Source: Obama to fast track southern portion of Keystone XL Pipeline
Protest against the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline in front of the White House on August 30, 2011
March 20th, 2012
05:00 PM ET

Source: Obama to fast track southern portion of Keystone XL Pipeline

President Barack Obama plans to announce in Cushing, Oklahoma, on Thursday that his administration will expedite the permit for the southern half of the Keystone XL pipeline, a source familiar with the president's announcement told CNN.

In January, the Obama administration denied a permit for the 1,700-mile-long Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would stretch from Canada's tar sands development to the U.S. Gulf Coast. That decision was met by persistent Republican criticism that the president has not been doing everything possible to create jobs and combat high gas prices.

Late last month, TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL Pipeline, announced it would move forward with the process to build the southern half of the pipeline, which would begin in Cushing - the president's third stop on his two-day energy tour. The White House praised the move.

Senior administration officials would not confirm the president's plan to unveil the effort to cut red tape for the project, though one senior administration official acknowledged the need to deal with the glut of oil in Cushing, where oil from the Midwest hits a bottleneck as it is transported to the Gulf of Mexico.

"On Thursday, the president will reiterate his administration's commitment to expediting the construction of a pipeline from Cushing, Oklahoma, to the Gulf of Mexico, relieving a bottleneck of oil and bringing domestic resources to market," a White House official said.

Such an announcement would no doubt be met with opposition from environmentalists, many of whom spent weeks protesting the Keystone XL project outside the White House late last fall into the early winter, before the administration announced its objection to the pipeline.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner balked at the idea that President Obama could claim credit for speeding up the approval process of the southern segment of the pipeline. “This is like a governor personally issuing a fishing license,” Brendan Buck said. “There is only a minor, routine permit needed for this leg of the project. Only a desperate administration would inject the President of the United States into this trivial matter. The President’s attempt to take credit for a pipeline he blocked and personally lobbied Congress against is staggering in its dis-ingenuousness. This portion of the pipeline is being built in spite of the President, not because of him.”

Next entry »
soundoff (712 Responses)
  1. Migraine

    So why does the oil have to go to the gulf. It can't be distributed through out the states from the border?

    March 20, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
    • TomFuLarry

      The Gulf States is where the bulk of the refining infrastructure is located. There's the bigger problem of distribution of the final product: gasoline. The infrastructure to deliver gasoline to the East coast is limited so any "surplus" gasoline is Latin America. Yes, folks, don't bet on the price of your gas lowering anytime soon. The XL Pipeline is only going to benefit Big Oil, yet again.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm |
      • Fred

        Heyu Chuckles... The gas from this pip[eline os going to China... always was going to China, and always will be going to China... You would sell out the entire North American eco system to put gas in Chinese engines...fool.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
      • John Patterson

        Big oil is shipping thousands of gallons gasoline overseas while we pay high prices..Anyone that looks closely at this can see that the oil companies and wall street are behind this all the way. Make Obama loo bad and bilk the American people. Win Win for the Robber Barons.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
      • Tom


        March 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
      • Tom

        Don't get so worked up about this. If the oil gets to the south coast it will be a considerably cheaper starting material than Brent North Sea (+$20/barrel less), meaning cheaper gas in the southern tier states at least. If they can load it on a ship it can just as easily go to the East coast as to South America. Wherever they make the most profit is where it will go. If it goes to South America, that is cash from outside the US coming in and circulating in our economy ( A good thing yes?) If it goes to the East coast gas is cheaper there (also a good thing, Yes?). Don't sweat the small stuff and try to think Globally. More environmentally sound oil and gas [roduction the better for the economy and us.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
      • lloyd

        tomfularry is correct...none of the canadian oil is gonna benefit the american gas prices even if we took all of it...we dont have the refineries now to handle the glut of oil we have, so this additional oil will add to the load we already have on our refineries...we havnt built a new refinery in 30 yrs....our oldest refineries cant use dirty crude, they only use brent...the newest ones (30) yrs ago use all forms of crude...these are the targeted refineries....they are not the ones we normally get gas from....we process foreign BRENT crude for our gasoline....plastics etc come from all sources

        March 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      • Kaycey31

        That really is "Tom Foolery." Oil prices will immediately go down merely on the announcement of fast tracking the lower Keystone XL. The futures market and speculation control some of the pricing of oil. Another determining price of oil is quantity. If you don't buy that, then just wait and see. It's a short wait.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
      • John

        Hence the problem of not noting a wart on the end of one's nose as it has been ther for so long...

        America is seeking employment opportunities and there standing before you in her glory-obese she may be-,the construction of refineries, storage facilities, support structures for said refineries, and the multitudes shall come.

        Works just as well with schools, churches, roads, employment direction facilities and on and an......

        Get off your duffs and go to work America!


        March 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
      • Bernardo

        Why of course oil pipelines benefits big oil, as does all transporting of oil. I say we just shut down all drilling and transportation of oil – because it all benefits big oil. We could go back to the steam engine.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
      • alpg49

        Yes, once again, the Republican mantra: Freedom is for big business. Your ovaries belong to the state.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
      • massbytes

        More like Canada. Much of the glut in Cushing is from the oil sands oil.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
      • @home

        Big oil is exporting more and more gas.. The keystone pipeline is such a political joke... its just another example of the death grip Corporate America has on the country.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:14 pm |
      • pogojo

        Why cant we create a national oil?? run for the people, by the people, no export. use our own resources,, if we can give 40 billion to Brazil for them to start drilling why can't we do so for ourselves?

        March 20, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
      • Michelle

        Talshar summed it. So it can be shipped overseas.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
      • mickey1313

        the fact this oil is not going to be 100% american is sick, F CANADA. We fight 2 wars for oil, and the price goes up not down? F THE GOP

        March 21, 2012 at 12:41 am |
      • pogojo

        Why cant we create a national oil?? run for the people, by the people, no export. use our own resources

        March 21, 2012 at 12:42 am |
      • Scott

        You have your facts wrong. There are several refineries in Texas particularly that have the capacity to refine this oil and produce gas. They then sell it on the open market and not strictly to Latin America. The U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, China... all will be buying this oil and gas.

        March 21, 2012 at 1:33 am |
      • Konadreamer

        Agreed. The oil companies will do whatever it takes to keep prices high, which in this case is to restrict the availability of refined products like transportation fuels. Gingrich is an idiot if he thinks drilling will make a difference.

        March 21, 2012 at 1:42 am |
      • GW

        Yes, brilliant, lets flood the US with cheap gasoline so that everyone can drive around their SUV's with smiles on their faces. How about letting the oil go to China so they can put their refineries to work.

        March 21, 2012 at 2:00 am |
      • acdcguy

        There is this thing called the Colonial Pipeline that ships thousands of bbls a day of finished product (gasoline, heating oil, ulsd, jet , kero) from the gulf coast refineries to terminals throughout the south east, usac and finally into New York Harbor. From there, can go out by pipeline to east PA and northern NY or barge to the new england area. So, no, XL pipeline will not be used for export only, it will be another source of crude for the refineries and hopefully help cut back on their foreign imports. Won't be much but will help!!!

        March 21, 2012 at 6:22 am |
      • helen1233

        The XL pipeline is not going to reduce the price of gas

        March 21, 2012 at 6:26 am |
      • stan

        do you think the folks in latin america just are sitting there with cars that have no gas in the tanks, waiting for the keystone pipeline? NO. they are buying their gas elsewhere right now. meaning if they buy keystone xl derived gas in a few years, the sources they previously would have been buying from are now free for other customers. such as new york city.

        oil and oil related products pumped, refined, or produced in the us do NOT have to be sold in the us to affect the market here. gasoline is a global commodity. the more of it for sale globally, the less it costs, globally.

        March 21, 2012 at 7:00 am |
      • neil

        Someone must have changed his telepromter speech, he is like afly ina jar

        March 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm |
      • Ed

        Why doesn't Obama push Congress and the Senate to pass a bill that all oil and oil products that are produced in the United States must be sold in the United States? After all most oil produced in the U.S. comes from public land leases and imported oil from Canada should be used only in the U.S. Obama could actually lead and actually do something that just might help reduce gasoline prices. Thee are many solutions to any problem – we just need leaders that are willing to lead.

        March 22, 2012 at 9:09 am |
      • setnommarih

        The we should build another pipeline to the east coast, thereby creating more jobs and delivering gas to consumers.

        March 22, 2012 at 9:23 am |
      • ndTimmy

        @John Patterson you need to learn how economics works a little bit. Finished goods are set by the raw goods it takes to make it. Just because we have a surplus of gasoline doesn't mean we can drop the price of gas. You would be a fool to do so. Gas prices changes when the raw good oil changes. That is the easy way to put it, yet it is a little more advanced then that.

        March 22, 2012 at 9:41 am |
      • Hawk in Texas

        The funny part of this is that the tar sands oil can not be refined into gasoline.all this stuff will be shipped overseas. and the koch brothers own a big chunk of the sand oil and the pipeline.

        March 22, 2012 at 10:18 am |
      • rage

        @ mark....the problem is that the republicans rejected a plan to use only American materials (steel) and American labor. This will be constructed with Canandian labor(or Mexican) and Chineese steel. Canada says "Thanks for the jobs!"

        March 22, 2012 at 10:34 am |
      • Rachel

        This will not reduce the price in oil per barrel. The problem is that our dollar isn't worth anything anymore. When the Federal Reserve threw out the gold standard, we screwed ourselves. Why do you think we overthrew Gaddafi? He is one of the top 5 people with the most gold reserves in the world. There are so many things people dismiss as conspiracy theories. Watch this video, about Wesley Clark saying we were going to attack 7 counties in the middle east in the next 5 years? You think all of this is a coincidence?

        March 22, 2012 at 10:37 am |
    • Edwin

      They have refineries at the gulf, and they can fill ships there for export, since this oil was never intended for U.S. consumption.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
      • talshar


        But it's a smart move for the President – let them build pipeline in the US for the (few) jobs it will bring, while they continue to plan a route around the ogallala aquifer.

        Remember the reason this project was stopped to begin with is because the GOP governor of Nebraska – asked for a new route around the aquifer.

        The state depart was required to address this concern and did.

        The whole project is still a charade and will do nothing to help the US. It's only meant to drive up the price for Canadian tar sand by getting it to a larger market overseas instead o glutting the domestic market.

        It's amazing – the number of people who don't get this, and listen instead to anything an oil company tells them.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
      • Oil Trader

        You are correct talshar on the last posting you made (you have posted lots) let me see if I can clear things up a bit more. Actually after reading the rest of your posts I see I don’t have to since you seem to have caught just about everything regarding this charade. It’s really nice to run across someone who knows what’s going on instead of the clueless trolls grinding an ax for a party that they are just as clueless about. Good job, you must be a trader or are involved in the industry, whatever your connection to the oil industry you do seem to know what you’re talking about without any kind of political spin that I could see…

        March 20, 2012 at 7:40 pm |
      • xsgovt

        Even if all this oil is meant to go to China I am all for US EXPORTING something to China.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
      • Sybil

        The whole job creation thing is hugely exaggerated – and even more so is the notion that the U.S. will get much of it – or result in lower prices That's why it is going to a Gulf port, for Pete's sake! Valero there will do the special refining of this corrosive, thick, messy tar into diesel to be shipped to Latin America and Europe. The GOP-T's, ever ignoring the facts in their fact- impervious bubble, are selling this song and dance act to their gullible true believers. Obama concedes here – in spite of petitions gathered a few weeks ago in 24 hrs – of 800,000 signatures against the Keystone XL. We were somewhat mollified that, at least, it does not yet include the Ogallala Aquifer – which Trans-Canada has agreed to re-route around. Overall, our corp-ocracy win$ while our environment and we Americans lose. Obama's political move for Oklahoma votes is NOT COOL.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
      • MattyJ

        All I can say is that the Gov of Nebraska is a smart man. Our ground water is just as important if not more important than oil, and if you think that this pipeline is 100 percent safe you are kidding yourself.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
      • DHarri

        The Keystone pipeline is going to be set up to distributed to 3 points Oklahoma, Illinois, and Texas with 3 expansion points built into the pipeline to service other points when the time comes. Pipeline distribution is the cheapest, safest and fastest way to distribute oil. Points along the East Coast require delivery by either train or ship which there are many points of disbursement as with many buying off an existing pipeline that runs from Maine to Texas its been being used for years. The name of that pipeline slips my mind at the moment but various distributors/branded products are purchased all the time via pipeline. For gasolines once refined the Shells, Chevron, Sunoco's all put their additives into the gasolines to make it theirs so again once refined in the US different companies will bid for the product off of the pipeline. We need to produce and use domestic products or keep paying the global market prices.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
      • thomas

        I also agree. If this oil was strictly for the U.S. this pipeline would be headed toward the Pennsylvania refineries instead of WAY DOWN from the north of the country to the south in the Gulf. If it was going to Penn., this refined gas could be truck very easily to the Eastern Coast. The logistics of going from the North to the Gulf to be truck BACK up north would be ridiculous. The only reason for bypassing the Penn refineries and going to the Gulf is to have the oil shipped from there to all over the world. Which would not help any oil prices except for Alberta which would have the same price as the rest of the world once that oil is shipped to where ever.

        The only thing the American people are getting is a BIG PIPE cutting our country in half from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
      • Ashley Cooper

        Won't more oil in the WORLD MARKET cause world wide oil prices to go down? I know many of you nay sayers don't believe oil is a supply and demand commodity. If not, why did the price of oil IMMEDIATELY start dropping when Reuters reported that the US and the UK were going to release oil from their strategic oil reserves? More supply on the WORLD MARKET means lower prices!

        March 20, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
      • duckforcover

        Seems to me, it would be easier and cheaper to build a few refineries than a 1700 mile pipeline. Is it just me?

        March 20, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
      • william

        alot of people are saying once this oil gets to Port Arthur Tx it will be refined then shipped to china,well folks there is one problem with this Port Arthur Tx has a small port romal it can barely take a ocean going tug,much less a super tanker from china..

        March 20, 2012 at 11:26 pm |
      • njmoderate

        Some of he Keystone oil from Canada is due for refining in Illinois. That's not near the Gulf.

        March 21, 2012 at 6:36 am |
      • njmoderate

        Some of he Keystone oil from Canada is due for refining in Illinois.

        March 21, 2012 at 6:37 am |
      • rage

        Don't forget: this pipeline will not be built overnight! The Alaska pipeline took 10 years to complete!

        March 22, 2012 at 10:45 am |
    • RC Roeder

      Simply because they have the oil refining plants, the oil that comes out of tar sand is not usuable in it's raw form.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
      • talshar

        ^ false. there are plenty of refineries in the US, you don't need to get to the gulf for that.

        You need to get to the gulf to ship the stuff overseas.

        You guys continue to get played by big oil,like babes in the woods.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
      • skarphace

        talshar: true. There are such refineries in Montana. However, the people in Montana care about their environment a bit more than the suckers from Texas and know how much air polution that refining this cruddy oil will produce. Therefore, it has to go to Texas to be refined.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
      • Karen McKay

        There's not much oil that is usable in its raw state, and many of the east coast refineries are closed or closing. Duh!

        March 20, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
      • Jj

        Thos president is a joke. Why did he block it in the first place? To satisfy the tree huggers. Now it's election season and he is getting hammered on this issue. This president leads by sticking his finger in the air. This election is gonna be interesting to say the least..

        March 20, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
      • skarphace

        Jj: you just keep hugging your guns and your bibles. I will stick to my trees, thank you very much.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
      • xsgovt

        Wrong. The reason why it has to go to the gulf for refining is because they have the only refineries that are setup to refine this weight of oil.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
      • xsgovt

        If you know anything about refineries, you know that the refining process is very different for all types and grades of oil. In this case, the refineries on the coast are setup to refine this type of oil whereas, the refineries in the interior of the country are not and would need major changes to accommodate it.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
      • Jonathan

        Literally all oil is unusable in its raw form. This oil is not intended for U.S. distribution. It is intended for overseas and this is the easiest way for Canada to get their oil refined and shipped out.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
      • sameeker

        Why not build refineries in the Midwest to make it easier to distribute the gas? That might even create some jobs. The repugs don't want that. They want the pipeline so that the oil can be exported through the gulf. Death to big oil.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:12 pm |
      • GloriaJL

        Yup–that's right. The U.S. initially tried to say anything produced from the pipeline would have to be sold in the U.S., but that went nowhere. They want to sell it to whoever will pay them the most. If it's such a great deal, why doesn't Canada just pipe it over to their western ports??? They can build their own refineries and pollute their own air, land and water. Canada is smarter than that. They don't want that sh... going across their lands.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
      • lou50

        well skarphace you keep hugging your trees but where you have your head prevents you from enjoying them!

        March 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
      • Brad

        From what I have read, the reason behind the keystone pipeline going all the way to the Gulf, is because a large number of the refineries in the Gulf are located in foreign trade zones, which allows Canada to export oil to the world without paying US taxes. This is just another example of political corruptness. And I would be willing to bet that there are both Democrats and Republicans who got a nice handout from Big oil, to make sure this eventually passes. The oil is going to be exported regardless if the pipeline is created, so the argument that by not building the pipeline less oil will be pumped into the world market, thus increasing the price of gas, is ludicrous. Maybe one day people will wake up around here and vote out the puppets both republican and democrat and finally elect someone who will represent the people and not some corporate entity.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
      • Chris R

        JJ something to keep in mind is that the Republican governor of Nebraska actually pushed to have the pipeline moved as well. The feds couldn't ram it down his throat in this case without it creating years of delaying lawsuits between the state and the federal government. So the State department was brought in and ended up siding with the Republican governor.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:38 pm |
      • Chris

        If the ignorance of the public weren't so damaging reading these posts would be funny. Unfortunately, many of you vote (Democrat of cour). I'm not sure where to even begin with these posts but, in no particular order....
        1. All refiners who can run this crude in the Midwest already are. Therefore it has to move further to find a home. Since about 50% of US refining capacity is on the Gulf Coast, that is where it has to go.
        2. By law and executive order (depending on the time-frame), no crude can be exported from the US. There are very limited exceptions (small amount of CA production, US crude to Canada, etc) but no material waivers have been granted in decades.
        3. Since the US imports ~10 million barrels per day, no one would export it Canadian anyway – ships going out would be sailing past those coming in!
        4. Gas prices are high due to growing demand into places like Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Pakistan, Vietnam, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia. Surprise surprise, these are countries with growing populations and subsidized prices.
        5. Refiners make relatively little producing gasoline. It is not a coincidence that the refiners shutting down are the ones without access to Canadian crude (Philadelphia) while the refiners expanding (Chicago) do.
        These are facts that can be easily verified in about 10 minutes with Google.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
      • sixback

        First of all. There is NO TAR in the Canadian oil sands. Why can't you southerners get this misconception out of your heads!

        The northern portion of this KS pipeline will be mute for Canada anyways when the Northern Gateway PL opens up. The northern border fracking states will benefit a lot more from KS than Canada.

        I'm just waiting for the US Govt announcement that they are going to allow fracking overtop of the Yellowstone Coldera. I'll be hitchhiking to Antarctic when that happens.

        March 20, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
      • viknat

        scarphace- Keep hugging your trees using trains to bring the oil down is about 1 mpg unless Obama pushes for electric trains LOL, using trucks is even worse for the enviroment and tankers are the biggest users of fuel to transport fuel.

        March 21, 2012 at 8:27 am |
    • rick

      Because that is where the refineries are located.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm |
      • Rowdy

        Talshar is wrong there are only Three oil refineires in the US that rfine oil to gasoline the rest are ULSD plant that rfine to Ultra low sulphur desial fuel!

        March 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
    • John

      How? By truck? Are you stupid or something?

      March 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
    • David

      The oil is shipped to the Gulf because that is where the refineries are located.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:34 pm |
      • run4est

        Again the EPA, no refinery has been built in the US in 30 years ( thirty) to handle this refinery situation and the companys can not get a permit to due so.. The EPA is the real problem here and the biggest job killer.

        March 21, 2012 at 4:46 am |
    • Dan

      Because the large refineries with technology capable of handling that crude are on the gulf. Perhaps you would like a refinery near you, or are you a NIMBY person?

      March 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
      • Uncle Musty

        Had a refinery by me. Dang thing kept blowing up and spraying crud into the air. The state finally closed it down. It was nasty.

        March 21, 2012 at 2:28 am |
    • skarphace

      The Canadian people are against the prospect of refining that oil in Canada since it would create horrible air polition. It is very dirty oil and would create a large environmental hazard to refine, not to mention to pipe.

      So they would rather that the dirty oil be refined in the US. Do you blame them?

      March 20, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
      • Sin1ster


        March 20, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
      • Dave Rable

        wrong. The oil as it comes out of the tar sand is so thick it cannot be pumped any great distance. It is partially refined close to the source to remove the heaviest portion (asphaltene, i think) and the resulting oil is considered light sweet crude, which is easily sold on the open market. Some will be further refined in Texas, some will be exported. Depends who is the highest bidder.

        most Texas refineries are designed to refine high sulfur oil, which is cheaper to buy. It makes sense to use our high sulfur oil, which costs less, and then sell the more valuable light sweet crude and bring revenue in. It's all dollars and cents.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:51 pm |
      • JDS from Canada

        That would be an overgeneralization. Although we as Canadians care about the environment, the reason bitumen or oilsands will get shipped south is based on economics. We do not have refining capacity and the cost to build upgraders/refineries is very high. If our oil is not wanted in U.S., it will get sent to Asia instead and because pollution is somewhat global, there is little net benefit to not accepting it (apart from potential oil spill while in route which is of course significant). If not Canadian oil, then Saudi oil? or Iraqi oil? or Venezulean oil? Russian oil? In 2008/09 the U.S. had an amazing opportunity to prepare for the inevitability of returning expensive oil but instead choose to go back to its old addiction to cheap oil rather than work to develop alternatives and strategies for reduction. It is not your President that is the problem, it is the large portion of the population whose arrogance and short sighted stubbornis which may hurt us all. Behaviour changes before attitude. Good luck.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
      • Cobra

        You talk like you have a hole in your head besides the pie hole.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
      • gtp

        Lets get real, Canada does not have the refining capacity nor the demand for all their oil, if the US wants the oil they need to refine it. Currently you are refining unfriendly oil from the Middle East.
        Which oil do you want?
        Friendly cousins north of you or adversary , cartels and unfriendly?
        BTY most oil company in Canada are owned by the US
        Now if you do not want it from Canada, there are other options for us Canadians

        March 20, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
      • dirty dirty oil

        What an incredibly uninformed statement. Canadians are refining that oil right now, 24 hours a day. I know because I work for a company in Canada that tracks that oil, or natural gas, from the well to tap. Separating the oil from the sand it one of the most energy intensive parts of this oil, so by your reasoning Candians would leave it in the ground and go after cheaper oil from the ground.

        Also, it doesn't matter where the oil is refined. The carbon released from the energy required to refine it goes into the atmosphere and becomes a global problem.

        If you want to know why pipes are going from Canada to the US and China ,maybe you should look at who the two biggest energy consumers in the world are.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
      • Rick

        Actually Canada has only refinery capacity on the east coast– the oil is on the west side of a very large country - with little or no pipe capacity to these refineries.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
      • Kaycey351

        Technology changes daily. The refining of the tar sand oil will produce no more pollution than refining other types of wellstream. Kool Aid is obviously the beverage of choice for extremes on both sides of the aisle. To answer the question of WHY the oil is shipped to the Gulf Coast rather than other refineries across the US. The answer is because the Gulf Coast has the 6th, 8th and 9th largest oil refineries in the world. When building one pipeline to refineries would you build the line to a small refinery? Sooooo much misinformation and ignorance in this blog. With the internet available to glean accurate information some people still prefer ignorance.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
      • DHarri

        Hey rocket scientist the refineries in the US are already in place and can handle that type of production from a money perspective why would Canada want to invest billions into building refineries to reduce their ROI, duh.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
      • Roby

        Gas is made somewhere? Or is it magic? Maybe I can get a magic car which runs on magic fuel.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
      • EQ8Rhomes

        As an Albertan, I see the refining as a shared effort. Sure we could refine it all here, and create Canadian jobs, but how do we export very large quantities of gas and diesel from inland here? We refine some for ourselves and export crude–which , in terms of volatility , is safer to transport. Sorry, we can't use ocean tankers for refined fuels. Railroad or pipeline it is.

        March 20, 2012 at 11:08 pm |
      • Skydance

        Actually, the Canadian people (of which I am one) would like to have our own refining capacity increased. many are asking why are we continuing to ship the oil elsewhere to be refined and then have it come back at twice the price. If we had the refineries here, then we wouldn't be paying the Americans to do it for us. Perhaps you should be reading more Canadian news than making assumptions.

        March 20, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
      • mickey1313

        to true, cobra is a fool. Canada should do 100% of the refinement, THEN sent the GAS thru america. Do not use us as your dumping ground.

        March 21, 2012 at 12:45 am |
      • Bob

        Why do we have to do the dirty work for Canada. Let them build their own refineries and keep thier dirty ass oil!

        March 22, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • Dom

      Unless i'm mistaken, no one said anything about distributing the oil throughout the states. It's still Canada's oil.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
      • Matt

        Aye but if we don't build it they will sell their oil to China and Canada not the Middle East is our #1 oil provider.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
      • TheBob

        Canada is the 51st state. What do you mean "it's Canada's oil"? Canada's anything belong to the US.

        March 21, 2012 at 3:30 am |
      • mike

        @thebob LMFAO who do you think you are "Canada is the 51st state". Nothing of ours belongs to you, dont you ever forget that. The biggest fallacy in the world is the mentality that you can just roll over Canada and take or do as you please. Dont you ever forget that.

        March 21, 2012 at 8:29 am |
    • Spencer6k

      Why didn't they just build a small refinery up there close to the oil sands if there is so much oil there. DER DA DER

      March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
      • P. Travis

        Thank you! My thought EXACTLY!!!!!
        Leave my State (NE) out of this pipeline mess....

        March 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
      • Dave Rable

        There is already a surplus of refining capacity. Building another refinery would only make that surplus worse.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
      • keldorama

        There are many refineries in the midwest being used by TransCanada Oil. In fact the refined product that is being produced is causing a glut in many midwest states, which has kept the price low. Once this surplus can be piped to the Gulf, people in those midwest states will be paying MORE for gasoline, not less.

        It's got nothing to do with the location of the refineries; unless you consider their proximity to deep water ports. Oh and Latin America.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
      • Kaycey351

        .........because as much as 830,000 barrels per day will flow through the pipeline. The only refineries large enough to handle a volume of that size are located along the Gulf Coast in Baytown, TX., Texas City, Tx., and Baton Rouge, La. A "small" refinery cannot handle the volume, and construction of one large enough would be far more expensive than the pipeline. Maybe the oil companies plan to intentionally poison our water supplies and kill all of the wildlife in our country because they hate humankind!!! NOT Federal and State taxes total over 5 times the profit of the oil companies from a gallon of gasoline.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
      • Jt_flyer

        I'm guess here but because then you have to truck the gasoline.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
      • Michelle

        There are many refineries in Calgary, but it's a lot more toxic than crude oil.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm |
      • theNashRambler

        You think its hard building a pipeline, try building a refinery.

        No one wants to approve them. So we expand the ones that are built to handle more capacity.

        March 21, 2012 at 1:58 am |
    • Kimo

      It's Canadian oil going to China and elsewhere so you need a port. That's the joke about "domestic oil". Our oil companies sell it on the world market and don't give a rat's patooti about who the customer is. That's why gas at the pumps is so high at the same time that US oil companies are enjoying record profits.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
      • Jeff

        I really wonder if some of you can point to China on a map. Why would you send oil to the Gulf when you can send it to port in the Pacific and shave thousands of miles and dollars of expenses?

        March 20, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
      • mickey1313

        That is why we (america) needs to nationalize all of its oil resorces, take it back from evil companies. Charge companies 10 dollars/gallon, and citizens 1 dollar a gallon. Since they myth of oil peaking has been proven false it is stupid our oil cost so much.

        March 21, 2012 at 12:47 am |
      • setnommarih

        This pipeline going over the aquifer thing is bogus, we have hundreds of thousands of pipelines all over the place. Once in a blue moon one may spill some oil. With pressure sensors, etc. leaks can be pinpointed and automatically shut the pipe. If it is a world market, then bringing more to market will reduce prices. Gas is high now partly because speculators are betting on Obama's foolishness & political tricks.

        March 22, 2012 at 9:55 am |
    • Ja-Coffalotte

      cause the oil ain't going to the USA dummy

      March 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • frontrunner64

      Because the oil is not meant for us and never was. This is oil that is going to China, which is the intention of the Canadians...

      March 20, 2012 at 7:02 pm |
      • Scott

        IF WE pump water over the mts. to Calif., then why can't the Cannukes pump THEIR oil sands over THEIR mts. to Vancover?

        March 20, 2012 at 7:29 pm |
      • ModerateThinker

        Canada has a commodity to sell, if we won't buy it, they'll sell it to someone else. With that said, Canada would undoubtedly prefer to sell it to the US. Period. Don't drag them into our issues.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm |
      • TG

        Why on earth would we (Canadians) send oil all the way to the gulf then to China from there. We will just build a pipeline straight to the Pacific coast, put it on boats, then to China. It's called the Northern Gateway pipeline, and thankfully Obama has absolutely no say in whether we build it or not.
        That's beside the point, the oil dosnt even belong to Canada. It belongs to the company that took it out of the ground. They only care about one thing. You can sure as hell bet that it isn't lowering gas prices for Americans.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
      • Melissa

        Yep, it is export. Research Canadian Oil and Keystone. All jobs created will be short term temporary.
        Canadian firms behind it say it will supply Gulf Coast export markets
        “Over the past five years, exports from the US Gulf Coast have soared as refiners sitting in tax-free zones near Port Arthur, Texas, have shifted production away from gasoline and toward higher-margin diesel. Since 2007, overall US exports of diesel and other products have jumped 134 percent, the US Energy Information Administration reports. Of US exports, two-thirds is shipped abroad from Gulf Coast refineries – now more than 2 million barrels a day and up from just a quarter of today's level a decade ago.
        That trend was captured in testimony Sept. 17, 2009, before Canada’s National Energy Board. Seven Canadian companies were willing to pay higher pipeline tariff costs for using the Keystone XL pipeline, the testimony showed, in order to bypass Midwest refineries by sending 500,000 barrels per day, the lion’s share of the pipeline’s capacity, to Gulf refineries.”

        You can't rebuild an economy on temporary jobs.

        Lots of oil – drilling all over Canada – gas nearly $5.00 a gallon.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
      • Skydance

        The oil that will eventually go to China will be shipped via a different pipeline to Vancouver, and then to China. It won't be going through Texas. Do your homework.

        March 20, 2012 at 11:42 pm |
    • switters

      This oil – 'bitumin oil' from tar sands – is the heaviest (won't float on water) foulest, dirtiest crude known – no refineries in the US can refine it – China will buy it – we can't use it.

      The GOP didn't mention any of that did they.......

      March 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
      • Dan

        please don't try to pass on fact for something you clearly know nothing about. The refineries on the Texas gulf coast can process heavy crudes, including the bitumen from the Athabasca oil sands. It is the SOLE reason they need to build a pipeline, because no one along the route or in Canada wants to build a new refinery.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
      • JEnSTL

        Switters, Why r you blasting the GOP, Your President is expediting it

        March 20, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
      • Sybil

        Valero in Port Arthur will refine the tar sand oil to diesel. That has always been part of the deal, and what a deal it is! Valero will profit nicely, and since Port Arthur is an FTZ ( foreign trade zone), they won't have to pay taxes. I have read, too, that we will get little if any of the refined diesel in the U.S. After all, it's being sent to a port for a reason! It will be shipped to Europe, Latin America and yes, possibly China, for use as diesel and in various products. The GOP-T's have sold us a bill of goods and your representatives and senators thank you very much for believing their scat. You'll find they are much richer men (in pay-offs) while our own gas prices, pocketbooks, employment and environment suffer.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
      • lies and hate from the right

        There is a refinery in southern illinois that can handle the bitmit also 400,000 barrels per day ,bitmit cheaper than crude but have prices dropped. No. more profit but yet they the refinery cut our wages almost 5%. Is this fair?

        March 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
      • Kaycey351

        Your very brief post was comprised entirely of lies and misinformation. I recommend that you research a topic before you type such crap. Keep in mind there are others out here like you who believe anything that they read or hear as long as it fits their political agenda.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:18 pm |
    • Rob Robert

      Because it can beloaded on ships and taken to china its not for us

      March 20, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
    • Gore84

      Let's just get out of the middle east !
      Come on folks.
      This is not a blue or red issue.
      This is good for the whole country.

      So Prius owners, go back to SF and enjoy your farts.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:42 pm |
      • setnommarih


        March 22, 2012 at 10:09 am |
    • xsgovt

      I used to wonder why this country spends so much time trying to stop the production of oil when the price is steadily rising and all of the so called "green" energy alternatives have failed miserably. Then, I read the shear stupidity in these comments and now I know why. The liberals in this country are complete morons and obviously do not understand the first thing about oil production and distribution. First off, there are already 100's of pipelines currently in operation and one more is not going to do anything but create jobs (something democrats seem to be scared of). Secondly, since you idiots cant let this pipeline be built, they just use trains to move it where it needs to go. These trains burn diesel that would not have to be used if they could just pipe it, but understand the oil will go where it has to with or without our help. The only difference is that we will not get the job benefits and the added train transportation cost will keep the price from going down. Finally, the best for last.. Those hybrids you drive still use gas and if you don't buy it from gas stations you will buy it from the electric company and thanks for polluting my environment with those lithium ion batteries that do a lot more damage to the environment than oil ever did.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
      • setnommarih

        couldn't have said it any better myself, sounds like a bunch of cookie cutter statements from Obama kool-aid drinkers.

        March 22, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • paladin kinight

      The reason is it being brought to Port Arthur, Texas is because the Keystone XL pipeline is to connect to 6 refineries there owned by Valero. At least 3 of these refineries are already exclusively fitted for exporting the oil extracted from the tar sands. Any questions?

      March 20, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Coflyboy

      So it can be shipped to the rest of the world, not America top lower gas prices, as many Americans may have been mislead to believe.
      The real travesty here is that this oil will take 30% more energy to refine from the tar sands. More greenhouse gasses and pollutants for Americans to breathe. But it's OK, big oil and GOP will be lining their pockets with cash, not you or me.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:08 pm |
    • Rowdy

      The Oil has to go to the gulf becuse thats were the refineries are and if the US would build two new super refineries we would never see gas prices above 2.50 a gallon thats the main reason gas prices are so high cuse our oil goes overseas to be refined and brought back to the US Becuse our old antiquated Refineries Cant handle Production Requierments

      March 20, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • lies and hate from the right

      So big oil can sell it to foreign countries

      March 20, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
    • lies and hate from the right

      So big oil can profit even more by selling to world markets china,india, etc.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:33 pm |
      • John

        I find it funny that none of the liberal dems that sided with BO about not letting the pipeline happen have not posted here.
        Justin said it best...

        March 21, 2012 at 9:41 am |
    • jhande

      hi, the oil is wanted at the gulf coast, specifically Port Arthur Texas, because the refineries are in Foreign Trade Zones. Foreign Trade Zones allow import, export, and manufacturing, tax and duty free. oil can be refined, and exported, without any taxes/duties. Port Arthur has a brand new (taxpayer funded) oil import/export terminal. in the event that the entire keystone xl pipeline were built, the port of entry into the united states would be in a Foreign Trade Zone. the canadian heavy crude would be imported into the united states tax/duty free, refined (or not) tax/duty free, and exported tax/duty free. The keystone xl pipeline would allow the shippers and refiners to avoid all taxes on this oil.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
      • setnommarih

        So aren't you all saying that the "world market" sets the price on the one hand and then saying adding output will not help on the other side. Sounds like someone I know who talks out of both sides of his mouth AT THE SAME TIME.

        March 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • kennewick

      Canada exports about 1.7 million barrels per day. The US imports 12 million barrels per day... it is being piped to the Gulf because that is where the refining capacity is. a lot the crude from the gulf, imported from mexico and middle east are refined in the area.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
    • B4Cons

      it's not meant for the US ... it's going to China .... the two best friends of the GOP... Big Oil and China.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:42 pm |
      • Ashley Cooper

        Don't you mean China . . . best friend of Obama? Since China is financing a great portion of the massive multi-TRILLION dollar debt that your president has racked up in a mere 3 years and 2 months on the job?

        March 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm |
      • theNashRambler

        Good, I hope it does go to China and I hope it costs them $25 Yuan ($4).

        March 21, 2012 at 2:05 am |
      • wthoma01

        Friends of the GOP?

        March 21, 2012 at 8:25 am |
    • Kineor Not

      You missed where this oil is going. It IS NOT for the US, It is to make big oil bigger money EXPORTING.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
    • @home

      It goes to the gulf because it will get exported there.. Anyone that thinks the Keystone pipeline will lower gas prices is seriously uninformed.

      March 20, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
      • setnommarih

        first it has to get there, then everones theories will be disproved and acknowledged. so far everything is conjecture.

        March 22, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
    • angel611

      All of that oil will be exported, mostly to China..

      March 20, 2012 at 10:45 pm |
    • Dude up here

      The price of gas can not be fixed by politics unless they lower taxes. The oil that is drilled for is not owned by the taxpayers, it's owned by big oil companies who sell it for the highest price they can get and are making record profits with tax subsidies on top of that. If china is willing to pay 125 a barrel why would big oil sell it to Americans for less? The more we produce in north America the more oil private companies have to sell to china. The pipeline from Canada was about getting oil to the gulf so they can refine it and ship it to other countries. 

      March 20, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
    • Bruce

      The irony of the Keystone pipeline is that it will INCREASE PRICES in the middle of the country. RIght now, since there is a glut of oiil there, they have to sell it at a lower price. As soon as they can ship the oil to the gulf, the prices will shoot back up. The GOP and BIg Oil have so many fooled. Keystone will actually raise prices in the US, and can potentially contaminate the largest acquifier in the US. Who needs clean water anyway?

      March 20, 2012 at 10:59 pm |
    • bspurloc

      CANADA wants to send it to the Gulf to be REFINED they do not have the capacity to refine it. after they get it refined they want to sell it to Europe etc.... however if u listen to the gop and fox they will neglect to tell u this... according to them this oil is OURS not canadas....

      March 20, 2012 at 11:30 pm |
    • mcivilsurveyor

      Perhaps you could have a glance at google earth, the location of this resource and the nearest coastline? – due west –
      however the citizens of Canada refuse to allow the installation, and inevitable polution of their above grade natural resources.
      Most interestingly and not even mentioned or considered, this project is prominently defined by the requirement of every land owner effected by easement rights to be compensated at the same rate, relative to square footage, eminent domain prefails again, any other considerations are going to be forbidden!
      How about we demand that a percentage value of lifetime use – say every cubic measure is worth a value directly tied to the value of the dollar, which is how they price their product?

