So far unconfirmed, but Fox News’ White House correspondent Ed Henry is tweeting that the State Department will announce today that it is not going forward with the Keystone XL pipeline.
Great timing, considering the president’s “Council on Jobs and Competitiveness” just released a year-end report calling for an “all-in approach” to energy that allows “more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands.”
The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.
“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the report says.
The report retreats slightly from an interim report released in October that addressed the Keystone XL pipeline directly. The interim report appeared to offer cautious support for Keystone, calling on officials to “balance” environmental protections while realizing what it called the benefits of the pipeline.
More here.
UPDATE: Washington Post now also reporting State will put the kibosh on Keystone, but that it will “allow” TransCanada to reapply with an alternate route that bypasses environmentally “sensitive” parts of Nebraska.
I'm...I'm speechless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow, will the Republican candidates bring this up, in debates, ads or otherwise? Will Mitt Romney, who Republicans know cannot win against Obama (according to Rep. Nancy Pelosi), have the guts and wisdom to constantly remind us of Democrat "anti-oil-for-America" shenanigans such as Ms. Pelosi shutting down debate on additional drilling in 2008 when our American countrymen were being choked by rising oil prices?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou forced his hand. And instead of letting the due diligence take place you forced him into a decision. And he chose NO.
In the words of the great Nelson Muntz
HAHA
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNow it becomes an uncomfortable campaign issue for Obama. HA HAAH!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's one way of looking at it. The correct way of looking at it, of course, is that he cowardly wanted to punt the issue past the election. He was forced to do something other than voting present. The poor guy was forced into a decision. It is his decision, if these reports are true, and he should proudly say so. Then the voters can decide.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama's response: It takes a lot of time to adequately study the impact. Without that time, we do not know what that impact is. Not knowing the impact, I will not approve the project. It was the Republicans in the House who took away that time.
pretty easy ju jitsu here and the overall salience of this particular issue on the campaign to come is pretty negligible.
Also, it's another example of Obama turning directly into the GOP fire at every instance possible starting in December 2011 continuing thru the election... it will in fact help fire up his own base.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood. The public wants it and understands that we need it. It provides a very potent argument why he should be promptly replaced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is like voter-ID...an argument that I am happy to loose temporarily to highlight the insane, unreasonable, and unpopular positions of the Democrats.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>it provides a very potent argument why he should be promptly replaced.
I suppose, if the republicans were to make it, but they won't. So what will they do? Nothing. Obama has already tested them several times and found them wanting. Republicans go to congress to make deals with democrats. Guess what, the democrats do not want to make any deals. Oh, the republicans could cry a lot, they're good at that, but that is it.
Guess elections have consequences, right NR?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf true, this will be a boost to the eventual GOP nominee, particularly if the price of oil goes up, which is almost certain over the next 10 months (Iran tensions, Global QE etc.) If the economy starts making any real positive moves, you'll see it skyrocket, quickly knocking down a strong recovery. The optics are terrible, and I'm sure we'll get some nonsense about how many years it would take to build so it wouldn't help us anyway.
It's disheartening from a policy perspective, but the only way we're going to really move forward on becoming energy independent is by removing Obama from the White House.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf this is the President's decision, it will add fuel to the fire already burning, i.e., that there is a total disconnect between what he says as Candidate Obama and what he does as President Obama. If Newt Gingrich and other Repubilcans would stop aiding and abetting Democrats, we might have a chance to get Obama out of the White House and save the Republic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"route that bypasses environmentally “sensitive” parts of Nebraska."
Really? In Nebraska? Who knew.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Who knew"?
Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the issue. I, for one, have no idea who is correct - Keystone or Nebraska - and therefore have no idea whether the pipeline should be rerouted.
I note, however, that the usual knees are doing their usual jerking in the comments on this post. Pipeline proposes project. Approve. No environmental analysis required.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's some seriously slow reaction time on your opponents' knees. Three years of study on the environmental impact, and you're still hollering "Knee Jerk!"?
Good thing there's nothing like that on the Left side of the aisle. They hear the words "oil" and "pipeline" and rationally go about weighing pros and cons, right?
The only decision Obama had to make was: Which lobbying group can I irritate and do the least amount of damage to my campaign -- the Unions or the Environmentalists? Guess you have your answer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was referring to the original post and the comments on that post. They were void of any discussions of the issues at hand. Your discussion contained a scintilla of content.
And if you don't like my knee jerk analogy, how about this: the bell rings, they drool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo review? several Fed agencies have done huge reviews over the past four years, and found no severe impacts. Also, are you aware that there are already 25,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines crisscrossing Nebraska?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHas no one posting here at the Corner ever heard of the Ogallala Aquifer? It is only the largest body of fresh water in the world outside the great lakes. Almost all the fresh water used by the entire population of Nebraska comes from this aquifer.
If a Canadian oil company wanted to build an oil pipeline over the top of your fresh water supply I'm sure you'd be at least a tad worried about it, no?.
But hey! We're conservatives, let's drill for more oil. Screw those farmers and their water rights! A foreign owned oil company is more important than them, and Obama's left-wing environmentalist and that's all I need to know about this issue!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBecause this is the first time man has ever built a pipeline and has no clue how to build one that doesn't leak and has no incentive to not let the valuble contents of the pipeline not leak. We should probably not allow roads, houses, factories, small petroleum production wells, cities, gas stations, pesticide use in Nebraska, either. Or any piplines. oops, too late.
Let's see...and aquifer 174,000 square miles in area vs. 50-foot easement (guessing) times several hundred miles over areas where the aquifer is 50 to 300 feet in depth.
Not sure how a pipeline interferes with water rights unless a farmer wants to sink a supply well in soil directly beneath the pipeline. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no proposal to drill in Nebraska, at least not related to the XL pipeline.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA perfect example of giving Obama enough rope...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo this is the result of the republican "big win" last year as part of the payroll tax ectension? I thought for sure..the big corner they wanted Obama to find himself was having to explain how its not in the National Interest. I guess this is another example of republican genius: Force the Administration's hand on Keystone for giving the OK on payroll tax extension. Scorecard Obama +2 Republicans
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse