So President Obama decided not to approve the presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline project, but is open to reconsidering if TransCanada, the company that wants to build the pipeline, applies again with a different route.
When analyzing policy decisions, Cicero used to ask his fellow Roman senators, "Cui bono?" It's Latin for, "Who benefits?" Amidst all the spinning in Washington, it is worth asking the same question about the Keystone decision. Let's review the players:
President Barack Obama: Obama has made it clear that he won't be bullied into making a decision by congressional Republicans, who imposed a deadline on him in legislation to extend a temporary payroll tax cut until the end of February. Obama threatened to veto that bill, but signed it anyway. So now he has complied with the law, but exercised his right to reject the permit. As he heads into negotiations with Congress over another extension of the payroll tax cut and an increase in the U.S. debt ceiling, the president has stood firm.
And yet, the president is open to reconsidering the pipeline. He told Prime Minister Harper that it was a decision "without prejudice." Is Obama against Keystone until he can be for it (safely) after 2013?
Republicans: All of the GOP presidential candidates support the Keystone pipeline, and congressional Republicans do, too. The president didn't give in to them, rejecting the Keystone permit.
Or did he? Congressional Republicans wanted to force Obama to take a position against Keystone so they had proof that he would back environmental special interests over jobs for Americans, not to mention lower energy prices. In an election year likely to revolve around economic issues, this ammunition will help Republican candidates to contrast themselves with the president and Democrats.
Environmentalists: Environmentalists praised the decision as a blow against Big Oil but if approval of the Keystone pipeline is only delayed, it sounds more like a love tap for Big Oil, knocking them off schedule, nothing worse.
If the Keystone XL pipeline is never built, the United States will continue to import Canadian oil -- just not as much of it, and more from other suppliers. The larger question of U.S. dependence on fossil fuels is not addressed by a decision to not purchase from one supplier, but by a reduction in demand.
Canada: The United States can decide what oil it wants to buy and from whom, but Canadians are the ones who will decide whether to develop their oil resources, whether to export that oil, and to whom. And if the United States won't buy more, there are plenty of customers in Asia. Japan, India, Korea, and China all have growing economies that depend on imported oil.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has strongly backed the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline to connect oil fields in Alberta to the Pacific Ocean, where it could be shipped by tanker. This project is expensive because its route crosses the Canadian Rocky Mountains, and native groups with rights to the land along the route have not agreed to allow it yet. Without Keystone, there will be greater momentum to build the Northern Gateway pipeline instead.
Environmentalists oppose the Northern Gateway pipeline just as vigorously as they oppose Keystone -- Harper recently complained that U.S. environmental groups have been pumping money into Canada to finance opposition to this project as well. By delaying these pipelines, environmental groups hope that they can slow the flow of Canadian oil onto world markets, and thereby increase the price of oil
worldwide -- making alternative energy economically more attractive.
Big Oil: Yet higher oil prices will also make oil pipelines more profitable, and so Obama's decision on Keystone will accelerate progress on the Northern Gateway. Since the Keystone debate isn't over, opponents will have to fight on both fronts in hopes of slowing Canadian oil production. Oil producers are likely to end up with two new routes for their exports. Harper has made clear that Canadians won't be victims of U.S. politics and will defend themselves with Northern Gateway, a route to more willing customers.
And so the winner is...
China: China is the fastest growing oil customer of all. As China's economy keeps growing, per capita oil consumption will grow as well.
If China benefits, does the United States suffer? Not necessarily. It would not be good to deny China the oil it needs, and thereby become an enemy for Chinese growth. When western powers imposed an oil embargo on Japan in the 1930s as punishment for the Japanese invasion of Chinese Manchuria, the result was Pearl Harbor.
Besides which, if Canada can ship oil to China, then China will have less reason to seek oil from Iran or Sudan. No one worries that if China buys Canadian oil, it will subvert the Canadian government, or worsen the Canadian human rights record. From the United States' perspective, better to have China become more reliant upon friendly countries than unfriendly
ones.
On the other hand, more oil consumption by China represents a loss for environmentalists. If Canada can't sell more oil to the United States, it will sell it to China and other Asian markets. Environmental standards in Asian markets being lower than those in North America, the net effect will be more carbon emissions per barrel of Canadian oil produced, not less.
Who benefits? The only certain winner is China. Yesterday's decision brings China one step closer to being able to access Canadian oil, at no cost to them. As the Huffington Post's Althia Rajreports, Stephen Harper will use his visit to China in February to promote Canadian oil. Canada may yet come out a winner in today's Keystone decision, too.
The remaining question is how President Obama's Keystone delay will affect the U.S. elections later this year, when American voters weighing all this will pick the ultimate winner.
Follow Christopher Sands on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sandsathudson
Maude Barlow: Enbridge: You're On Notice
State Dept. Blocks Keystone Pipeline Project | Fox Business
Obama rejects Keystone pipeline from Canada to Texas - for now ...
Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Permit | Fox News
Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline - US Business ...
Obama administration to reject controversial Keystone pipeline - The ...
... there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines. “Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?”
A license to invade?
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=403d90d6-7a61-41ac-8cef-902a1d14879d
Under the NorthAmerican Security & Prosperity Partnership(Agreement) Canadians personnel information has already been shared. Those on pensions see it on their forms, your info can be shared with the US .. IRS ; Border Security ; Police Services.
Canadians are now under surveilence in many other ways electronically.
Did you know that Harper has given the USA armed forces carte blanche access to Canada, no questions asked?
Check it out in the National Defence Act.
http://publicintelligence.net/canada-command-usnorthcom-civil-assistance-plan/
http://stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/canada_us_relations.htm
to con't...
Chinese company Sinopec, a majority-owned subsidiary of a national company, paid $4.65 billion for Houston-based ConocoPhillips' stake in Syncrude. What makes this deal significant is that under the terms of the deal, the state-controlled Sinopec has a veto on the critical decision of whether the company should upgrade bitumen here or export it in raw form overseas.
In January 2011, Enbridge announced Sinopec's funding of the $5.5-billion Northern Gateway Pipeline.
Thailand's state-owned PTTEP who bought a 40-per-cent stake in Statoil's Kai Kos Dehseh project for $2.3 billion. "Statoil is a Norwegian company whose largest owner is the government of Norway, with 67 per cent of the shares. Under the terms of the deal, Statoil remained the majority owner and operator of the project, which ends up being a Norwegian-Thai, public-private enterprise developing Albertan energy resources."
Korean National Oil Company that took over Calgary's Harvest Energy Trust for $4.1 billion ($1.8 billion in cash and $2.3 billion in assumed debt). The deal allowed the Korean state-run company to grab an estimated oil production of 50,000 barrels per day (b/d) and 154 million barrels of oil-equivalent reserves. "In 2006, the Korean firm set up an office in Calgary and purchased the Black Gold Oil Sands leases near Conklin. These leases gave the company 10,000 b/d of bitumen for about 25 years."
PetroChina now owns 60-per-cent share of Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.'s giving them a majority share in a company with access to more than five million barrels of oil.
http://pushedleft.blogspot.com/2012/01/when-is-foreign-money-and-influence-not.html
Too quick on the draw. As predicted by many, Harper is bluffing. Trans Canada is already working on the re-application for approval after the 2012 US election.
Automobiles were the bees-knees in 1930; now it seems humanity will be dead before they will. Oil has been a source of corruption and nothing-but since its monopolization by the greedy. Were it properly considered a resource/hazard for all of humanity's consideration, most people would be saying "it's time to move forward". At least I would...time is running out.
Of course they'll continue to buy from Canada. They need it; they'll buy it — and since we're right next door, there's less shipping and handling, which means a lower cost. They're not gonna get in a snit over this. They cant afford to.
Think that one through.
And if they do complete the Pacific project, why can't Canada still sell the oil to the US just as they would to China? There are after all a number of Calif refineries.
They have money to invest.
There was no other reason to terminate the pipeline at Texas refineries (and non-union ports on the Gulf Coast) otherwise.
Trans canada. The Keystone pipeline actually would end up at refineries owned by the nefarious, influence peddling Kochs, who have an obscene record of environmental violations themselves. It's an ugly, ugly business.
That's interesting. Canadians already sold the right to develop the tar sands. In my mind that suggests that Canada has already made it's decision and that's that. The oil belongs to whoever develops it. So unless the Harper government decided to nationalize Canada's oil in the last 48 hours, average Canadians actually have very little say about any of this. Besides, every drop is going into a global market. Lower energy prices? Says who? The Saudis and the Russians don't have to take a price drop when they can just reduce production to balance out supply and sit on their reserves while we spend ours. To pretend that Canada or the US are somehow independent of a single global market controlled by a handful of multinationals seems delusional. At any rate I haven't noticed "Canada's" oil resulting in a price drop here in Eastern Canada, where heating oil is at a four year high. Perhaps I'm missing something. And perhaps foolish pride is not a prudent response.
Keystone's oil was not destined for the US market anyhow. If it had been, Kansas City could have refined it. Instead it was headed for the global market at the Houston shipyards. This way, China gets to pay a gazillion dollars to pipe it over the Rockies to the Pacific, where it will still go on the global market. Either way, Canadian oil will either bring down or stabilize global prices and add the planet's oil in transit. This way, China foots the bill. Cheney couldn't have planned it better.
Bottom line: we will require large oil import volumes for the foreseeable future and I'd rather buy from my friends in Canada than support nasty regimes in other parts of the world.