      March 20, 2012 at 11:48 pm |
    • mms55

      it's going to the gulf to be put on the world market it will do nothing for us or the gas prices.

      March 21, 2012 at 1:48 am |
    • captcorajus

      For God's sake. People are such sheep. This tar sands oil is not for the American market... its going to the Gulf of Mexico so it can be shipped to the ASIAN market. No new jobs created, and no relief at the gas pump. Complete and total Republican BS, and I have to say, I'm disappointed in Obama on this.

      March 21, 2012 at 2:32 am |
    • Mr. Know it all

      Uhhhh, because that's where the Refineries are.

      March 21, 2012 at 4:09 am |
    • 4merRepubCT

      The oil does not belong to the U.S. – it's for the global market. The idea that this will somehow drive down our gas prices is ludicrous, and only accepted by the uninformed.

      March 21, 2012 at 5:17 am |
    • neil

      Its where the refineries are dorothy

      March 21, 2012 at 11:19 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 12:29 am |
      • Jimh77

        Did you in fact read what you posted? If you did. I give up.

        March 22, 2012 at 12:36 am |
      • JamesOnThePotomac

        Did you come from the shallow end of the gene pool? Go do your homework before putting out this kind of BS.

        March 22, 2012 at 7:58 am |
    • JamesOnThePotomac

      The US hasn't built a refinery in years and most of the existing refineries are on the Gulf coast. Cushing OK has essentially been the "clearing house" for all US oil going to market for ever and a day. Why? I don't know, but that's the way it is

      March 22, 2012 at 7:56 am |
    • Merlin

      Well if the environmentalists didn't move a lawyer from California to South Dakota to tie up the new refinery that was ready to be built with permits in litigation, the keystone pipeline could have terminated there instead of another 1200 miles south. All the oil from Montana and the Dakotas could have gone there as well.

      March 22, 2012 at 8:08 am |
    • Weldon Gebhard

      Any product in the US is a plus for the US.
      Pipelines are much, much safer than any other kind of product transportation. Did you know that solids such a coal are shipped via pipeline?
      A finished product, finished in the US is a plus for the US
      Every product is effected today by the World market. Always was always will.
      Last and Least the President is using this issue to pander to political activits and the unrealistic Green energy merage.

      March 22, 2012 at 9:48 am |
    • Bob

      I hope day day these greedy oil bastards will have to eat and drink oil after they have destroyed all our natural resources.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:08 am |
    • Bob

      These greedy oil bastards will not be satisfied until they destroy the artic, the boreal forest and all of our wilderness areas. I hope one day they will have to eat and drink their oil!

      March 22, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • HerpyDerp

      Isn't the oil market a World market? The prices of oil skyrocketed when countries like China and India started exploding with production and entered the oil market on a grander scale. The bidding war began and prices skyrocketed. The bidding, along with speculation on the market have drove costs up over the past few years. Regardless of where this oil ends up it is entering a global market. If China buys this oil it is less Middle Eastern oil they will be buying and consuming. More oil on the market means cheaper prices, however, the amount of oil from this XL Pipeline on the World stage would be a small amount compared to other countries who pump on a greater scale. Also, OPEC could just cut production to match the output of the XL Pipeline and keep the markets at the same supply level.

      This is how I've always understood the market. If I am wrong I hope an educated person can help me better understand the situation. Until then, I switched from my gasoline burning SUV to a Diesel VW Jetta and have been getting 43mpg and am rarely effected by $4+/gallon of diesel.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:41 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      I think the oil magnates conservatives strike against we the American people...again 🙁 The fact that PART or a branch of the oil pipe may be sold means our exports will increase our national income; also that gulf line is only a part of the total oil pipeline program, prioritizing a portion does not suspend the whole project.The writer gives it a repuke twist, a pretext to attack another initiative of our President Obama 🙁 those radical congresspeople and repuke demonstrators should go to jail. Actually, the revenues from oil exports would fund the construction here in the USA and create jobs for unemployed Americans.

      January 18, 2013 at 4:02 pm |
  2. JMoses

    I'm sure it will be expedited, but 10 to 1 it won't be approved by the election date. Gonna hear all kinds of stuff from this joker, since it is getting closer to election time

    March 20, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
    • Ted

      The jokers are teh ones who want this pipeline for China!! it has nothing to do with our gas prices. It's abouyt politicians caving to big business. I guess thisofficially means Obama will get re-elected since those teetering onthe edge will be happy he did a republican move.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
      • Ashley Cooper

        Won't more oil in the WORLD MARKET cause world wide oil prices to go down? I know many of you nay sayers don't believe oil is a supply and demand commodity. If not, why did the price of oil IMMEDIATELY start dropping when Reuters reported that the US and the UK were going to release oil from their strategic oil reserves? More supply on the WORLD MARKET means lower prices!

        March 20, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
      • dex

        they are sending it to china to get china off the iranian oil.... if china gets friendly with us and seeing us help them out..chian could sway russia and others to turn their back on iran... then able to get the green light to strike iran through the UN

        March 21, 2012 at 2:21 am |
    • ModerateThinker

      The likely of approval is slim for the simple fact that if the right cares only about power. The reason the Republican party has been "the party of No" is in an effort to make the President appear ineffective. They then "Spin" this in the media, blaming the President, to distract the masses from the fact that the best interests of constituents are being ignored and that that Republicans are to blame. They believe Americans are dumb enough to fall for this so they can take the White House. The question is, are we really that ignorant? Or will the country show them that if they want to win, they have to do they job they've been hired to do?

      March 20, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
    • bspurloc

      grats on not fact checking what foxnews and the gop told u... the Canada based Oil company even stated NUMEROUS times this is not for US consumption... and the workers to build it are their own mostly... it is NOT a gas changer nor a job creator.... but whatever grasp as straws cuz the economy is chugging along

      March 20, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
    • CTEd

      they also 'forget' to mention that the first section of Keystone that WAS built has had 12 leaks in 12 months.......It's nasty oil that is tough on the pipeline. Do we want to build this over the biggest drinking water aquifer in the US? Big Oil does, The Repbulcians do.... but the republican Gov of Nebraska doesn't... he cares about his constituents.

      March 21, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 12:31 am |
  3. GOJO

    Of course he'll fastrack the SOUTHERN half, that'll still give his pal and chief contributor Buffet plenty of business for Burlington Rail to carry oil down to that point and patronize the greenies, while grifting the unwashed 'working class' masses by saying "I approved the pipeline" out of the other side of his mouth and optimize his vote-gettin'.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Edwin

      He is fast-tracking THIS part because it isn't crossing a critical water supply for any state. The part across Nebraska was blocked by the REPUBLICAN governor of Nebraska for that reason - that's why it was in limbo, and that's why the federal government was forced to say no (because the required environmental analysis was not ready - it takes actual time to calculate the amount of damage from a major spill).

      March 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
      • Hugganoak

        Great comment, Edwin.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
      • AT2008

        Those shifty republicans.....always wanting clean water.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
      • Jim

        Facts be damned when it comes to republican arguments, but thank you for sharing this anyway. Not like the original poster your replying to will even care to read it, but it's good to know more level headed people out there than the conservative extremists. Only wish I could see the look on their dumb hate filled faces come November.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
      • Karen McKay

        Where did those revised routes go? The ones approved by Nebraska? Let's hear the environmentalists put a good spin on that one!!!

        March 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
      • janelle

        Actually, the State Dept, which has to do the study because it involves a foreign country, had all the information to do an analysis for 18 months before the President went on record saying 60 days was not enough. This administration just sat on it and didn't do anything with the analysis, then lied out their rear ends when push came to shove. This President thinks he can just say anything and the dumb masses will believe him!

        March 20, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
      • Joe

        Karen, the route through Nebraska is actually a duplicate of an existing pipeline (Keystone 1&2) with the same endpoints (but a different, less controversial route, thus why you've probably never heard of it). By completing the southern portion, the pipeline will carry oil all the way from the tar sands all the way to the Gulf coast.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
      • Sanity

        The Nebraska Governor has dropped objections

        March 20, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
      • lies and hate from the right

        Right on edwin you hit the nail directly on the head

        March 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm |
      • Jeff

        The Environmental Analysis was already done. TransCanada did its review and design and then the State department hired someone to do an independent analysis of the route. Unfortunately Hilary Clinton's old campaign manager is a lobbyist for TransCanada. The state department ended up with a report very similar to TransCanada's which, understandably, was biased towards TransCanada. As a result, no where on the line (in Nebraska at least) is there double walled pipe which would be beneficial at river crossings. On top of that, TransCanada used a best case scenario for every spill event instead of a worst case scenario which is obviously the point if you are analyzing the worst case spill event. The Pipeline was woefully under designed and people were upset about it. That is the original reason this fuss got started. There is a paper published by my old professor Dr. John Stansbury at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln that started this mess. The point is, the state department should have forced TransCanada to fix the design, move the pipeline, or both. Politicians shouldn't even be involved in this. Its an engineering problem.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:15 pm |
      • Concerned

        Baloney! In my opinion it's not a coincedence that Nebraska has blocked the pipeline. It has nothing to do with water and everything to do with Warren Buffet's recently purchased railroads. People there are thousand of miles of oil pipelines in the US that have been here for decades. When's the last time you have read about a major pipelline leak problem in this country? Put away your partisan political views and wake up idiots!

        March 21, 2012 at 1:21 am |
      • mms55

        thanks for explaining this for @gojo and other fox news lemings.

        March 21, 2012 at 1:56 am |
      • sandramac

        Thanks for the clear-headed, factual reminder for those folks who get too emotional about this whole issue. Its refreshing to have a shot of simple reality and truth in the midst of arguments that start getting off track.

        March 21, 2012 at 5:28 am |
      • Lizzie

        With ALL the OLD pipelines crisscrossing the US when was the last big spill?

        March 21, 2012 at 11:08 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 12:36 am |
    • jerry

      true... really a non event other than that.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:43 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 12:38 am |
    • Brad

      he is fast tracking it also because the northern half from canada to oklahome has allready been built (I know I worked on it from Hope, Ks to Ponca City, Ok in 2010) the Keystone we keep hearing about that our overlord denied is an add-on to the main line that is allready in place and pumping oil....hmmmm...funny noone ever reports about that now isin't it................

      March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
      • sadlyperturbed

        Since when does Kansas border Canada? I am just wondering where you studied geography because I think you are forgetting several states which would be where the "northern" portion of this pipeline WILL be. I don't care if you worked on some pipeline somewhere. It obviously did not make you an expert. You can't even figure out which way is north.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
      • Jason

        @ sadlyperturbed. I'm afraid Brad is correct on this one. The Keystone XL pipeline is and extension of the Keystone pipeline that already runs through several US States. It's a shame you put in all that effort at being an @ss and it was you who didn't know north from south.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
      • Joe

        sadly, Kansas doesn't border Texas, North Dakota does, where the original Keystone 1&2 entered the U.S., going through SD, Nebraska and onto Kansas and Oklahoma where the gentle commenter worked on that segment.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
      • Grant K

        He means he worked on that particular section from OK to KS. The don't use the same workers don't build every inch of the entire pipeline from end to end...

        March 20, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
      • idiotbuster

        sadlyperturbed – He's saying he worked on the portion of the pipe that ran from Hope, Ks to Ponca City, Ok – not that that segment was the entire line, moron.

        March 21, 2012 at 3:01 am |
    • TJ

      Obama had no need to "fast track" this project since the feds didn't need to approve the project in the first place.

      March 30, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
  4. 111karlquick111

    Humm.... So now the President decides to fast track the XL pipeline, totally admiting by this action that
    – 1) he CAN fast track any gas price reducing project he wants two;
    – 2) that the pressure on him and Chu from the people has finally exceeded the bribes from their green energy cronies;
    – 3) that he lacks all imagination because it takes VERY little to see how he could have done precisely this last December and looked like a hero for BOTH approving the pipeline AND protecting the wetlands in question.

    Forgive me for not being impressed. It demonstrates absolutely nothing means anything to him except his reelection to the Presidency. There is absolutely no logic to his flip-flops except "how can I win votes today?"

    What disgusts me the most is the fact that after his election, I tried to convince friends and family that the position would make the man, that he would rise to the challenge, see the long view, mature, etc.

    I was impressed with the economic staff he assembled, including the woman professor from Berkeley who just a year before had published a paper demonstrating that government spending has a long term negative impact on GDP. Apparently he hired her just to have her act as a front person, assuming he would be able to convert her and she would "see the light" ...go along to get along impressed by the power of "the man" and be intellectually seduced. She quit, as well as every impressive person he had brought on board, apparently discovering they were window dressing, incapable of advising the know-it-all.

    With incompetence and duplicity on the level we've seen from this administration, one wonders if Obama isn't just a few cuss words behind Blago on his way to poliltical oblivion (and possibly prison).

    March 20, 2012 at 5:31 pm |
    • CAWinMD

      Dude - what reality are you from? Obama has said all along that he didn't have anything against the pipeline. He said he wanted more time to study the impact in Nebraska because they hadn't picked a route yet. Republicans forced him to make a decision quickly, so he rejected that permit. But he's been saying all along that he's not against the pipeline per se. All this does is show that he was indeed correct in not being against the pipeline. Republicans can holler politics all they want, but when it comes right down to it, their playing politics with this issue is what got the permit cancelled. Maybe if they just shut up they'll get what they want.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
      • JEnSTL

        Isn't it Bush's Fault ? I dont think the MD stands for Medical Doctor, must be Maryland

        March 20, 2012 at 8:06 pm |
      • hinckleybuzzard

        The best hydro geologists in Nebraska have studied the region their whole careers, and have stated unequivocally for the record that the excuse you have believed in is bunk. The fact is thousands of miles of pipe already run across the sand hills region and have been perfectly safe for generations. When you uncritically suck down partisan soundbites you only end up passing around lies. You and scarphace and the other would-be sabateurs should stop doing that. Now.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
      • Michelle

        Similar situation just happened in Wisconsin with a giant mine. The Republicans wanted to fast track it and the Democrats wanted it studied.

        March 20, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
      • Gayla

        It took Obama less than 60 days to bailout banks and GM. It took less than 60 days to to file suit against Arizona and a few other states. It took less than 60 days to kill Bin Laden. It took less than 60 days to get Congress "fighting" each other. It took less than 60 days to push "Green Energy" and for the Solar companies to go bankrupt. It took Obama less than 60 days to to blame everything on Bush, the "Lazy" American people. This is just a few, so my question is why did it take more than 60 days to okay the Keystone pipeline? After all EPA had 3 plus years to okay it and had completed their investigation. So another excuse that the Republicans were forcing him into a decision I don't believe it. Why doesn't Obama just say what everyone knows. If the economy is doing good and the people don't need food stamps and unemployment because they have jobs, it would be impossible for Obama to control the American people and force his Socialist agenda on everyone. Are you sure that there isn't go to be one big CRISIS before the elections and he call Martial Law and becomes King of America like the Middle East Countries?

        March 21, 2012 at 2:58 am |
      • jubilirao

        To bring the prices down you need petrolium products not crude. Why unnecessarily trnsport the crude thousand of miles instead refine at the point of source. By building a refinery you can create more jobs than bulding a pipeline and you can avoid pollution on the way. You can ship the products wherever you want and can export even. There must be vested interests in promoting this pipeline without any benefit to anybody except spoil the environment on the route and will not have any effect on the gas prices or overall economy. A fair appraisal is required without any bias.

        March 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Ted

      He was immature from the beginning. He was fast-tracked into the Presidency before he was ready. he should have spent another 8-10 years in the senate maturing and learning and then run for President. The whole experience with him has been damaging to the United States and quite stressful.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:29 pm |
      • scared for future

        As opposed to Old Man McCain who has been in the Senate since the 1980s? No thanks.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
      • BJ

        Fast tracked by the American electorate....that.s called democracy. Small d and capital D! I really think many people who blather on about this project don't have a command ofr the facts. The canadian companies who own these fields in Canada have said as recently as a couple of weeks ago that the refined oil and subsequent gasoline is not for the US market. It will be sold, just as Exxon, BP and all the other petrochemical companies do on the international commodities markets. So forget the idea that this will somehow lower our prices at the pump.......isn.t gonna happen and those people who think it will are just sheep being led to slaughter.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
      • lies and hate from the right

        Mc cain crashed how many military fighters.he should have stayed in flight training for another8 to 10 years before he took to flying

        March 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm |
      • DJG

        Sorta like all that Senate and national leadership experience that Ronal Reagan had??

        March 20, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
      • YouSaid

        Your talking about Bush right?

        March 20, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
      • helen1233

        President Obama has been one of the best presidents we have ever had. He does what is right for the country, unlike Republicans who are led by big money.

        March 21, 2012 at 6:43 am |
      • FLIndependent

        Speak for yourself – I was "stressed" for the entire 8 yrs of the Bush Presidency with constant terrorists threats, horrific images from the Iraq debaucle, having a President that couldn't speak proper English and knowing the world hated us, seeing all our jobs go overseas, Dow plunging, 401K plummeting, etc. These past few years under Obama have been paradise in comparison!

        March 21, 2012 at 3:50 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 1:01 am |
    • Doug

      This pipeline will NOT reduce oil prices. It can't. Oil prices are set in international trade based on supply and demand. You might think - mistakenly - that the flow of oil through the pipeline will increase the supply and that will drop prices. It won't happen. Why? Two reasons: 1. The amount of oil is not enough to cause a glut (and if it did, the OPEC nations would cut back on their production, which would send world prices back up). 2. The biggest reason the oil will not be cheap is because the owners of the oil will sell it for as much as the market will bear, which puts us back to world prices. By the way, if American producers of oil wanted to help out the American public they would sell their oil cheaper NOW, but as we all know, they do not want to do that. Instead they are raking in record profits.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
      • J.Timmel

        Oil is a commodity, but the prices set on it per barrel is also determined by speculation. That means, if the flow of oil in the future is going to be greater, the prices go down. If investors believe there will less oil on the market the prices will go up. Oil prices spiked during Bush's presidency and he was able to cut them in half in a period of less than 2 months. Please educate yourself on these issues before posting. You won't appear to be such a pitiable obama kool-aid swiller to the world.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
      • KM

        More oil from American sources in American markets can reduce local market gas prices. The only unknown variabloe would be how much of a price reduction it would generate. The level of reduction would depend primarily on the volumn of gas produced as compared to outside volumn in local markets..

        March 20, 2012 at 8:44 pm |
      • Brent

        Actually you are very far off. IF the Obama Administration would open Federal Land and Anwar for drilling would have nearly 3/4 the World supply of oil. We already know we have more than 100 years worth under North Dakota and that number keeps growing as they complete additional analysis, there is more than 50 years worth under Anwar and untold resources under the East and West Coasts and shallow Gulf waters.

        Have you ever researched World gas prices? Saudi Arabia has THE LOWEST gas prices in the World – because THEY PUMP THE MOST OIL AND THEY HAVE LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT THAT IS SHIPPED OVERSEAS. If the USA were to open Federal Lands to drilling AND mandate that 100% of the oil extracted from those lands be refined and sold with our borders we would see a MASSIVE drop in the price of oil AND gas here at home.

