention the Washington Post which is dumbfounded at Obama’s reasoning.

?Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,? the council reported, ?is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.?

It added that regulatory ?and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.?

Mr. Obama?s Jobs Council could start by calling out .?.?. the Obama administration.

When jobs matter, Obama is focused on reelection. I wonder what creating 20,000 jobs would do for the American economy, not to mention those state economies on the pipeline route.

Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen ? with long-term trends in the global market, it?s far too valuable to keep in the ground ? but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude ? just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn?t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

So the gist of Obama’s pipeline decision is that the USA will continue to import this amount of oil from the middle east, while Canada can do business with China, and American citizens lose out on much needed jobs.

35 Replies to “Keystone Kop serving as president”

  1. toga

    Obama (and Tim Johnson) is an absolute disaster. This would benefit South Dakota.

    I can’t wait to see how Varilek spins this issue. It is pointless for any Democrat to run as long as Obama holds the keys to this country. He is taking us off the cliff.

  2. Stan Gibilisco

    We’ll get the pipeline eventually. The Republicans baited the President, and he took it. Now the Republicans can let this great propaganda fodder go to waste.

    1. Anonymous

      It was a bad move by the GOP to push this thing into a corner. They didn’t get the pipeline and they got screwed on the payroll tax cut.

      So far they aren’t doing so well against Obama.

      They also raised the debt ceiling and didn’t get anything for it accept a failed super committee. Obama got his increase though right?

      Can’t stand Obama.

  3. caheidelberger

    Let’s review:

    —Keystone XL does not create 20,000 jobs (or the 130,000 that Kristi Noem hyperbolically claimed yesterday).

    —Keystone XL does not put more oil on the U.S. market. It’s whole business case is based on getting that oil out of the restricted U.S. market and onto the global market.

    —Keystone XL increases our gas prices in the Midwest. If it didn’t, TransCanada wouldn’t build it. Remember: businesses exist to make money, not serve America’s interests.

    —Keystone XL uses eminent domain to take land rights from Americans and hand those rights to a private Canadian company for private profit. It is the Kelo v. New London decision all over again. You conservatives hated Kelo, but now that the beneficiary of eminent domain is Big Oil, you stay silent and set landowners and property rights adrift.

    Anon above is right: the GOP lost big on this issue. The GOP set the arbitrary deadline; the President had a statutory obligation to say no, since the complete review of the new route could not be completed in 60 days. Saying yes without that updated review would have been a dereliction of duty.

    1. Anonymous

      I love how you pretend to be for a new route and wait for a pipeline to be aproved. Cory you are against this pipeline not because of these false regulations and concerns but because you don’t like oil. If it was my choice I’d run it through heidelbergers back yard.

    2. duggersd

      Cory, I am not saying Keystone will put more oil in US markets. US markets will put more oil in US markets. Keystone is only a way of supplying that oil. You are on the wrong side of the supply/demand on this one.
      Which is better? To get oil from a nearby ally with a low cost transportation option or to purchase oil from somewhere overseas from perhaps a country who would like to do us harm? I think going with the ally is a win-win situation.
      If there were demand enough in the US to keep all of the refined oil, it would stay here; not go to China. This is a world market we live in. Whether Keystone is built or not, does not matter. The oil will be produced and consumed.
      A question one has to ask oneself: Is it in the national security interest to have a supplier of oil (or any other natural resource) from an ally who is relatively close to the refiner as compared to purchasing that oil (or any other natural resource) from a country that is not as likely to be “friendly”? I remember what happened when a certain group of countries disrupted our oil supply. With the strife going on in the Middle East today, it is even more likely due to war than due to embargo.

  4. caheidelberger

    Thanks, neighbor.

    I’ve never pretended on this issue. My position is clear. I don’t want this unnecessary pipeline to be built. I don’t want a single American landowner to be forced to allow it on his or her land. Barring that outcome, I want the safest route possible thoroughly studied. The first route was not the safest; it was the cheapest. (I’ve also never pretended by hiding in anonymity, no-name.)

    The job claims are grossly exaggerated. TransCanada’s own CEO admitted the long-term jobs are measured in the hundreds, not the thousands, certainly not the hundreds of thousands. Watch the job claims from the conservative media explode into the unsubstantiated stratosphere: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201190008

  5. caheidelberger

    But go ahead, anon. Getting your rocks off with cheap shots won’t change the facts as laid out by our own State Department:

    “Regarding economic, energy security, and trade factors, the economic analysis in the final EIS indicates that, over the remainder of this decade, even if no new cross-border pipelines were constructed, there is likely to be little difference in the amount of crude oil refined at U.S. refineries, the amount of crude oil and refined products such as gasoline imported to (or exported from) the United States, the cost of crude oil or refined products in the United States, or the amount of crude oil imported from Canada. . . .”

    “The analysis from the final EIS, noted above, indicates that denying the permit at this time is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment, economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term.”

    Every one of “Bill Clay”‘s, John Thune’s, Dennis Daugaard‘s, and Big Oil’s points in favor of Keystone XL is simply wrong. Every benefit cited is a myth.

  6. katzy

    Cory, don’t forget that OUR own state department is in reality Obama’s own state department. And you think anything they print is unbiased?? I have a bridge….

  7. Les

    While I stand more in favor of XL than against, my favor comes from the on ramp near Baker, Mt giving our local producers a better market.

    Anyone who says XL is designed for American consumption is repeating lies and rhetoric. The pumps at Cushing, Ok are being redesigned to haul crude south instead of bringing refined petrol products north. Most likely, America loses capacity from Houston.

    If you’re against XL, stop the dirty oil concept and get behind the real dirty business, eminent domain with a foreign counterpart. What next, the UN telling us no shotguns in the closet?

    If you’re for XL, there are a couple honest talking points, American jobs and economy IN the Basin, which can help our energy independence.

  8. mhs

    One silver lining: North Dakota liberal Heidi Heitkamp is tap dancing like crazy today. Her Senate campaign just got walloped by the loss of Keystone. She says she’s written a letter to Obama asking him to review the decision but is not distancing herself from the president. Yeah, right.

    Looks like that reliable Dem seat may be ready to go GOP this year.

    1. Rapid City

      If being schooled means dems in the midwest go down in flames in the general than I hope he and the big O continue to school us.

      I’d hate to be Brian Swietzer in MT, Claire McCaskil in MO, a dem in Nebraska, a dem in ND, SD. Obama pretty much screwed the D’s in the pipeline route.

      Keep schooling us Cory.

  9. troy jones

    Despite Cory’s selective facts (Canadian oil is counted as an import just like Middle East oil so it is correct “no more oil will be refined” but factually there will be more refined from North American sources vs. the Middle East) and his poor economics (won’t impact gas prices), the reality is both parties made a political calculations:

    GOP knew Obama would turn it down. They just wanted him on the record for the election.

    Obama believes it is good for his base. Politicians make two types of calculation (does it expand their base or does it solidify his base). Obama decided this on the latter which it does (ala Cory).

    My gut on the political calculation is Obama looked at the question with regard to popular vote and not electoral college vote:

    1) In “base” states (states that will go Obama or against him no matter what), this decision has zero political impact.

    2) In swing states (Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri), this will work against Obama. They have two realities: Large non-government union workforces which are for Keystone and they are heavily industrialized which depends on low energy costs for prosperity (vs. knowledge industries where energy is a low percentage of cost of operation).

    Obama loses two of the four states I listed above and there is no calculation re-electing him. In the end, the ultimate irony is Keystone will be the death knell of Obamacare, liberal control fo the Supreme Court, class warfare and ultimately it will get built.

    I LOVE KEYSTONE! It is the gift that will keep giving!

  10. mhs

    I don’t know Troy. Yes, it’ll help hugely with the Congressional races, but, we gotta have a candidate that can compete on the top of the ticket. I’m just flabbergasted at today’s news that Romney has $30mm + parked offshore. He’s been running for president for six years now and still just doesn’t get it. This week has just be a trainwreck on personal issues he should have had nailed down years ago. I can’t tell if it’s hubris or just sheer incompetence as a candidate.

    I think the party should think real hard about a game plan focusing on Congress and not an all-out effort to unseat Barry. We can at least minimize the damage for the next four years that way.

  11. troy jones

    Romney is proving a point though. American can’t compete internationally unless we do something about top tax rates. We keep sending capital and jobs overseas and nobody asks why: TAXES.

    But, you are right. He has handled this horribly. Think it will serve as a wake-up call.

  12. Anonymous

    Troy, I don’t believe that Obama won Missouri, so there is no loss of electoral votes there. Ohio’s prob a bust for Republicans, due to Kasich’s unpopularity, which leaves Penn and Michigan. Truth Be told, President Obama could lose plenty of states he won last time (Indiana? No way), and still win. This decision is purely political, just like the decision to put a timeline on the decision by the republicans’ was. This whole southern belle online fainting contest is amusing to watch though.

  13. Anonymous

    The pipeline jobs aren’t needed in the Dakotas and we’d probably be better off without them. The economy is strong and there’s many business looking for the same type of workers and can’t find enough right now. These companies have solid, good paying jobs. There are even companies that would like to expand, if they had a guaranteed workforce. If they can’t get workers, they risk losing customers and market share, so this is an important time for them and for our long-term outlook. And no, these aren’t two bit jobs, they are good jobs with long time South Dakota companies with a good standing in their communities.

    The pipeline work would be a temporary bump for the nearby retail businesses and that’s about it.

    1. duggersd

      Can you give an example of a company that would expand if it knew it had a workforce? If the company is looking for a certain skill set, perhaps it could look at the various universities and tech schools in this state. If you are telling me these companies are offering good jobs but cannot find people who will take them, I am interested in knowing what the people in SD are missing. It cannot be just numbers because there are plenty of people who will change jobs for 50 cents/hr.
      We have a school in which most of the graduates go out of state to get employment. SD School of Mines has great graduates, most of whom go to another state. My own daughter is studying to be a chemical engineer there. She has been told she will probably have to go out of state to get a job in her field. I just have a hard time buying your statement, but am interested in reading some facts.

    2. Anonymous

      No, I’m saying it would be more beneficial to South Dakota in the long if the workers that would work on the pipeline, would instead go to work at these companies. And it could hurt these companies if the pipeline takes away workers from them.
      Most of these companies are working with the local community and education systems to build a workforce, both short and long term, but it’s a constant struggle. We need to build a workforce within the state and attract more workers from out of state. Trail King in Mitchell, MFG in Aberdeen, Raven Industries are a few examples.
      I’m comparing the pipeline jobs. I don’t know about chemical engineers, but there are more than just blue collar jobs out there.

  14. Anonymous

    When Keystone I was built, how many temporary jobs were created? How many permanent jobs were created? I’ve looked and can’t seem to come up with a definitive answer.

    I don’t mind the delay if it means we end up with a better plan with respect to safety and less taking of private land by a foreign company.

    Are we at least using US steel in the pipeline? How much US steel was used in the first pipeline?

    Troy makes some good points, but I’m guessing that his “I LOVE KEYSTONE!” has more to do with political talking points than any actual economic or energy policy impact.

  15. Anonymous

    The BS is going to run faster than the Tar Sands crude on this debate. Does anyone know if there is a trusted source for information that doesn’t have a political axe to grind?

  16. Anonymous

    How many Canadian troops were in Iraq when we were fighting for a more stable Middle East? When we were spending our blood and treasure they were right by our side…right?

  17. Oldguy

    What a lot of people are missing is part of the deal with this pipeline was going to be several portals in North Dakota to dump their light crude in. Three that I knew of we’re Stanely,Willeston, and Dickenson. Now they are planning to use more trains which add $2 a barrel to the cost. BNSF hauls over 70% of the oil and Warren Buffet owns that so it looks like he is going to make even more money from this.

    1. Les

      There was one on ramp or portal into XL as you call it close to Baker Mt Oldguy, XL wasn’t near those other areas.

      Trains are cheap compared to all the trucks bringing it in. Might bring the rail back as oil moves down through SD, Wy and into Co.

      GOP is showing us how to gittr done huh? Politics over responsibility every time. To me this will help guarantee another 4 years with the Kop at the helm.

  18. Anonymous

    ND and SD NEB will vote republican no big deal to dems as they wont get these states any way plan is get the ones with the big votes.

  19. Anonymous

    Some truth please?
    Are the folks of Western SD for or against the pipeline?
    Are the folks of Southeastern SD for or against a refinery?
    Are folks for or against more or less oil?

    Saying one thing and doing another makes reality hard to define.

  20. Elais

    Why on earth is there talk about Obama’s decision on the Keystone pipeline costing him his re-election? It doesn’t appear that the general population cares all that much about the pipeline. I suppose if the GOP had worked some angle that gas prices would plummet to 99 cents a gallon if the pipeline were built, there would be more public outrage over this.