        The problem with Obama is he claims there are no short term quick fixes for the price of gas... no crap! it takes time to find the oil, build a rig and start drilling. IF his stupid party controlled Congress would have opened Anwar 8 years ago we would NOT have had the MASSIVE upswing in gas prices, the recession would have been over years ago, and we wouldn't be as dependant on international oil. IF Obama wouldn't have closed offshore drilling and drilling on Federal Land we wouldn't be dependant on internation oil AT ALL.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
      • Ramesh

        The other factor nobody brought up is every step that reduces debt compounds its effect in making balancing budgets possible.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:53 pm |
      • Mike in Texas

        Brent, oil is a global product to have the U.S. govt. require all oil extracted in the U.S. has to be consumed in the U.S. violates the free trade principal and would never garner any Republican support because it involved the government regulating where the oil can be consumed or sold to.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
      • Bruce

        KM – There will be less oil in the markets once the pipeline is in operation. Right now, they have to sell it cheap in the US since it costs to much to export. Once the pipeline is built, they will ship it overseas and the prices will shoot up. The GOP will blame it on Obama, but it will be the plan made by BIl Oil. They are the ones that want high prices. The higher the better as far as they are concerned.

        March 20, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
      • ModerateThinker

        Thinking about the simple rules of supply and demand, the fact that the current supply of oil is higher today than it was three years ago (when gas was just $1.90); U.S. demand for oil is at its lowest level since April of 1997 and the reduced demand from China & India recently, prices should be declining but the unfettered activities of speculative oil futures traders has had a HUGELY significant effect on price, creating an artificial market of superficially high priced oil/gas.
        A few super-rich players with very deep pockets are placing huge bets on oil — and you’re paying for it at the pump. Ten years ago, Wall Street speculators controlled only about 30% of the oil futures market and today, they control nearly 80% of this market. Control of such a large portion of the market allows for easy manipulation of prices.
        Using common sense, if you think about the most likely political party affiliation of these speculators, you'll see that the rise in fuel prices is a planned event intended, in part, to sway political sentiments. If this is considered an acceptable method of manipulation by the right, are they worthy of your vote?

        March 21, 2012 at 1:41 am |
      • FLIndependent

        @J – "Oil prices spiked during Bush's presidency and he was able to cut them in half in a period of less than 2 months."
        Please enlighten us then on why the gas went over $4/gal under Bush? I remember him being shocked when he was told about it (talk about being out of touch). If he as President had so much control over the prices then why did they go that high in the first place?

        March 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 1:08 am |
    • Edwin

      I'm not sure there's anything I can add that the other two repliers didn't already say, but to summarize:

      1) Obama said no to the first part across Nebraska because the (republican) governor of that state objected to it. The environmental analysis (how many billions a major spill would cost, how many people would be killed or forced to relocate, how many thousands of acres would be uninhabitable for a decade or more, etc.) actually takes time, and Congress forced the president to make a decision before that information was available.
      2) This oil sand will be refined into oil, then sent overseas, whether the pipeline exists or not. It will not be helpful to offset gas prices, nor to offset the amount of oil we import. It was never intended for U.S. consumption.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
      • Hugganoak

        Who do you write for?

        March 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
      • YouSaid

        You know how those republicans hate those pesky facts.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • Walken1

      With respect to this reducing gas prices -

      The US is not Mexico or Venezuela where the oil industry is state-owned. Regardless of how much oil we produce, the vast majority is sold on the global common market where we have little to no control over the raising or lowering of prices that ultimately show up at the gas pump. In addition, let's just say for argument's sake that the Federal government approved every oil project on the books (and it has approved a lot of them – much to the dismay of envrionmentalists). The total output of that oil is still a very small percentage of what's produced globally – so any price reduction as a result of a global increase in oil production caused by increasing domestic production is still negligible.

      It's easy for politicians to say that President Obama's policies are causing prices at the pump to rise. They know people won't check their facts. The fact is that this president and any other president Republican or Democrat that we have can't do much to change the price of oil.

      If you want to reduce the prices at the pump, then lobby your state legislators to remove the gas taxes that many states have imposed (such as in California). But know that whatever state programs are supported by those taxes (building/repairing highways, education, etc.) are going to be gutted as a result.

      Above all, stay informed!

      March 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
      • skarphace

        I agree with all but your last point. The very best way to reduce the price of gas is to get people to sell their huge gas guzzlers and buy more fuel efficient vehicles. This will decrease the demand and will decrease prices. All other solutions merely feed our addiction to oil and do not solve the problem in the long run.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
      • J.Timmel

        You must be old enough to realize that Bush turned 4 dollar a gallon gas to less than 2 dollars a gallon by increasing permits and leasing for drilling. This didn't immediately put more oil on the market, yet it lowered prices. How, you ask???? The price went down because oil prices are also set by speculation. Nobody is speculating that America will be doing anything with it's vast resources with this president, so the prices will continue to devastate the poor working American. This isn't that complicated...

        March 20, 2012 at 8:37 pm |
      • Drake

        Where do you get your facts? Who are you writing for? Energy dept.? State? Media Matters? It's clear this blog is being trolled by very interested and worried parties.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
      • theNashRambler

        Another way you can reduce gas prices is to only buy a quarter or half tank at a time. Because of the distribution of the industry, it would be too costly to store billions of gallons of more gasoline if everyone would adopt this way of going about it, so they would lower the cost per gallon to get people to fill their tanks fuller.

        Another way would be to stop idling.

        March 21, 2012 at 2:16 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 1:21 am |
    • Ted

      Easier to tell your a Republican with out a brain, read the other comments, you're hate doesnt' justify my time. Conngrats for being in the 1% or your educations system failed you miserably!!

      March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Susie Beasley

      What are you talking about? Please for your sake, do just a little "research" at a public library and a institution of higher education. You will find out that the crude oil from the Keystone will not be refined for gasoline to be used in the United States. The fast-tracking for the Southern portion of the Keystone has "nothing" to do with the gas prices. Speculators and people yelling for war with Iran are 2 of the root causes of the spike in gas prices. Were you griping about the gas prices when they were $4.00 a gal during the previous administration?

      March 20, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
      • theNashRambler

        The prospect alone that more oil will be coming to market is the best way to get speculators to run for the exits.

        They will not bid up the price for future contracts if they think there is a possibility of increased supply at that future date.

        The keystone project would help in that regard.

        March 21, 2012 at 1:49 am |
    • Kimo

      Hey Karl. Try reading more and writing less. There is not much fact to be found in your diatribe. The price of oil is primarily due to Wall Street speculators and somewhat linked to supply and demand as well but 2/3 of it is sold to Wall Street so they effectively set the price. Note also that US oil is sold on the world market. We ship half of our oil oversees.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
      • theNashRambler

        So we actually have a product we can manufacture here in the states and sell overseas? And quite profitably?

        We'd better shut that down, it will ruin our "failing-at-everything" stats. 😉

        March 21, 2012 at 1:54 am |
    • Joe

      Pipelines don't increase or decrease the oil supply, they just deliver it.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
    • mms55

      do us a favor and go back to the fox web site.

      March 21, 2012 at 1:59 am |
    • Lizzie

      Pres.Obama said he will approve the pipeline before the election

      March 21, 2012 at 11:12 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 12:47 am |
  5. really?

    This part of the pipeline does not cross international borders, so is it really the decision of the White House?

    March 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm |
    • Dan

      Because it crosses states, which amounts to interstate trade. Fully within the federal authority.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm |
    • Obamas son

      technically no, but since this concerns interstate commerce there are a lot of actions a determined president could take to delay the pipeline pretty much indefinitely,however the political costs of delaying the pipeline right now with gasoline prices this high are prohibitive so it'll get approved. What isn't being explained is that this pipeline won't actually impact the price of gasoline significantly, its just that Obama or any president can't be seen to be doing nothing with gas prices this high even though the U.S. president has almost 0 impact on short term or even long term gasoline prices in this case stupid people are causing the politicians to act stupidly

      March 20, 2012 at 6:40 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 12:51 am |
  6. Drew

    Go ahead and build it soon so we can prove to these idiots how wrong they are about jobs, gas prices and the Canadians willingness to provide us with cheap gas.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
    • slippery

      Minimal jobs, sour sands oil and 600 THOUSAND barrels a day of finished gasoline exported is just dandy.

      March 20, 2012 at 5:51 pm |
    • Hawk in Texas

      Drew it will create a few jobs and relieve some of the pressure on other pipelines that all ready transport oil from the middle of the states to the texas refinerys. but all the tar sand oil will be sold overseas. it is a dirty tarry muck and cannot be refined into gasoline. most of it will go to china. as for the prices coming down it won't happen. did you know we export thousands of barrels of gas and diesel to china and other places every day.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
      • skarphace

        I thought Drew was being sarcastic.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:01 pm |
      • TG

        Your wrong, Oil sand oil can be turned into gasoline. It's still oil, just full of sand and other particulates. We wouldn't be pumping out two million barrels a day of the stuff if it couldn't be used for gasoline.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
    • Hugh Briss

      I will stand by to commence laughing hysterically when gas prices in the midwest spike due to the decreased cost of exporting while GOPers drool and blame Obama.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:04 pm |
    • Judi Powell

      There will be a FEW temporary jobs. Most permanent jobs will be to Canadians.The oil will be shipped for refining and be for the WORLD market. The environment will also suffer for this. NO BIG ADVANTAGE for us.

      Try again.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
      • J.Timmel

        90 cents of every dollar sent to Canada eventually gets spent in the USA. No south american or mid-east country can match that level of reinvestment. And of course, none of that terrible oil from Canada will pollute a pristine arctic wilderness or coral reef since it won't ever need to be pumped into a tanker ship. The greenies think that without the keystone pipeline, those evil Canadians (they aren't evil when it comes to health care, of course!) won't extract it. Of course they will, they'll just sell it to China instead (Where there are no ecological agencies to stop them!). Dummies!

        March 20, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
    • Claire

      Drew, Americans get most of their gas from Canada in any case. Look it up. Americans get actually very little gas from the Middle East. Most of it is from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:22 pm |
    • Ted

      Drew it's apparant who the idiot is. Are you Chineese?

      March 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm |
    • Joe

      Actually gas prices must stay high in order for tar sands oil to be economically feasible.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • FLIndependent

      I agree with you and when the first leak happens these same Repubs that wanted this so badly will blame Obama for it!

      March 21, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  7. Pat

    The Republican governor of Nebraska is against the Keystone pipeline bcoz it will pollute the acquifier. Damn Obama approve it let the Tbaggers in Nebraska drink that polluted water and we can all enjoy our cheap oil. The Tbaggers dont even know u r fighting for them and will vote whoever their pastor or Limbaugh tells them.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm |
    • JOHN

      Obama does what is necessary to further his humanistic/socialistic agenda.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
      • skarphace

        How exactly is the approval of this pipeline, which violates private property rights and gives these rights for a foreign corporation, socialist?

        You Teapublicans have a very odd view of the definition of socialism. You seem to think that if you are against it, it is socialism.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
      • Ted

        I see yuo were taught well by the republicans. Hate 101, Hate 102. You don't sound like the educated tyope their party stans for. I'm guessing your not inthe 1% and just like to tag along. I can tellyou this I'm not in the 1% so I don't have a choice who to support. Welfare for rich or poor. Poor spend their money and stimulate the ecomony, Rich put theirs in offshore banks,. Go look up stock market for last 7 Reps adn 7 Dems and let me know what you get.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
      • JEnSTL

        You Said It All, I'm kind of mystified none of these Obamanites haven't blamed Bush yet 🙂

        March 20, 2012 at 8:10 pm |
      • Joe

        Well said, skarface!

        March 20, 2012 at 8:20 pm |
    • Alex Henry

      Actually if the Ogallala Aquifer gets contaminated, we'll all pay the price, since it supplies 30% of US groundwater irrigation. Twenty-percent of US irrigated farmland depends on it. If it became unusable, food prices would go up and many agricultural jobs would be lost. TransCanada has agreed to extend the pipeline by 20 miles to re-route it around the Nebraska Sandhills region, but there's no way to do that without still crossing vulnerable portions of the Ogallala (0-50 ft underground) at multiple points.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Lizzie

      You worry about the pipeline and over the weekend the President signed an excectutive order to take control over all of US resources.

      March 21, 2012 at 11:15 am |
  8. Todd

    My understanding was that President Obama was not against the pipeline, but had announced that he would make a decision in gee MARCH. But the Repubs wanted to flex muscle and demand it right away.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • chris

      Obama administration already had over a YEAR and that apparently wasn't long enough to make a decision. In fact the only thing Obama seems to do quickly is to throw tax payer money at his campaign contributors.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm |
      • skarphace

        A decade would not be long enough for this horrible project. Let it die, I say.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
      • Ted

        Why are you people insuch a hurry to get oil to china? I don't follow the logic, do you have ffamily there or a bussiness there? Please explain.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • John

      Um no.. He wanted another year to review which would have put it AFTER the election.. Don't lie.. takes away from your argument... or lack of...

      March 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
  9. Uncle Musty

    This isn't news, or Obama's doing. As reported, Keystone has the permits and announced last month they were going ahead with the Southern segment. Old news folks.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:55 pm |
    • skarphace

      Will it go across state lines? Then it needs federal permits. This is where Obama comes in. Pay attention.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:33 pm |
  10. Daniel

    The enviro-nuts won't like this. Oh well, give 'em some free govt. cheese and they'll get over it.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • skarphace

      In the future, what will our descendents be more concerned with? What is left of the fossil fuels or extracting fresh water from the aquifers? I guarantee that they will curse us every time they find another fresh water aquifer that has been poluted due to our emphasis on short term profits.

      Big oil does not care about our future. We should, and now, not later. Later it will be too late.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
      • rick

        Please explain how this pipeline will affect an aquifer? Unless the pipeline busrts & spills hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil over a recharge sand, there is zero chance of aquifer intrusion.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm |
      • Edwin

        Future water doesn't concern most voters - after all, they cannot imagine there will ever be a time when it is rare.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:41 pm |
      • skarphace

        rick: maybe you should ask the Republican governor of Nebraska that question. It is why that portion of the pipeline has stalled, afterall. Try reading more than just the headlines sometime.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • pcoe

      toss them some cheese?? Is this an educated response?? Self serving and short, sighted, at best. "... let them eat cake." What other out-of-touch person said that?? Those concerned with the environment are looking into the future at alternatives to the finite resource of fossil fuels. How about people drive less, (live closer to where they work??), drive smaller vehicles (fewer large, white trucks maybe?), drive slower, use car-pools,use mass transit, etc. Europe has been paying much higher prices for gas at the pump for years. And, yes, pipelines do break, leak, become barriers to migrating wildlife, become targets for criminals, are eyesores, become obsolete, etc. Let's not think they are the panacea they are hyped up to be.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
  11. thebeerdude

    Excellent plan Barry. Let's have half a pipeline which isn't connected to a source of energy. Keep up the good work. Newt Gingrich = Energy Independence

    March 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Patriot Awesome

      I'm shocked to see so many Republicans in favor of nationalizing oil. I thought that was a communist thing.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • Pam in Oregon

      The Newt = energy independence because he is full of hot air! talk about global warming?!?!

      Pam in Oregon

      March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
    • Joe

      Keystone 1&2 already connect the tar sands to Oklahoma. The southern portion will connect it the entire way to the gulf. The Nebraska route was merely a duplicate of an existing pipeline through a less controversial route (which is why you've probably never heard of it).

      March 20, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
    • Mike in Texas

      Energy independence? Are you saying all oil produced in the U.S. will be consumed in the U.S.? Are you going to make a law requiring that? Newt wouldn't support that because that would be government interference in the free market trade.

      March 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • thecoorslightdude

      america will never be energy independent. We need 20 m barrels of oil to fuel consumption a day. Domestic production capacity is ~6.5 m barrels today. Even utiliing offshore sources and renewables (which are measly today and less than 7% of energy consumption) and reducing demand drastically we will never be energy "independent."

      March 21, 2012 at 1:26 am |
  12. Someone is about the re-election

    Well it sounds like someone is willing to do whatever he can to retain the presidency. Even if that means going against what he just turned down a couple of weeks ago. Talk about a flip flopper. Flounder is looking for a friend. Don't get me wrong, I am glad he is doing it, but it seems to be for the wrong reasons.

    March 20, 2012 at 5:57 pm |
    • skarphace

      It is becoming harder and harder to find a polititian that is not a "flounder" nowadays. Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum? All flip-floppers. And one of them will be our next President. Just perfect...

      March 20, 2012 at 6:28 pm |
    • Edwin

      ...except this is not a change of plans. Obama NEVER expressed opposition to this part of the pipeline - it didn't cross critical water supplies, like the part in Nebraska.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
      • JEnSTL

        Edwin-Keep Drinking The Kool Aid

        March 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
      • FLIndependent

        The reaon why it wasn't approved a few months ago was because the Repubs attached is to the payroll tax extension bill and Obama wasn't going to be pushed into signing off on it until more studies were done. He never said he as against it...that is just the Repub rhetoric. However, it is also Repub rhetoric that this pipeline will lower gas prices.

        March 21, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  13. skarphace

    Darn it, Obama. Just when I think you are doing things for the right reasons, you go and cave in again.

    Oh how I wish the Republicans would wake up and nominate Ron Paul. He would kill this horrible Keystone Pipeline project once and for all.

    Pros: temporary jobs, a temporary easing of gas prices (just so the oil companies can make us think we got what we wanted out of the deal), a slight increase in our supply as most of the oil gets shipped overseas, and an increase in big oil profits (and the corporate contributions of such).

    Cons: a loss of permanent jobs (trucking), increased air polution over Texas, increased water polution of our rivers and fresh water aquifers, more private property rights given to a foreign corporation, the destruction of ecosystems and farmland, and a huge pipe that will leak dirty oily crud across the continental US (with more of such to follow).

    When you compare the pros to the cons, there really is no comparison. Please, Mr. President, do not approve of any portion of this horrible project. For once, do something for the right reasons and stand firm (yeah, right .. a man can dream).

    March 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm |
    • moderateray

      Most Democrats would agree with you. We would love to see Dr. Paul receive the R nomination 🙂

      March 20, 2012 at 6:11 pm |
      • skarphace

        I am a Democrat and I think that of all the remaining 4 candidates, Paul has the best shot at beating Obama. It is not who will get the Tea Party vote. They have already decided to vote for ABO. It is not who will get the liberal vote. They have already decided to vote for Obama. It is who will get the moderate and Independent vote.

        Ron Paul would be very, very strong with this demographic, but the point is moot. Ron Paul will not pander to the religious right, and therefore will not win the Republican nomination.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:24 pm |
      • JohnRJohnson

        Ron Paul is a reactionary masquerading as a populist. He has been a lifelong supporter, if not a member of the John Birch Society. When he was the keynote speaker at the Birch Society's 50th anniversary convention in 2009, he called it a "great and patriotic organization". One of the founding members of the John Birch Society was a man named Fred Koch. Today, his two sons, David and Charles, are the primary financiers of the Tea Party. Like their John Birch Society forerunners, they are virulently anti-government, anti-union and anti-regulation. They could NOT care less about the American worker or the middle class. They also couldn't care less about civil rights for anyone, especially blacks and gays. They are in it purely for the profits and they would love to see an ideologue like Ron Paul get elected.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:27 pm |
  14. Chucksgirl1955

    This is crazy! Where is the outcry from the people?

    March 20, 2012 at 5:59 pm |
  15. PJ/TX

    Relieving the oil glut in Cushing is one thing, I guess. But I'm disappointed and hope this is for that oil only, and not
    the tar sands. Hopefully, the northern half will not be built, until proven safe.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm |
    • Edwin

      Since it really isn't safe at all, that is probably never (well, not for 40 years or so). Remember, from an Oil Company standpoint, "safe" means only one or two major oil spills per year - the cost in fines and token cleanup from that many spills if offset by the profits from running a pipeline rather than hiring people to drive it there.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
      • bige

        Edwin I supose your an engineer and know factual data on how safe or unsafe the pipeline or any pipeline is? Also you think its safer to drive it there, thousands of tanker trucks on the road rather than a single monitored pipeline? You probably think that a single pipeline leaves a larger carbon foot print than manufacturing thousands of tanker trucks, rebuilding highways for increased traffic, maintenace on equipment, fuel consumed, etc. You as with the majority of the population think in the irratic greenpeace method ex. 'I don't know anything about oil all I know is its bad, its scary, it makes other people rich and I'm jelouse because i'm not rich and I want to be so lets protest because maybe I'll get some attention.' You and your kind make the world stupider!

        March 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
  16. chippy1

    what a sell out to the interests. this will in no way affect the price of gas, nor the oil companies committment to continually fleece the public

    March 20, 2012 at 6:06 pm |
  17. Deb in MT

    Like the article says, this move will break a bottleneck in the transport of tar sands oil. That's a good move, but we need to be very careful in Nebraska and other places north of the bottleneck, where surface exposures of the great Ogalalla aquifer could be threatened by possible spills: this tar sands oil sinks,so it's not retrievable by the methods used in ordinary oil spills. Contamination of the aquifer would be devastating!!

    Once a better route/other solutions are found, that Canadian oil can finally be transported to the gulf–where it will promptly be refined & sent to China (because that's its intended market).

    We won't see a drop of it here.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
    • jerry

      I guess you don't recall...this pipeline was permitted and studied to death...obama killed it for political gain. He simply can't not lose the far left vote.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
      • skarphace

        First, Obama did not 'kill' the project. Oh how I wish that he had.

        Second, many Americans do not want this project to go forward. This is not American oil, it is foreign oil, and it will be spilled across our country. It is a horrible idea and should be killed.

        However, Obama is not going to kill it. He will slow it down, to keep those who care about our future from causing an uproar, but he definitely plans to go through with it during his second term. I wish I was wrong, but I don't think I am.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
      • Edwin

        Maybe you don't recall - it was studied, but then a new objection came from the republican governor of Nebraska. It seems the original analyses by the oil company neglected to mention that the pipeline was supposed to cross vital drinking water supplies and that a spill there could ruin the water supply for literally decades - essentially depopulating half of the state.

        If democrats AND republicans in Nebraska objected to this pipeline and forced the EPA to do another analysis for safety, why is it Obama's fault and not the fault of the people in Nebraska? And if Obama stated the analysis would be completed in March, but Congress insisted on a decision weeks before that, why is it Obama's fault for rejecting the pipeline and not Congress' fault?

        March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
      • JohnRJohnson

        You are a typical, grotesquely misinformed right-winger and one of the primary reasons the Tea Party was able to take over the House of Representatives.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
  18. nick

    This is politics 101. President Obama is doing this to silence his Republican opposition and cut them off at the knees. They no longer have an argument like the improvement of the economy (why republicans switched the topic to social issues, plus they need wedge issues to rally the far right voters). Unfortunately the Republicans have no record of achievement other than to call the president names and oppose everything hoping the anger would rally wins like in 2010. Unfortunately the right wing social agenda is not enough to elect a Republican as president as it is far to extreme for the mass.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • chris

      what about the dozens of Obama sanctions against U.S. businesses?

      March 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
      • skarphace

        Sanctions? What the heck are you talking about?

        March 20, 2012 at 6:51 pm |
      • Edwin

        skarphace: didn't you know Obama has sanctioned American business and blocked freedom of religion? I don't have specifics - nobody actually does, since it's not true - but it sounds believable and some pundit somewhere said it, so that's good enough.

        Almost nobody on the far right even attempts to do real research to find out if their "facts" are true... of course, almost nobody on the far left does, either... or from the center... basically, Americans believe anything a pundit says without question, if the pundit agrees with the viewer.

        March 20, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
      • skarphace

        Edwin: I agree with you. Does that mean you are a pundit?

        Seriously, though, you had me going for a sec.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
      • Joe

        Facts have a liberal bias.

        March 20, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
      • jbs

        What sanctions against U.S. businesses? are you talking about???? I figure you want Obama to let Business and Wall Street do what they want with no Morality...

        March 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm |
  19. Cody

    I usually lean towards the repubilican idealogy(not the actual people), but I can see this pipeline is not going to be worth it.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • skarphace

      It will be worth it to Big oil and the Koch brothers who make huge profits off oil speculation. In the end, regardless of if this oil is shipped across Canada or the US, it will go to China and Latin America, though, so will the rest of us get any worth out of it? Not so much.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  20. Jose

    Pipeline to no where, why am I not surprised.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm |
  21. Bev Danielson

    Interesting to see that Obama fast tracks pipeline after Harper's visit to China as the next go-to purchaser of Canadian oil sands production. Refinery jobs to US instead of China. Refinery jobs to US instead of Canada, where refinery jobs should be provided!

    March 20, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
  22. oldoc

    This whole concept of oil from Canada and pipelining it to refineries, etc.brings to mind an interesting concept. Why can't the U.S., Mexico and Canada form a North American Energy Consortium and pool resources and oil and gas reserves, etc. for drill-pump-refine and use right here in our own neighborhood! Canada and Mexico both have vast oil and gas as well as us, and Mexico surely could use some honest income/jobs other than drugs. This would likely put a different slant on the M.E. and it's OPEC brotherhood of thieves as well as create lots of jobs everywhere!

    March 20, 2012 at 6:25 pm |
    • Zippy

      Not a bad idea!

      March 20, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
    • skarphace

      Think about it. When the production of oil can no longer meet demands, what will happen? A drastic spike in the price of oil. The countries that are smart are sitting on the major part of their oil reserves until that day because once that happens, then it will be much more cost effective to extract that oil.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:46 pm |
    • kevin

      might as well just finish off the NA Union while they're at it.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • JohnRJohnson

      Oil companies are transnational corporations. Their operating budgets and revenues are larger than most countrys'. They pay individual countries like the U.S. a royalty for drilling rights, but the oil belongs to them. They pool that oil, so to speak, and set the price by controlling availability. The construction of the Keystone pipeline will do NOTHING to lower the price of a gallon of gasoline 1¢ in the US. It will make the oil companies that much richer and able to influence elections in this country. The Keystone pipeline is a joke. Obama can't say it's a bad idea, because there haven't been any comprehensive environmental impact studies done yet and the Republicans refuse to wait for those studies because they know what they'll say.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
      • skarphace

        I liked your last point there. Well said.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:15 pm |
  23. Zippy

    Drew: Your line of thinking is exactly why the Dems should have as little power as possible. Dems really know how to kill jobs and have no clue how to create non-government jobs. To you raising taxes = more jobs. WRONG!!!!

    March 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • skarphace

      Zippy: well, I think the Republicans have pretty much proven that lowering taxes does not create jobs either.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
      • helen1233

        Reagan tripled the debt by reducing taxes on the rich. Clinton raised taxes on the rich which brought us to surplus and created the longest sustained period of economic growth EVER. Voters need to turn off FOX News and open a history book.

        March 21, 2012 at 6:57 am |
    • lies and hate from the right

      Zippy the pinhead listen under clinton we had good paying manufacturing jobs under W. Bush manufacturing left in droves. Under pres. Obama manufacturing jobs are coming back so your argument doesn't hold any water

      March 20, 2012 at 9:12 pm |
  24. Ed

    I think it's a great idea. Get the other pipeline going from North Dakota now.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm |
    • skarphace

      Do you live in the part of the country where this horrible pipeline will run? Maybe you should ask some people who do before spouting that it is such a great idea.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
  25. Clint

    As an Albertan, I am sad to see that economic short term gains take precedence over long term environmental considerdations. I am an educated scientist, and am open minded to any evidence that can be prevented. Based on the literature I have read and evaluated, I do not believe that this move is in any way positive. The Northern Alberta forest has been destroyed due to tar sands development. Unfortunately, the oil industry lobbyists and press department have succeeded in delivering a message that the land has been reclaimed in specific areas. And while they may have areas of reforestation to show for it, the independent scientific evidence suggests that biodeveristy is much lower than prior to the destruction, and that many non-native plant species are now occupying the area, especially in the wet lands. Furthermore, there is relatively little data on the effects of animals, because the studies have not been conducted. You can't say one way or another what the long term effects will be, if you are not investigating the questions. And the relatively few independent studies suggest that the short term impact on animal populations is disturbing. As a scientist, I am completely aware of bias, and having worked for drug companies, know that if a study would likely have a negative result, the information is either never disseminated or the study never initiated. That leaves studies up to independent researchers, and there are more studies showing negative impacts than positive impacts. And while the consequences will affect everyone, due to carbon emissions and loss of wet lands which act as carbon sinks, the effects of developing the pipline, both positive (economics) and negative (environement) will be felt by all Americans. Short term greed is already starting to haunt us, but will only become more evident as time goes on.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
    • skarphace

      This American fully agrees with everything you said. I really wish more people, of all countries, would wake up to the big oil greed that is destroying our world. I for one am glad gas prices are rising. It will force more people to buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. To me, this is the only real solution to our oil crisis.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
  26. macidaho

    How stupid are we? This pipline will not help us. The pipline will cross the US to Texas into the refinery, processed in to gas and then sold to China, not us. Why does it go all the way to Texas ? There are refineries in Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming. If I was a Govenor of one of the States the pipline cross's, My gas pump prices would be in half. You cross my state, you pay! This will create very few jobs. If the pipline goes through and when it (if) it is done, remember the Congressmen and Respresentatives that voted it in. Then recall them of elect them out of office. Of course by then the damage will aready have been done. Who will be reponsible for the pipline when it is completed? Canada, I don't think so. Not on Canadian soil!.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm |
  27. Phuck This

    Bad move Obama. The left does not forget come november!

    March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm |
    • Oldbear 60

      and of course they will vote for the nut jobs from the right.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
      • skarphace

        Oldbear: unfortunately, you are speaking the truth. The only candidate we moderates would consider over Obama, of the 4 candidates remaining, is Ron Paul. However, it is obvious that he has no chance at the Republican nomination, so your point stands.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
  28. Pwow

    For Obamaphiles, anything the man does is going to look good. But to someone like me, who used to think he had some principles, I now know he's the most finger-to-the-wind politician that has ever lived.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm |
    • JohnRJohnson

      Your problem isn't with Obama. Your problem is with your sources of information.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:03 pm |
      • Pwow

        Please... enlighten me.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
  29. Why?

    Why can't we build the refineries in Canada, instead of piping this toxic hazard half way across the world. Anyone with a gun between here and there can shoot the thing and cause a major disruption. It doesn't make sense to me, but sure, I'm not a shareholder.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:44 pm |
    • talshar

      Why can't we build the refineries in Canada, instead of piping this toxic hazard half way across the world

      They have plenty of refineries in Canada – the whole point of the project is to get the oil to the sea so you can export it.

      Any other reason given for this project is a distraction from its true, and sole purpose.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:53 pm |
    • skarphace

      The problem is the air polution that refining this cruddy oil will produce. The environmentalists from Canada have objected to refining the oil in Canada. That leaves the naive Americans to do it.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Greg

      A 20 year commitment is the problem here in Alberta. No business is willing to make a commitment for the projects here that won't generate a profit for an estimated 20 years. The Alberta government will in time back development of up-graders and refineries in Alberta don't worry about that ....Keystone is simply a shortcut.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:22 pm |
  30. timothy

    Just run the darn thing around the Ogallala aquifer rather than over it and it will create even more temporary jobs.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm |
    • talshar

      ^ Note that TransCanada could have done this from the start – and the Nebraska governor would never have objected,
      and the state department would never have interceded on their behalf.

      They didn't because going around the aquifer was more expensive (they still don't have a route).

      They basically chose the cheapest and most environmentally dangerous route – and then tried to manipulate the congress and intimidate the President in order to get their way.

      The could also have built the southern sections of the pipeline regardless of international portion – because it will still make more efficient the transport of US oil to refineries.

      Again they did not, because they were holding it (and the peddling few jobs) for ransom, until they got approval for the international section of the pipeline.

      Oil Companies are kind of – uh – ruthless scum, in case you haven't gotten the picture.

      And they pretty much own the GOP. American Congressman are nothing but $2 b$tches for the oil industry and they know it.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:58 pm |
  31. Oldbear 60

    Like most of the Alaska pipeline oil, this will probably be sold outside of the US where it will get a bigger price, but the cost, problems and pollution will be all ours and taxpayers will end up subsidizing it. If you don't know by now that the US is run for the convenience of major banks and oil companies and corporations you don;t know Jack.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:49 pm |
    • TJW

      Oldbear 60:

      When the Alaska pipeline came on stream there were three major producers: Sohio, Arco and Exxon. Arco ran most of their production at two West Coast refineries (Arco Cherry Point, WA and Arco Carson, CA). They also briefly had a processing agreement with Tosco in San Francisco.

      Exxon ran Alaskan crude at their Benecia, CA refinery and sold the remainder of their production on the West Coast.

      Sohio was the big player, but had no West Coast refining assets. So, they sold a large portion of their production to West Coast refiners with Chevron being the largest customer. Sohio also sold to USGC refiners, shipping the barrels through the Panama Canal. Finally, Amerada Hess was a big Sohio customer and they ran Alaskan oil at their St Croix refinery.

      Sohio lobbied Congress to be able to sell Alaska oil to Japan, but never got approval.

      In short, oil flowing through the Alaska pipeline was always run in the U.S. and at Hess St. Croix.

      Exporting crude oil from the U.S. is illegal. Exporting finished products like gasoline is perfectly legal. As U.S. gasoline demand declines, refiners will have to do more of it or shutdown.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
  32. awasis

    This wiill do nothing to reduce oil prices. It will be refined and shipped out of country just like it is now. Lies, lies and more lies from the party of greed, the Repuds.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • talshar

      ^ Exactly.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
  33. jerry

    The pipeline was permitted and had been studied to death for years...obama killed it for political gain... obama is in political trouble 46% of American voters will NOT vote for him under any it is critical he keeps the votes of the far far left. He is actually a lame duck he has goofed everything he has touched to this point....and now it is time for the democrats to pay the piper for allowing theie party to be hijacked by the socialist wing of the party.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:50 pm |
    • talshar

      The pipeline was permitted and had been studied to death for years...obama killed it for political gain...

      ^ This is a straight up lie.

      It is the governor of Nebraska who asked the state department to stop the pipeline.

      And he did so because farmers in Nebraska objected.

      You need to stop watching faux news – it fills you with stupidity and makes you a dysfunctional citizen.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • JohnRJohnson

      This pipeline was killed because word has gotten out about the toxic byproducts this process is producing up in Canada. And people have also caught onto the fact that constructing this pipeline over a major aquifer will not help to reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by 1¢. There have been no independent environmental impact studies of this proposed pipeline, although the oil industry has provided plenty of glowing reports. What a surprise.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
      • jerry

        there are pipelines all over this dope!

        March 20, 2012 at 7:25 pm |
      • JohnRJohnson

        Jerry - so then this one won't be missed. Did ever occur to you that none of those other pipelines should be there, either? Did it ever occur to you that they were constructed before we were smart to do environmental impact studies? Did it ever occur to you that you are the dope here?

        April 18, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  34. kevin

    uh oh, somebody's gettin' nervous about the election...........

    this guy is a clown.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:54 pm |
    • talshar

      somebody's gettin' nervous about the election..

      ^ The southern portion of the pipeline actually never needed state department approval to begin with.

      They could have built it at any time. The state departments involvement is only related to the part that crosses a national border.

      This story is essentially much adu about nothing.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
      • Mike D

        The State Department no, but the Interstate Commerce Commission yes. The feds are involved in all commerce that crosses state lines.

        March 21, 2012 at 2:31 am |
  35. Violator

    WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! The pipeline was built from Canada to Oklahome in 2010......I know.....I worked on it.......its is allready pumping oil down from there and some of our refineries ARE allready receiving it and some is being shiped out.........the Keystone project that is in the news now is an add on line to increase the capicity of the existing line......this new line in Ok has to be the final leg from there to Houston even though I thought that part was allready done as for the enviromental studies on the add....the white house is company performed and finished those studies almost 3 years ago........

    March 20, 2012 at 6:55 pm |
    • JohnRJohnson

      And, of course, we should believe someone who actually works in the oil industry and just trust them. LOL.

      March 20, 2012 at 6:59 pm |
      • Violator

        I don't work in the oil industry...I performed safty and materials testing as a third party company and actually had to report not only to our clients (the owners of Keystone XL) but to the EPA, OSHA and all state agencies associated with any part of the can beleive it or not but the Keystone is allready there.....look it I said...WAKE UP and stop beleiving everything this administration and the media are feeding you.....

        March 20, 2012 at 7:04 pm |
    • talshar

      as for the enviromental studies on the add....the white house is LIEING.


      Let's see who's lying right now.

      Please produce your companies conclusions regarding the Ogallala Aquifer.

      Prove that it is not in any way endangered by the tar sands project.

      I don't expect you to answer.

      Oil company wh0res never do answer when their lying claims are challenged.

      They just wait and repeat the same lies over and over again.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:10 pm |
    • jerry

      I would LOVE to see some real reporting about ALL the obama coverups...from the birth cert to the pipeline....fact is this was permitted and studied to death and obama nixed it for political capital.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
  36. JohnRJohnson

    I don't like this pipeline. I don't like that it puts a pipe carrying hot oil treated with chemicals over a major aquifer and I don't like the toxic byproducts generated by the process up in Canada. I don't like that it is being sold as a "job creator" when most of the labor will be temporary and only amount to a couple of thousand workers at most. I really don't like the fact that this pipeline won't do a damn thing to bring down gasoline prices 1¢ in the next 5 years, much less the next 5 months. And I really don't like that the Republicans have turned this into a political issue. There is nothing to like about this pipeline.

    March 20, 2012 at 6:57 pm |
    • skarphace

      "There is nothing to like about this pipeline."

      True, but plenty to hate. Unless, of course, you have money in oil speculation.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  37. Tim

    The only portion of the pipeline that needs the President to approve is the last 50 feet across the Canadian border. The rest of it is privately funded and only requires state by state approval. Total political move to sound like he is in favor or something he is not, and this shill of a reporter bought it hook, line, and sinker.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
    • talshar

      The only portion of the pipeline that needs the President to approve is the last 50 feet across the Canadian border.

      ^ This is true but your conclusion is a$$ backwards.

      It is the Oil companies that could build the southern portion of the pipeline any time they wanted.

      They chose not to – to hold the jobs hostage to getting the permit for the international section.

      Obama refused to comply and now they have decided to go ahead and build the domestic section anyway.

      Let them build it.

      The temporary jobs are just as temporary – WHETHER THE INTERNATIONAL SECTION IS EVER BUILT OR NOT.

      And it will still be useful for transporting domestically produced oil, just as any railroad, or trucking would be.

      Big deal.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • jerry

      the great manipulator/fraud-in-chief

      March 20, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
  38. tafugate

    this actually is a huge coup for the u.s. world demand for oil is driving prices. the largest competitors of the u.s. for oil is china and india. if china uses a substantial amount of canada's tar sands, it won't be competing with the u.s. for middle eastern oil. demand goes down along with prices. plus, the u.s. gains a few jobs it wouldn't have had otherwise. win win.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:01 pm |
  39. the_dude

    Wow the big oil comapnies must have written a nice contribution check to the obama campaign. Is anyone suprised at this point? Well, besides the kool-aid drinkers????

    March 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm |
    • brian in DC

      Everyone saw this coming with O's #'s tanking. What do you expect from a man who has no convictions. Spineless is one way of putting it.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
  40. ronnnc

    Well, that move just cost Obama my vote . . .

    March 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm |
    • Mike D

      No it didn't. You were never going vote for him anyway.

      March 21, 2012 at 2:33 am |
  41. Truthfully

    The caption should read, "Obama to Fast Track His False Image". Goodness! Half the people who read the headline as stated will think he is actually FOR the pipeline. No wonder this country is fast-tracking down the tubes.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • talshar

      Obama to Fast Track His False Image

      ^ Obama fasted track his image when he rescued the auto industry, and killed Bin Laden.

      Prez don't need no stinkin' pipeline for image.

      GOP has a sh$tty image and they fast tracked that when they nominated Sarah Palin as vice president.

      They have been an international joke ever sense.

      SEE: Dick Cheney Canadian trip canceled for "security" reasons. LOL LOL LOL

      March 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
  42. abnguy

    President Obama fast tracks a small portion of the pipeline because pollesters say the people want to fast track him out of office.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm |
    • brian in DC


      March 20, 2012 at 7:56 pm |
  43. jonboyz

    I don't believe this. Has everyone forgotten about the BP oil spill already? This is just like that South Park episode about superheroes, oil rig disasters and H.P. Lovecraft. Whatever happened to the idea of upholding Democratic ideals? This is just another environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. Goodbye water table!

    March 20, 2012 at 7:12 pm |
    • TexDoc

      Are you so niave to compare drilling in 5000 feet of water with oil pipeline technology? They are not comparable. When was the last time there was a pipeline disaster? They can turned off at any time, limiting pollution. Canada's oil is going to be sold either by pipeline through the US or by tanker to China? I'll take the pipeline; it's safer.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
      • Adam

        When was the last time there was a major pipeline spill? funny you should ask: July 2, 2011, Ruptured Pipeline Spills Oil Into Yellow Stone River – NYT
        There were several other incidents also, Jul 18: BP spills pipeline oil into Alaskan Tundra, Jan 5, 2011 Keystone Pipeline Spill
        Apr 29, Peace River Rainbow spill (in canada, owned by the people constructing Keystone XL)...I could go on, but why don't you just google it? there are 8 "major" spills and 25 "serious" spills.

        March 21, 2012 at 4:16 am |
    • Coflyboy

      What BP oil spill?

      Americans are as dumb as they can be. Even donkeys don't hit the same rock twice.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
  44. boehnersux

    Did you notice Brendan Buck spoke for Speaker Boehner? Guess why, if you don't know Boehner is an alcoholic and often too drunk to speak to the press......Makes you proud to be an American doesn't it?

    March 20, 2012 at 7:14 pm |
    • jack johnson

      And I can't stand crying drunks.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
  45. kevin

    good little protesters there with their signs. how did you get there again? oh yeah, you either took a plane, train, auto, or bus – one of those oil consuming vehicles.

    enough with the hypocrisy. you have no standing.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
  46. jack johnson

    They are still using Chinese pipes, and steel for this job. Has anyone x-rayed these pipes for suitabiliy for the job. This TAR SAND OIL is far more abrasive than regular oil. Who will be responsible for any spills?

    March 20, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
  47. jack johnson


    March 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
  48. jerry

    funny.... one of the other CNN headlines is "obama leader GOP contenders in Virginia"....just two weeks ago Romney and obama were tied at 44% each, and the GOP have not yet even began to run against obama.... fact is obama is in BIG trouble...why don't they report that? And why is there no imbedded reporters in Afghanistan like there was for the Bush years...why the black out and the censorship? We have troops losing it every(going mental) week because of the strain and the incompetence of our leadership and hear nothing of it but what they simply can't cover up....

    March 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • skarphace

      So Obama is to blame for the troop that killed those Afghan citizens? It seems to me that the stress of war in the middle east is to blame for that. Obama pulled our troops out of Iraq, where the major part of that stress was coming from. It is stressful to get shot at and to see your friends die and to kill other people.

      But keep blaming Obama if it makes you feel better.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
    • brian in DC

      Some transparency.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • FLIndependent

      Jerry's at it again with all of his paranoia. Please spare us your drivel.

      March 21, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  49. norma jean.


    March 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • skarphace

      The Republicans were pushing for the pipeline because they thought they could use it against Obama in November. That is the only reason. Their concern about jobs and gas prices? Don't make me laugh.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:36 pm |
    • abnguy

      It is a political gimmick. He could have approved the whole pipeline but did not.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • TexDoc

      Repub willing to explain it to you. There are some good reasons, but most importantly the pipeline will provide the US with a stable source of oil from a country that can't be blockaded or stop sending us oil becuase we're not 'Islam-ic'. If you study military history, it is vital for our security to have a reliable source of oil here on this continent. For now, if the 'excess' is sold to China, I don't mind. But if WWIII comes that oil might be all that stands to save the free country, US.

      March 20, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
      • pattyo27

        The majority of our oil already comes from Canada. This is headed to the Gulf for export. THIS OIL WILL NOT BE DISTRIBUTED IN THE USA! Turn off FOXNews and, even CNN, and do real unbiased research...and also use a little common sense: oil piped to Foreign Trade Zone = exporting said product.

        March 20, 2012 at 7:48 pm |
      • SC

        Interesting point. I take it you were for the bailout of the auto industry, too. No? You weren't! Oh my God! No!!

        Your point is basically speculation, although I speculate that there is some small logic to it–after all, if up to twenty percent of our oil is cut due to problems in the mid east, it might be good to have this pipeline around to help us make up for .01% or whatever of that. I could see why you'd want the pipeline around. After all, it might be enough to drive our war machine another tenth of a mile or so to whatever objective it might have how many thousands of miles away.

        It's just too bad your side didn't show the same sense regarding the auto industry. Your speculation is just that–speculation, but the U.S. auto industry actually did, in actual reality, help save us during an actual real world war, World War II. It made a lot of the tanks and other vehicles used during the war, enough to be called the "Arsenal of Democracy." Capacity like that was actually needed and was actually used in an actual way. Yet, the Republicans were willing to let the industry be cut to shreds. They were willing at the very least to let it be put at major risk. It needed capital but couldn't get it, after all, so it would have had to shut down to a good extent. So, where was your party in respect to saving an industry that did help save this country during an actual world war and has a proven record of doing just that and that during some hypothetical coming world war would be nice to have around just so it could help build or maintain whatever war machine might be required at whatever given time.

        After all, if you're going to insure that you have enough oil to drive our war machine another tenth of a mile to wherever, it might be nice to have an actual war machine to put that oil in. At the very least, with Detroit still around, maybe you could build an even larger war machine. And, instead of this pipeline's oil propelling it a tenth of a mile on its 1000 mile journey to wherever, it might propel it for a twentieth of a mile. Wouldn't that be much, much nicer. But, I am only speculating here....

        March 20, 2012 at 10:02 pm |
      • Kris

        We just fought Islamic countries for 10 years and no oil shortage. FAIL. Repubs wanted the pipeline because they knew it woud be veto'd by a rational president. It is nothing mroe than a political push-button they tried to install fro the they've failed miserably and lok at the whining. Too damn funny.

        March 21, 2012 at 4:45 am |
    • Coflyboy

      Repubicants wanted the pipeline in order to line their pockets with big oil money. You need to understand that in America corruption is rampant: money talks- sensible walks.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:15 pm |
    • teaisbetter

      He had nothing to do with this. A lot of people down there are in an uproar he is trying to take credit for it. He would have stopped it if he could. This guy is shameless.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm |
  50. Dooz

    This means that the pipeline WILL traverse the sand hills of the ogallala aquifer regardless of what the people want.. Obama and the republicans just TOTALY side stepped the American people again in order to help the oil companies ...

    SHOCKER .....

    March 20, 2012 at 7:23 pm |
  51. Jack of Miltona

    Oh oh, I might be losing some votes here - guess I should try tossing them a bone

    March 20, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
  52. Jt_flyer

    Good news. Get that oil flowing!

    March 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  53. Ginotp

    Hell good american friends,
    First, the oil maybe from Canada, but most oil producers in Canada are American owned, so you are doing much favours to canadians.
    Second, you need the oil, you can buy friendly oil from Canada or you can buy friendly terrorist oil from the midle East take you pick.
    Rember 9/11, Canada helped you, the midle East bombed you.
    Hope you coem and visit you Canadian cousin up north, we are much like you, except we do not carry guns.
    So long friends

    March 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  54. keith,austin

    Typical of this idiotic POTUS to try & take credit for "fast tracking" the permit process that his own regime rejected the pipeline just months ago. Anyone with a brain knows this Socialist could care less about the rising price of gas as he wants us all to park our carbon eating transportation and buy his overpriced and unwanted Chevy Volt;If it wasn't an election year this man would just encourage us to check our tire pressure and get a tune-up like he did before. Obummer railed at Bush when gas prices rose & demanded action when he was a lowly Senator but now he just sits and hopes we don't notice that gas has doubled in price during his regime.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
  55. Dave

    People better thank their lucky stars that they don't live near the proposed pipeline route. Ask the people around Paris TX how they feel about the Trans-Canada eminent domain tactics. Basically those folks are going to have it jammed down their throats.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:31 pm |
  56. Wade

    Proving once again what a low life pandering fool Obama is and how worthless are his words. What would be the point of expediting when he has no intention of allowing the pipeline.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
  57. KJ Davis

    Actually, he can't 'fast track' this at all. The has nothing to do with this portion of the pipeline, as it doesn't cross international boundries. So this is all political theater, just like everything else this Administration has come out with.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:34 pm |
  58. Steve

    I'm no professor, politician or expert in any form. But a lot of you are giving opinions as if they are facts. Haven't any of y'all written a research paper? I found this link about the facts on the Tans Canada website. So if anyone has a question or concern they can take a look at it. I'm going to try and find any documentation that may give me hard evidence against anything Trans Canada might say. But in the mean time take a gander and decide for yourself. Too many people think they know but they don't know and not everything is a flippin conspiracy thats going on.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
  59. Dig digging

    They should send the oil to the new refinery being built near Pittsburg. So American oil prices can be lowered. We need to connect the East Coast refineries to more oil, from Canada and from other parts of America. And why doesn't the govt. demand that oil companies refine oil from American leased govt. land for use in America only. It could be part of the initial drilling rights contract.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:35 pm |
  60. Dig digging

    Why don't we invest in natural gas pipelines across the country as well. Chevy and Ford have been selling cars, cavaliers and Taurus, that run on natural gas for the past 10 years. there just aren't enough natural gas stations to make them practical. Right now in CT, Norwich, natural gas is selling to car owners for $2 a gallon.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:38 pm |
  61. G. Sak

    Just a simple wake up call to the right wing nut cases! The President wouldn't be where he is without his political genius!

    March 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
  62. Smeagel4T

    Well isn't that nice. The pipeline goes to Port Arthur, TX straight to refineries located in a Foreign Trade Zone that provides lower taxes for EXPORTS. What a strange place to send oil the GOP claims is destined for US consumption to lower gas prices.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:41 pm |
    • Coflyboy

      We all know the GOP lies whenever they move their lips.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:13 pm |
  63. pattyo27

    I encourage you all to seriously research this project. This oil is headed to the Gulf for one reason: to be exported to other countries. This oil will not be distributed in the US and could even cause gas prices here to increase. Stop listening to partisan rhetoric about this issue. This is not something that Canada is intending to help Americans. I wish I could wish the ignorance away. Know what you're supporting, people.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
  64. W Canelos

    Worried about gas prices. Really want to save. Buy a Prius, one with the 50 MPG rating. I bought one in 2007. In Feb 2012 it has 123240 miles on it in mostly rural driving and gets 48 MPG in Winter and 52MPG in summer. So say 50 MPG I do drive conservatively, don’t stomp on it coast to red lights and avoid situations where I have to brake heavily. Here is the bottom line. In this entire time I have used 2465 gallons of gas. Using $3 as the average cost I spent $7394.40 for gas. My old car got only 24 MPG, if I used it instead I would have had to buy 5135 gallons of gas at a cost of $15405. My savings on gas with the Prius is thus slightly over $7395 compared to my 24 mpg car. My pickup gets 16 MPG so for 123240 miles on it, I would have had to buy 7702 gallons of gas at a cost of $23107. I only put 470 miles on my pickup last year easy to see why. If not a Prius get something that gets at least 40 MPG.

    U.S. consumption is down, but rather than lowering the gas price Oil companies are actually exporting gas and diesel as well as crude to Japan and other countries at record levels. The President has nothing to do with it. Speculators and Oil companies will always go for the best price, they have no loyalty to the USA. Even if we drill for more here in the USA do you think for one minute oil companies will lower the USA price rather than ship it overseas where they get more money. Forget all the stupid political arguments, none of them matters. It is all about profit! Start by shutting down the speculation.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
  65. Kidblast

    I think that since all these republicans are saying that this will create thousands of jobs. If for some reason it doesn't create thousands of jobs , the republicans should be made to make their rich buddies hirer enough folks to cover their words. And all this oil should be kept in the USA and used here. Some folks are gullible they believe anything that the republicans says - such fools.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
  66. Helen Grandeis

    The Canadians are determined to develop and export Alberta Tar sands even though it is an environmental disaster. If Keystone is not built, the Chinese will gladly finance a westward bound pipeline that will exit at a new terminal at a virgin location in British Columbia......Therefore, we might as well build the pipeline. As for the refineries all being on the gulf, classic NIMBY.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:49 pm |
  67. terry

    I know chavez ships his heavy oil up to the gulf to be refined. he says he wants to cut down oil to the usa and sent it to china. does anyone know if these refinerys can run on the canadian stuff since it is also heavy and requires a certain kind of refining process.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
  68. Sponge-Bob

    Obama knows he's dropping in the polls so he figures this might help. If he truly had his way gas would be $8 a gallon.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:54 pm |
    • brian in DC

      And that has been proved over and over again.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
  69. KM

    To those who persist in stating that none of the finished product from the pipeline will be used in the US, it is important to remember that the US as a sovereign nation can alter it's energy policy to utilize the finished product any way it wishes. An executive action stalled this pipeline previously, an executive order could direct oil companies to make this product available to American markets. The solution to this false dilema is actually not that complicated.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • lies and hate from the right

      Its already being refined at conoco phillips refinery in woodriver illinois the whole refinery was revamped to use canadian crude

      March 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
  70. Doug Hall

    Glad that the President is doing all he can to endorse plans that won't harm the environment whilst using the full power of his Administration to re-evaluate the portion of Keystone that needs environmental fine-tuning to protect watersheds and the communities they support in the Upper Near West.

    March 20, 2012 at 7:59 pm |
  71. brian in DC

    How could anyone not see this coming. Trying to play both sides of the fence. "I'm only approving the "good" portion". With his numbers tanking because of his obvious penchant against fossil fuels would anyone expect something different of a man with no convictions? Spineless is one way of putting it. Spineless throughout the whole ordeal. Makes you wonder whose really running the show.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • daniel

      so approving this portion of the pipeline is a bad thing? if he he did its a bad thing, if he didn't its a bad thing. i see where your coming from, now.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:40 pm |
  72. FRED

    After reading most of these post I can honestly say that if Obama ever comes to a immediate stop most of you will be stuck for life. Its sad that you refuse to see through the BS. If he does lose the election I can see every one of you rioting crying that your not getting free stuff any more. How will you people live, having to actually think for yourselves.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
  73. Donna

    obama is approving the southern part of the pipeline just to look good before elections. He has been against the whole pipeline. Does he think everyone is so stupid they can't see this or is it just the dems who don't see it.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
    • brian in DC

      I think he thinks the whole country is a bunch of fools although he's still getting votes so there is some truth to that.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:05 pm |
    • daniel

      so approving half the pipeline, makes him look half good? he should have approved all the pipeline and then he would get all the votes and even you and brian would vote for him. hahahaha

      March 20, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
    • wrks4aliving

      Obama didn't have to approve anything for this phase of the pipeline (Oklahoma to TX gulf). It's been in the newspapers down here for months – that Keystone pipeline would go ahead with this southern portion regardless of the build portion being stalled out in Nebraska. (In fact, this pipeline will be coming to within a mile of my house before it splits off to go two different directions.) Just so you know, the typical Republican view of the state of Texas... is that it is just too big a land mass to ever become polluted. Who cares if it's dirty oil, forced through pipes by chemical concentrations under high pressure?

      Forget blaming Obama and do some research on the facts! It was a done deal years ago, and the land for the southern phase had already been bought (uhh... taken over, more like) before he was even elected.

      March 21, 2012 at 7:30 am |
  74. ObamaOpportunist

    I say put Obama and Clooney in a stockade on the Mall in Washington!

    March 20, 2012 at 8:04 pm |
  75. GreenPhotog

    What kind of payment does the US receive from Canada for allowing them to transport their oil though our country?

    March 20, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
  76. skarphace

    Higher gas prices are not the problem; higher gas prices are the solution.

    Higher gas prices will force those who cannot afford their gas guzzlers to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. This will drive up investment into alternative fuel source vehicles.

    Higher gas prices are not the problem; higher gas prices are the solution.

    Higher gas prices will force those who cannot afford to drive to use public transportation. This will drive up investment into more efficient public transportation.

    Higher gas prices are not the problem; higher gas prices are the solution.

    Higher gas prices will help to decrease our dependence of foreign oil, especially those from the war-torn middle east.

    Higher gas prices are not the problem; higher gas prices are the solution.

    Higher gas prices will help to wean us off our addiction to fossil fuels which only serve to polute our air and water.

    Higher gas prices are not the problem; higher gas prices are the solution.

    Higher gas prices are good for America, and good for our environment. It is a shame that concern over the environment did not trump short-term profits. If it did, we would not be in this position we are right now where we are easily held hostage by foreign oil companies.

    However, this is not the case. Therefore, higher gas prices is the one and only long-term solution to this economical and environmental crisis. All other solutions are short-term and will only result in higher gas prices in the future with the added side effect of more destruction of our environment.

    Do you want lower gas prices in the future? Then support higher gas prices now.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • dieshard

      and fuqque you also !! !I WILL keep driving my 1996 Caddy??? Why ITS what I own AND PAID FOR Dipsshiit !!!

      March 20, 2012 at 11:54 pm |
  77. Coflyboy

    I WAS gonna vote Democrat– until today. FU Mr. Obama, my vote goes to Independents.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:11 pm |
    • FLIndependent

      And who may that be for President?

      March 21, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  78. bfpiercelk

    " before the administration announced its objection to the pipeline."

    This is a total lie by the author. The administration didn't object to the pipeline, they objected to by-passing the review process through an act of congress.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
  79. TexDoc

    He was against it, before he was for it. And they complain about flip flops?

    March 20, 2012 at 8:16 pm |
    • TexRealist

      No, he wasn't. It's too different issues, there, braintrust.

      March 20, 2012 at 8:28 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      You realize that what you said makes no sense in the real world, right? He was not against it then for it. He was for doing due diligence on the environmental impact of the project. The Southern portion has far less potential impact (I guess because no one in the South cares if the thing spills, or there isn't a major aquifer under it to cause a devastating environmental impact or something like that). Where is good old fashioned common sense these days?

      March 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
  80. dean

    Obama knows the environmental A wholes will vote for him anyway. He just uses them for votes then flips them the bird....

    March 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  81. GreenPhotog

    Google Canadian Tar Sands and see what our neighbors to our north are doing their (there) way.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm |
  82. opinion8it

    What can you do - these ignorant t-party types have thick skulls - give them the pipeline and then when they realize that it doesnt' make a difference at the pump, maybe they'll develop some sense – though I highly doubted.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:18 pm |
  83. Bob

    I love the GOP- "How dare Obama do what we ask him to do when it's the right thing! If he only disagrees with us when we're wrong, it makes us look bad! That's no fair! He's taking away all our talking points!"

    March 20, 2012 at 8:21 pm |
  84. Ramesh

    Oil exploration and refining has taken a bigger priority over environmental issues. Mainly because the damages are not convincingly documented. Until then the economic impact makes production speedup imperative. The most important factors here debt, deficit,energy, and jobs. O has gone on deep end from which he is not going to recover. All these political stunts will backfire on him.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:23 pm |
  85. Ryan

    You tree huggers are something else! Lets damn Big Oil, they are the problem! Give me a break. Big oil employees over 7 million people in this country! I guess you don't like people working.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  86. An Albertan

    Hey Brianna,

    I've followed your reporting and promotion to the WH dance hall for some time now. Color me a Canadian conservative.

    A bit if advice, if I may: if you don't want any hint of bias in your reporting on Keystone XL, or similar, stop referring to "tar sands". That's a pejorative term created by the enviro crowd. Best to refer to the area / product as we in Alberta do, and have all along for many many years, way before Obama came to office. We call it "oil sands".


    March 20, 2012 at 8:25 pm |
  87. No one

    If the pipeline could have been built "in spite of" the President, why is it a problem that he said no? If it had to be done with approval by the President, why can it be done "in spite of" him?

    March 20, 2012 at 8:27 pm |
  88. Marxist Commie Socialist

    Interesting, This stuff had a small spill in Michigan 20 months ago. They are still trying to clean that up. The Tar Oil is heavier than water making it virtually impossible not to have a dramatic impact on the our beautiful country.
    Obama is making a mistake appeasing the idiots. AGAIN

    March 20, 2012 at 8:31 pm |
  89. Jerry

    Wimpo-in-Chief. I thought this man was desperate to win reelection. I just did not know how really desperate. Don't say you were not warned about the wimpy nature of this of this president. Is this the man you want representing America?

    I opine NOT!!!

    March 20, 2012 at 8:32 pm |
    • Dan, TX

      Except Romney is 100 times worse than Obama.....

      March 20, 2012 at 8:42 pm |
  90. Dantes

    Classic Obama. He'll cut the baby in half for his re-election. The "Pipeline to Nowhere".

    March 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm |
  91. Jeff

    I love how the left is so diverse. Look at the crowd, some are whiter than others. Some are wealthier than others, but at the end of the day, environmental policy that allows them to sue the government (taxpayers) for profit brings them all together.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
  92. Johnny S.

    I am wary of this thing. For one, the republicans are for it. I think once the pipeline is built, there will not be very many jobs as a result of this project. Maybe we ought to just sit on the tar sands, and save them for later.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
  93. TexDoc

    He can approve the whole pipeline, go down and help build it, I still won't vote for him. I think the federal government has run amok with power grabs and dictating to the citizens and the states. It's downright tyranny to force every American citizen to buy something. There is no power in the US constitution for the federal government to force me to buy health insurance! SCOTUS will likely agree, arguments start Monday!

    March 20, 2012 at 8:39 pm |

    I'll weigh in here. The pipeline will do very little – if anything to lower the price of gas at the pumps. You are a fool if you believe otherwise. It will create jobs and that could be a good thing, but somewhat offset by the potential environmental problems that it poses. For those who say that there ARE NO concerns – how quickly those images of oil spilling into the Gulf have faded for you. My next car – in 2 years hopefully, will be a Chevy VOLT.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
  95. TexDoc

    He can approve the whole pipeline, go down and help build it, I still won't vo te fo r him.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:40 pm |
    • daniel

      i will

      March 20, 2012 at 9:32 pm |
      • Mistake59

        I will also. I am terrified another uber rich person who has no idea what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck or who has no clue what it is like for us middle and lower class to send our children to war for money. Not just oil, think of the money Cheney made "cleaning up" after Iraq...

        March 20, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • Dan5404

      That's OK, I" cancel out your vote.

      March 21, 2012 at 12:00 am |
      • Adam

        That's really not how democracy works lol

        March 21, 2012 at 4:19 am |
    • Jasie

      This is the stupidest prez ever. Jimmy Carter must be so glad.

      March 22, 2012 at 8:24 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
  96. Dan, TX

    BOEHNER! let me see if I understand this. Obama only gets the blame if the pipeline gets delayed, but he gets no credit if the pipeline gets built on a fast track. Wow, just wow.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:41 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
  97. teaisbetter

    What a hypocrite! This guy's lying never ceases to amaze me and the sheeple continue to buy this. He had nothing to do with this because he could not stop it. Most people in Oklahoma are really mad he is going to go down there and try and take credit for this.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  98. Victor

    It is nice to open one's mouth and state he will expediate the XL pipe line. Now tell the USA Citizens why you sold out bridge contracts to China and not the USA business and stell industries and it union members?

    March 20, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
  99. G Lamothe

    Hey thick-skulled Americans:

    Words of advice (from a humble Canadian) : First of all, look into the global situation of global oil demand (which will inevitably keep increasing) versus global oil supply (which is inevitably slowing down, or worse). Then investigate Peak Oil. Sorry, if you don't find it on Fox News, but do take the time to research i: it might open your minds.

    Second of all, read the previous post by skarpace, and take heed. It's good advice.

    If not, park in front of the nearest Interstate (most likely you have a few to choose from) and sit in your SUV and try to figure out why the USA can't handle some of the (still) cheapest gas prices on earth. Then, honestly do what you can do to help the situation.

    If still not, elect Newt Gingrich who solemnly promised to bring $2.50 a gallon gas prices to the USA if he were elected: NOW THAT'S A SOLUTION!! (sarcasm intended)

    sorry if I'm taking above your heads -a humble Canadian.

    March 20, 2012 at 8:58 pm |
  100. leroy

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Comments are not pre-screened before they post.

    March 20, 2012 05:43 pm at 5:43 pm |

    March 20, 2012 05:44 pm at 5:44 pm |

    March 20, 2012 05:46 pm at 5:46 pm |

    March 20, 2012 06:33 pm at 6:33 pm |

    March 20, 2012 08:51 pm at 8:51 pm |

    March 20, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • JPoet

      Really no point in posting when they do this,makes the comment sample biased. A blog is immediate, I'm going too bad my comments may generate conversation.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:30 pm |
    • John

      It is kind of strange that I only get that awaiting moderation thing when I post a right leaning comment. I have purposely posted some nasty left leaning comments and guess what, they were posted without issue.

      March 21, 2012 at 9:45 am |

    I'll weigh in here. The pipeline will do very little – if anything to lower the price of gas at the pumps. You are a fool if you believe otherwise. It will create jobs and that could be a good thing, but somewhat offset by the potential environmental problems that it poses. For those who say that there ARE NO concerns – how quickly those images of oil spilling into the Gulf have faded for you. My next car – in 2 years hopefully, will be a Chevy VOLT.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:00 pm |
  102. pipefitter353

    do you people even know how long long it would take to deteriate the piping from literally being sandblasted from the inside out?I am a pipefitter(not a pipeline fitter,mind you) but I do know about pipes.They are not indestructable.Everybody bitches when a pipe leaks.Think about it.Nobody wants an oilspill.The best solution would be to Refine it closer to the canadian border.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:01 pm |

    Can a brother get a MODERATION here???? The pipeline will do very little – if anything to lower the price of gas at the pumps. You are a fool if you believe otherwise. It will create jobs and that could be a good thing, but somewhat offset by the potential environmental problems that it poses. For those who say that there ARE NO concerns – how quickly those images of oil spilling into the Gulf have faded for you. My next car – in 2 years hopefully, will be a Chevy VOLT.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:02 pm |
  104. Henk in Colorado

    Don't you hate those dang Canadians? They use their OWN natural resources while at the same time refusing to send all their money to countries that hate them. That should be illegal. Eh.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  105. C. K. Justus

    Boehner probably had to get permission from Cantor to even say anything at all. He is worst speaker I can remember in the last 60 years.
    He should go get him bar or a job as a bartender for there is what he knows how to do for he keeps saying he grew up in bar and his dad must have ran him so he would not drink up the profits.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm |
  106. JPoet

    Most interesting. Politics is getting what you want. Then shutting up giving credit and getting what you want again. They got what they want but Borhner needs to say he won, or the president lost, or whatever. This is a huge point aganst his party as it shows it's not doing best by the country he wants , instead taking credit. How embarrassing are his comments about Obama when they won 50%.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:07 pm |
  107. xnay

    LOL. All the people on this board complaining about business will be complaining that they can't find a job when and if they put down the video games and graduate with something other than a sociology degree.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
  108. joeinalabama

    Ah yes, the pipeline to nowhere. Won't do any good with nothing to connect it to, but may get BO a few votes.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:13 pm |
    • daniel

      would that be nowhere texas? you should check your facts.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
  109. JPoet

    Supply of oil > demand, prices are up for other reasons which I can't go into but the key is supply and demand. Either way this will raise prices of oil because the cost of the pipeline. Historical comparison: ATMs touted as a free way to get money but then the " business people" realized, hey the computers and programmers to do this are costly. Now a typical ATM is $2 per transaction not $0 as promised. Same story, to monitor and maintain a 1500 pipe, enormous! More money for everyone but the typical US citizen.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:14 pm |
  110. Zinger59

    I laugh at the term "dirty oil". Its all dirty you idiots. If you guys could have developed the LeBrea tarpits and made a profit from it you would have. Would you rather send your money to those wackos in the middle east or to your friends in Canada?

    March 20, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
  111. daniel

    why did the republicans vote down the dem bill, that would have kept the keystone pipeline oil from being exported and only for us consumtion? why would the republicons push the pipeline on americans saying it about national security,it would bring down oil prices etc. and then vote against keeping the oil for america?

    March 20, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
    • lies and hate from the right

      Romney sucks

      March 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • Ramesh

      Because Republicans don't want more Govt. regulation on business. If refined oil and its byproducts generate more business outside, that is less burden on balance of payments and debt. Also more incentive to spend on new exploration.
      You cannot micromanage economy. Normally transportation to outside the country adds costs. Business can figure out what is the optimum mix. Stats will show if the exports are greatly scwed and hurting US economy. Instead we should focus on maximum efficiency in energy generation. Let us look at logical analysis before we take political sides.

      March 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • Mike in Texas

      Because it would go against there free trade stance. They don't care if what is pulled from the ground in the U.S. is sold to some other country. It is all about the profits.

      March 20, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
    • dex

      cuz its for china and europe after the US refines it to sell...then countries like china and russia will buy it for cheap rather than buyin iranian oil...therefore in the UN they will side with the west and stop iran from nukes ...either by huge sanctions of a military approval.... thats why

      March 21, 2012 at 2:55 am |
      • Adam

        The fact that you think oil from Keystone XL will satiate Chinese consumption even 1% is just too funny =)

        March 21, 2012 at 4:20 am |
  112. Joe C.

    (No one else noticed the picture of the lovely Daryl Hannah holding the Keystone XL sign out in front?)

    It seems the story is that this portion of the pipeline didn't even need Obama's "permission" to be built. Let's be clear. This is pandering and a partial caving in to the pressure of ever increasing gas prices.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
  113. watchdogg2007

    Mitt's gonna hate this. It was a BIG portion of his campaign.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • Mike in Texas

      Mitt will come up a big spin on this. Just like the economy. First it was Obama is making the recession the worse. Now it is Obama is slowing down the recovery. He will just move the goalpost back every time Obama is about to score on him.

      Mitt is a moderate anyways pretending to be a conservative. He wants to balance the budget by spending cuts only but as governor he reduced the deficit by equally cutting spending and raising taxes (he calls them fees, but fees are another word for taxes). He did lower some taxes but in the end he increased revenue by charging the residents more.

      March 20, 2012 at 10:29 pm |
  114. John Heddinger

    you all have no idea....the owner of the oil and the pipeline is a company from isn't going to be sent to the usa or is being refined in the gulf and sent to export....check the facts and stop posting really stupid crap !

    March 20, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
  115. Al

    This is pretty good, I think that when the pipeline was rejected by Obama, I said that as election day were to come closer, it was going to be passed in some way shape or form, and here we are, and why because Obama and his type know that his people have a short memory and they will forget about Obama rejecting the pipeline and any aspect of it.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:34 pm |
    • daniel

      hey al, can you tell us how the pipeline benefits the average american?

      March 20, 2012 at 9:48 pm |
      • Ramesh

        yes. it does. we have a huge economy. this may be small compared to the size of the economy , even a /1% adds up.

        March 20, 2012 at 9:51 pm |
      • bud

        Threatens to eventually increase supply. Which reduces the price if the market is allowed to work. That won't happen because unions, Repubs and everyone in a mutual are invested in oil companies. If gas goes down too far they will complain so it will be artificially inflated anyway. And they aren't going to let the Arab's assets decline too far before they let it bounce back. We're just taxpayers, well a minority of us are, and we're screwed no matter what.

        March 20, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
    • Mike in Texas

      Obama never said he was against the project. Read up. He wanted more time for studies to be done. Tell me where he said he never wanted this project to be done.

      March 20, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
    • Dan5404

      You are off base. He just won't be pushed by big oil and its' GOP cronies into a rushed decision on a project that endangers fresh water for millions and guarantees no oil at all for the U.S. It is not approved yet, and won't be until the plan is changed to protect the water.

      March 20, 2012 at 11:59 pm |
  116. Weimardog

    No Keystone pipeline benefits Obummers old buddy Buffet's BNSF Railroad. If no pipeline, BNSF can haul all the way to the Gulf. Otherwise, BNSFe can haul it from Canada to Cushing. Which would you rather have hundreds of trains belching smoke and all sorts of pollutants or a pipeline. Seems like an easy choice. Too bad Obummer doesn't put as much thought into the pipeline as he does doing his basketball brackets.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:39 pm |
  117. Atomico

    It says "part of pipeline". I'd image the other parts are pending until elections are passed.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:44 pm |
  118. Atomico

    It says "part of pipeline". I'd image that other parts are pending until elections are passed.

    March 20, 2012 at 9:45 pm |
  119. tommy

    KNOW THE WHOLE FACTS ABOUT THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE people then you will say yes that is good for us why am i so STUPID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    March 20, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
  120. Atomico

    Since when did CNN pre-screen comments contrary to their Terms of Service whereby "comments are not pre-screened before they post"??

    March 20, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
  121. Sagebrush Shorty

    More re-election garbage from Obama.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • bud

      too little too late

      March 20, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
  122. Gary

    Are you sure this guy's name isn't Dick Obama? Cause he is a dick.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:11 pm |
  123. Juss

    I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but the only way to refine this oil requires the use of natural gas. which we have an abundance of. jobs for everyone

    March 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
  124. auntjimima

    Gasoline prices are high for several reasons:

    (1)Oil speculation: The Atlanta commodity-index exchange requires only an extremely low equity-margin ratio for oil futures trading, which means easy,high leverage purchases of oil contracts using cheap US dollars for light-sweet crude that's not necessarily extracted, refined, or even shipped out to final destination.
    (2) The shadowy Fed: It prints lots of cheap US dollars that (a) allow its investment banker friends to borrow inexpensively under "discount window" for guaranteed profit off US Treasuries, (b) make gasoline even less affordable for you and me, (c) allow the Chinese to re-invest into US Treasuries the weakening dollars we sent them to purchase their pirated and cheap Wall-Mart export goods (i.e. Tickle-Me Elmo) and d) allowed a few years ago your McMansion mortgage (with the blessing of the "know-it-all " Standard and Poors/Moody's rating companies)to be packagded up into a tranched collaterlized debt oblication (CDO) with other useless /worthless derivatives, credit default swap insurance contracts, none of which makes sense to them or you and I. This made the dollar even more worthless. Not in favor of a gold standard, but as a side note, Wall Street and the Fed have way too much control and get way too much respect for their "brililance".To end this oligarchy, stop electing Wall Street-sponsored politicians (Obama) who perpetuate subsidies to the oil-speculating Wall-Street financial sector and i.banks by in turn confirming ex-NY investment bankers (Geithner, etc.) to run a shadowy Treasury Department and Federal Reserve. Much of Wall Street and the media conglomerates that support them are manned primarily by incompetent, albeit slick, "old-money" frat-boy Econ majors from"prestigious" East Coast Ivy League institutions who networked at the insolar synagogue to land a job either at Goldman-Sachs (i.e. Blankfein, Gus Levy, Cohn, the apologetic Greg Smith) or Time Warner/CNN/HBO/TIme Magazine (Erin Burnett, Larry King, and the Vanderbilt family's very own Anderson Cooper). They posess both stupidity and "short-term greed", a very dangerous combination. After gov't allowed investment banks to go public as the G-S partnership did in '99, the shareholders-masters had to be obeyed and pleased at all costs, even if it means leverage trading exotic securities you and their worthless clients don't quite understand
    (3) The Christian pro-Israeli Lobby that is trying to pressure us into a conflict with Iran and the Hemuz Straits, psychologically disrupting the light-sweet crude. They at Goldman-Sachs also pray for Middle East instability, as it is more profitable for oil-speculation.
    (4)Supply and demand: As you know China and India are driving up demand. And while most of our crude is derived from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, (and hopefully Norway in the future) Saudi-Arabia and the Middle-East still can manipulate market prices by reducing supply.
    (5) Oil companies: They dictate the margin after cost of goods sold are calculated. They obviously enjoy tax loopholes and get our tax subsidies in the form of a military presence in the Presian Gulf. But they are NOT the enemy. So, tree-huggers-stop calling them so and annoying them. Actually, oil companies our one of our greatest friend. That's because they are the ones we can thank for developing and maturing the distillation and themocatalytic cracking technology over the last century which will be essential once they're convinced that it makes financial sense to switch to American alternative feedstocks like pyrolyzed bio-oil from plentiful wheat straw agricultural farm waste. Unlike with starch-based bioethanol from corn, there are NO food vs. famine issues to deal with when using ligno-cellulosic wheat-straw waste.
    (6) The Longshoremen's Unions, Teamsters Unions commanding ridiculous "grandfathered in" pension contracts for jobs involving driving a truck or ship to freight over petrol products.
    (7) Municipal, state, local taxes: These fund bridges and roads that you may not necessarily ever even use.Hence, a "user-based tax" makes more sense
    (8) The environmentalists like Sierra Club who convince the public that an "oil-tax" levied is sufficient. The real question is: Once you have the tax revenue, what do you do with it. They want to send it to an owl-preserve, while instead it should be directed to DOE and university research.These guys also should quit calling the oil-companies the enemy and instead try to work with them for a change.
    (9) Increasing Cost of extraction (This actually is built into the oil company price)-THe easy pre-peak oil is depleting, and now we continue to drill deep underwater off the gulfs and elsewhere.
    (10) Your tolerance and continued neglect of ride-sharing, carpooling, public transportation, and the unicycle. The "Well, in Europe they pay $10/liter so we're still OK"attitude. Also, the suburban life you and your family embrace as a way to escape your traumatic memories from the religious civil war-ravaged country you were allowed to immigrated from by the INS and Dept. Homeland Security.
    (11) An apathetic and ignorant government that doesn't fully realize that China is about to dominate the alternative sector and all associated jobs. A government that would much rather support unions , pensioners, Medi-Care and welfare recipients than invest in the DOE and university research in biofuels. Stop electing politicians lacking technical/engineering backgrounds with respect to refining of petroleum or biomass feed stocks (i.e. you hired a charismatic teleprompter-reading Mickey-Mouse liberal arts major/lawyer-student activist from Harvard to run the U.S.?Surrounding yourself with DOE's Chu, a Nobel Laureate from the legendary Bell Labs, is not enough to move this country forward away from limited crude supplies)
    (12)Our notion that this XL Keystone pipeline is any good to the U.S. This is designed to carry dense, Canadian tar sands crude (high in sulfur and nitrogen) from the Alabathsaca (sic) Region of Alberta, through US territories that are fully capable of sustaining an "inland" refinery for distribution to the rest of the US, through precious aquifer territory of Nebraska, only to allow a coastal refinery in Texas to refine it and ultimately ship it out to the world market (China, India) at the highest sustainable price. Remember how few short-term jobs were created by the infinitely more challenging Alaska Pipieline and frozen tundra terrain? This iissue is really about supply and demand, not about protecting the environment(although that's important too). Do we want to lock ourselves into a perpetual petroleum-based market or do we want to help LOWER PRICES by expanding our energy/polymer chemicals portfolio to include alternative renewable sources?

    In the meantime, support our troops and try to change the mindset of our pathetic government and our future friend, the oil companies so we can at least move in the right direction. Have a nice day...

    March 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm |
    • auntjimima

      I'll keep it short next time. Be good...

      March 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
  125. Kathy

    Please...uis there anything about this guy that is honest? Is ever single decision he makes strictly about winning elections? Either build the darn thing or not but stop with the half done crap that spends money with no end results...other than votes! Reminds me of raising my children.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:17 pm |
    • Mike in Texas

      You must be talking about Romney. His campaign song is "Karma Chameleon"

      March 20, 2012 at 10:19 pm |
  126. tommy

    ever other candidate voted yes or wouid go ahead with the pipeline even alot sooner then obama wanted to, i think he is the smarted man be happy you don't have macane you would be wearing towel on your head.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  127. iJoe00

    The oil will come from the tar sands of Canada to the US. The question is how? If not the pipeline, then it will come via freight trains. Guess who owns the trains? Warren Buffet (who is a big Obama supporter). So, Obama nixes Keystone in favor of hauling oil by train for his friend Warren. I ask you then, would you rather have an oil spill via a controlled pipeline, or a train wreck? A pipeline is far better at containing oil spills than a train.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:20 pm |
  128. Gloria

    Ok...I wish to thank those who voted to bring back Rod Serlings Twilight Zone. I really did miss that show- spooky as it A little help her Mr. Clinton. 🙂 Some will vote to extend these reruns another year. LOL

    March 20, 2012 at 10:21 pm |
  129. Nancy

    I can't believe this. Fodder for election year trumps common sense. So for a few jobs (that will shrink in number over the years) We're going to enrich folks & companies that don't need it. We continue to trade our future for the easy yes of the present.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
  130. dallasfury

    Hey you dumb dems and libs.... he's fast tracking this because he's falling behind in the polls... plain and simple... all he cares about is getting re-elected so he can finish destroying our country...

    March 20, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
  131. jschmidt

    so all's better now. Obama has an energy policy. Of course it doesn't negate the prevention of drilling he's done all along and the delay in the pipeline that has been under study for 2 years.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:33 pm |
  132. Mike in Texas

    Ask Romney about his backhanded gas tax he raised by 400%. The revenue wasn't even used for it's intended purpose either. Also, ask Romney if he wants to eliminate the welfare we are giving oil companies right now.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:35 pm |
  133. aaron

    It only took a few weeks for Obama to cave on that one. He was running faster than usual on the spinelessness.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:39 pm |
    • Dan5404

      No one is caving. He will make a decision based on the location of the pipeline away from acquifers. He has not approved it yet. There is no guarantee America will even get much of the oil.

      March 20, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
    • Adam

      Actually he was never against the project, go back and reread what was happening: he said he would make a decision come march. So when the decision was forced beforehand, he rejected it, but left the option open to approve it once March rolled around.

      March 21, 2012 at 4:22 am |
      • John Tighe

        Obama's been a huge disappointment.

        March 21, 2012 at 5:29 am |
      • BADGUY

        to who?

        March 21, 2012 at 5:58 am |
  134. shaquack

    He has absolutely nothing to do with permitting the southern portion of the pipeline as all approvals are controlled by each state and county the pipeline passes through. Can't CNN report the truth?

    March 20, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
  135. angel611

    And Obama sells out to big oiil.
    I thought so what with him doing nothing to investigate price fixing and manipulation of energy prices.
    I wonder how much they donated to his campaign?

    March 20, 2012 at 10:46 pm |
    • bspurloc

      this oil has nothign to do with the price of oil.... u r too lsot in fear mongering to get it... but keep crying as that works for u

      March 20, 2012 at 11:43 pm |
  136. Jimh77

    You do not want this oil in your vehicle. It is loaded with so many impurities it's more like semiconductor material than a fuel. But by all means ship it off shore and gum up their equipment. Personally, I think it is a waste of money to build, but it will make jobs for a couple years for quite a few. And will be a constant maintenance issue with leaks daily. Contamination wilkl be a constant struggle to stay ahead of it. More jobs!! Then it all shuts down and still remains a full time maintenance issue.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:47 pm |
  137. Smako

    Why do we have to pay for a pipeline that allows the Commonwealth of Canada to sell oil through the Gulf of Mexico? They should not only be paying to build it but paying us to allow it to cross our country.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
  138. smithapple

    Obama's pipeline to nowhere.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
  139. Jimh77

    When we take over this Country, we will straighten it out and make it work for everyone like it was meant to by our fore fathers. One day those on wall street will be pennyless!! Those not making ends meet, will Make them meet plus! We need to get it together and stop the fragmentation.

    March 20, 2012 at 10:55 pm |
    • bspurloc

      first u need to learn to read and stop getting info from foxfacts...
      The oil is CANADAs. Canada doesnt ahve enoguh refineries to refine. THis info is direct from the Company itself. They have workers to build the pipeline. After the oil is refined they will sell it to the highest bidder... NOT the usa.
      reading comprehension is key not fear mongering. but when your a dolt fear mongering is all that works

      March 20, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
      • dex

        acutally alot of the people up there are haliburton -.- i see their trucks everywhere... i work up here... but you are right...its not for the US... the US will refine it though and take their cut and control the flow.

        March 21, 2012 at 2:48 am |
  140. MalcolmXcrement

    ROFL !!!! Once again, faced with pressure from public opinion, Obama folds like a lawn chair.

    Fine leader. I've seen jellyfish with more backbone. Throw the bum out!!!!

    March 20, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
  141. John Jackson

    The whole tar sands development is an enormous environmental train wreck happening in slow but speeding up motion. The vast lands on top of the tar sands are some of the most pristine and extensive boreal forests on the planet. Aside from the fact that it is akin to the tragedy of devestating the rain forests in South America, or blasting and paving over the Grand Canyon, or filling in the Great Lakes to make parking lots, the amount of carbon that these forests have sequestered in them that will be released into the atomosphere, and the amount of additional carbon that will also be dumped into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuel gasses to cook the oil out of the tar sands, is like stripping a melanoma victim nude and making them go lay out in the desert to get a suntan. All the people that bellow about creating jobs from building and operating a pipeline are simply sticking their heads up there arses to ignore the larger damage to our environment that they are committing to, to try and solve their shorter term employment problems. I'm not saying unemployment isn't a horrendous tragedy itself; it certainly is. But supporting Canada's exploitation of this natural resource is ultimately going to have far worse long term consequences for far larger numbers of people. The basic problem with the whole situation is that reality is simply a bitch. That's not anyone's fault, more than anyone else's. We all got ourselves into this mess. Only we can get ourselves out of it. Or we can keep going with the same blind selfish behaviors that brought us this far, and suffer the ultimate consequences, sooner or later. But that's getting closer and closer, every day..

    March 20, 2012 at 11:00 pm |
  142. Richard

    Anti-domestic energy, stuck in the Middle East to act as Israel's proxy, wars, embargoes and the REAL cost of "cheap" Middle Eastern oil is $20/gallon because of all that nonsense. BUILD KEYSTONE, OBAMA!!!! Stop being a toad.

    March 20, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
  143. Ron WPAFB

    After the GOP voted down the Insider Trading in Congress Bill, We find that John Beohner had stock in every company associated with Keyston XL!Both chambers overwhelmingly passed different versions of the legislation designed to approve Congress' image, but the Senate included two provisions that were stripped out by the House.

    One would have required registration and public reports — similar to those filed by lobbyists — by anyone selling inside information learned from Congress.

    The second was designed to strengthen criminal laws in public corruption cases, raise maximum penalties and restore tools used by prosecutors in such cases that were limited by the Supreme Court.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he lacked the votes to establish a House-Senate conference to work out a compromise between the two versions.

    It seems the GOP house wants to keep their secret Insider trading and Beohner is in charge!

    March 20, 2012 at 11:05 pm |
  144. Vic

    This is OIL SAND not tar sand! Big difference. When you hold it in your hand it is SAND that falls apart, try that with tar! A lot easier to refine and cleaner. But you people will belive what you want to believe.
    If you don't want it, that is fine with the most Canadians, we will and are selling to China and others. It is not the best tecknology, but until we get a more reliable and cheaper way to heat our homes and travel this is all we have.

    Change is coming but this will not happen over night. Until then, this is the fuel we use to get products to market to keep the economy of both of our countries going. This type of fuel is still needed to move consumer products. If nothing moves, nothing sells, if nothing sells, what happens to your job?

    March 20, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
  145. JB

    They should build the pipeline to within 10 feet of the Canadian border then let Obama explain why he won't approve those 10 feet.

    March 20, 2012 at 11:21 pm |
  146. Waterbug

    I find it incredibly annoying that people on here act just like our pathetic government does. You know ...... the neverending democrat/republican arguing? Thats why America doesnt stand a chance. This crap will never stop will it?

    March 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm |
  147. Roger

    shake your collective heads, you get 28% of your petrolium from Canada, it is not being exported.
    you export 1.7 bbl/day, produce domestically 9 and use 18.7.That's a minus 9.6, drops to a mere -8 when you add iraq prod, the usa is rigth there beside China and Japan, in the hole, a bucket full of troubles and a new fox lookin in at the hen house.

    March 20, 2012 at 11:32 pm |
  148. Wooleyes

    Hey protesters, especially the Hollywood attention-getters - I've got a better idea than protesting – how about coming up with an alternative energy solution? I need oil to drive to work. I can't walk, bike or fly there – I have to commute and they've got me by my wheels. Let's pool our resources and talents and WORK TOGETHER and prove we can find a solution other than being dependent on the exploitation of the earth. Thorium reactors, fuel cells, wind, solar, whatever. . . let's get it done people! I want my kids to have hope in a future, not despair. Don't you?

    March 20, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
  149. Josh Gonzalez

    This will not affect the price of oil. It will not decrease our dependence on foreign oil. Oil from tar sands is like mud. It takes a tremendous amount of pressure to move it through the pipe line. You can be absolutely sure there will be leakage and possibly explosions. It is not worth it to make a few billionaires more wealthy.

    March 20, 2012 at 11:38 pm |
  150. Dan5404

    I saw a special report last week that showed farmers getting $100,000-$150,000 a year for leases, but there were some 40 incidents of leakage that they had not been informed of as required by their contracts. When confronted, the company started notifying them and working to fix the problems. This is a nasty process that has high pollution possibilities, and I hope they have moved it away from the two large acquifers before the president decides. Also, the company would not even agree to sell the oil to the United States. So,we are risking polluting our fresh water supply in the hope that we can get some few thousand temporary and a small number of permanent jobs and that we can buy enough of the oil to make a small difference in our supply. Pennsylvania has many of those huge storage pits for the toxic waste that is a byproduct of the process. I think we should put them on the personal property of the GOP sponsors of the bill. I'm sure they would sacrifice that much for their beloved oil companies and the American people, right?

    March 20, 2012 at 11:49 pm |
    • mcivilsurveyor

      yes indeed

      March 21, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • dex

      how about you pay $10 a gallon then to drive the kids to school and buy a loaf of bread for $30... either the pipeline goes on or you will go to war matter if you like it or not

      March 21, 2012 at 2:42 am |
      • Adam

        This magical pipeline, that will carry 2% of the country's daily oil consumption, also not even to be sold to the US, is all that stands between us and $10 oil? haha, switch off Fox and maybe read a book sometime. Even Twilight might help.

        March 21, 2012 at 4:23 am |
  151. Tom

    Mr. President Obama this is a huge mistake. Sand-stone oil sinks and is not cleanable if there is an accident. I support you all the way Mr. President, and I am voting for you in 2012, but a higher speed train, and more renewable energy and vertical farms, and water purification plants are much more important.

    March 21, 2012 at 12:04 am |
  152. Chris

    Guys guys guys....this article is written by an Obama funded WH correspondent. Just like everything on CNN, its just another event spun into Obama's favor. Has the public yet to pick up on the manipulated media trend?

    March 21, 2012 at 12:12 am |
  153. mcivilsurveyor

    Perhaps everyone could have a glance at Google earth, the location of this resource and the nearest coastline? – Due west –
    However the citizens of Canada refuse to allow the installation, and inevitable pollution of their above and below grade natural resources, primarily water. The climate conditions greatly affect the installation ability and the effectiveness of man’s ability to move a product such as this one, that and the lack of refinement capabilities in the great northwest.
    Most interestingly and not even mentioned or considered in any blurb of information half way presented to those inclined to understand,(such prostitutes our media have become) this project is prominently defined by the requirement of every land owner affected by easement rights to be compensated at the same low rate, relative to square footage, eminent domain prevails again!, this time to a foreign entity and any other considerations are going to be forbidden!, this is how the manipulation easily occurs.
    How about we demand that a percentage value of the product shipped be paid, throughout the lifetime use of the easement – say every cubic measure is worth a value directly tied to the value of the dollar during each quarter, which is how they price their product? Additionally every land owner affected is immune from mediation requirements, related to settlement or cleanup and restoration.
    Yeah too problematic to consider, I must take this next phone call and update my postings, do they not understand that I need some gasoline to get where I’m going.
    I am not a tree hugger or wish to prohibit anyone from doing anything!. Need some help defining the route and insuring that no one is taken advantage of? , I’m your man.
    Why is it that the natural resources of our country most specifically the public lands that private individuals somehow hold mineral rights to, are plundered away, only to have the citizens receive the miniscule tax value of the end product that is traded amongst ourselves?
    I only want everyone to value themselves and everyone around them more.

    March 21, 2012 at 12:23 am |
  154. Anna

    Oil companies win again! What a sad day for the country. Anyone who thinks that this is a good idea needs to become informed about this and then do a little risk/benefit analysis. Who really benefits, do the short term benefits outweigh the long term risks? What happens to all of our farms and cattle ranches in parts of Nebraska, Kansas, and Colorado when this leaks? Unless they can outwit history, it will leak as the northernmost legs of the pipeline have proven without a doubt. Is the Ogallala Aquifer worth preserving?

    March 21, 2012 at 12:28 am |
  155. mcivilsurveyor

    Who is carved into the face of Mount Rushmore?

    Three land surveyors and some other guy.

    Google USPLSS , and enroll into an algebra class,


    March 21, 2012 at 12:29 am |
  156. mickey1313

    If we (america) gets cheap gas FOREVER, the pipeline is a good thing, if not it is a total drag on american resorces, and should not be done. Obama waffles again

    March 21, 2012 at 12:39 am |
  157. Tracy

    It doesn't matter where we get the oil, and where it is refined, the fact is we need the pipelines to move the products from one part of the U.S. to the other. The same pipelines that will be moving the crude oil will first be used to move the natural gas that sits on top of most oil wells. The price of oil will not and should not go down much just because we drill it here in the U.S., or Canada. Think about it, lets say that crude oil has a set price of the day at $100 per barrell, and you own the oil well. Would you sell your oil for $65 per barrell when everyone else is getting $100?

    March 21, 2012 at 12:40 am |
  158. Juan Carlos

    Another calculated political move. Too little too late. President Romney will get this country back on track.

    March 21, 2012 at 12:51 am |
  159. mcivilsurveyor

    0:30 minutes, I have endured the required moderation?
    such terrible thoughts I have shared.

    March 21, 2012 at 12:53 am |
  160. Juan Carlos

    Why does Saudi Arabia pay 50 cents a gallon? Why can't we

    March 21, 2012 at 12:53 am |
    • dex

      cuz the US bends over for them (_!_)

      March 21, 2012 at 2:44 am |
    • Adam

      Simple: the Saudis have STATE-owned oil companies China also has state-owned companies and SUBSIDIZES them.
      So, I assume that you were 100% for bailing out the banks and auto-industries, why not take it a step further and ask the US government top purchase Exxon, Chevron, Conoco, and others, and run them at zero-profit? We will definitely lower our gas prices.

      March 21, 2012 at 4:24 am |
  161. Dr Veruju

    Words are inadequate to describe what a total moron Obama is.
    There is no way even 1mm of this imbecilic pipeline should be built.

    March 21, 2012 at 12:57 am |
  162. mysticpather

    Shaking my head in disbelief.
    The first time there is an oil spill, Mr. President, it's your fault.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:01 am |
  163. RCDC

    There should be a conditions on these pipelines from Canada's oil. Ans it should go like this: we will create this pipelines to access Canada's oil and Alaska oil and gas, until the whole of USA will become independent from foreign oil until it happens, we will then shut it off.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:23 am |
  164. Donkey Party

    Is there a more ignorant segment of society than the right-wingers? Based on their comments, the answer is a resounding 'no'.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:24 am |
    • Justin

      I would say a lot of left wingers are ignorant as well

      March 21, 2012 at 1:26 am |
  165. Justin

    you guys do realize that gas prices have nothing to do with supply and demand right? The reason gas prices are so high is because of speculation and people who buy and sell oil even though they can't store it.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:24 am |
  166. Donkey Party

    Juan Carlos –

    The country is back on track, thanks to President Obama. If you are so foolish to vote Republican, or for Romney, then you deserve all the misery you bemoan.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:26 am |
    • dex

      back on track? you seriously believe that? your obama has screwed your counrty over more than anyone in history...what do you think he is gonna say or do if a pipeline breaks on your land? just like BP ..sit back and do nothing....he stopped the keystone before...he is messing with your heads...tryin to get votes and support that hes lost.... you demonoobs are so anti gop you are blind to everything he does... if he was a republican yould be all over him.... its just like a hockey game... your commitment is to your party.... no matter who plays for what side... the thing is both sides suck... they both play for the same orginization

      March 21, 2012 at 2:40 am |
    • joe

      When Obama was campaigning, he called the debt increase under Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic."

      "The way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - number 43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back - $30,000 for every man, woman and child," he told voters in North Dakota.

      The federal budget Obama sent to Capitol Hill last month projected the debt to reach $16.3 trillion in 2012 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

      See you in Nov.

      March 21, 2012 at 3:45 am |
      • Adam

        You do know that Bush's economic policies did not end the day he left office right?
        It will be around for another 3-6 years, before Obama's policies kick into full gear. The reason is that the recession lowers tax receipts, and has nothing to do with the size of the budget. The deficit would have grown even if the budget had been cut in 2009. However, if the budget was not increased and we did not have the Recovery Act (45% of which were tax cuts, not actual spending), the economy very well could have ceased to exist as we know it.

        March 21, 2012 at 4:29 am |
  167. Rick Springfield

    There is plenty of refining capacity just 40 miles from Cushing that could make so much fuel for much of the center of the USA. But it only operates at 1/3 its capacity because Cushing needs to export the Oklahoma sweet to other refineries in order to get the best prices. Also Obama needs to visit Oklahoma because he did so before he was elected and its kind of a good luck thing. He visited Farmer's Market on Exchange Avenue. That is where many people saw him for the first time as a candidate. it was a $1000 per seat fund raiser but about 500 people showed up to just get a first look at him. One lady went on national media and said, "He's so beautiful, I would like to have his child. I don't care what he stands for but he's such a beautiful man that I just don't care." That was a defining moment for Obama as that is who we got, a beautiful man who women throw themselves at. We got a Black Kennedy.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:30 am |
  168. RCDC

    This will not benefit us in the long run. So why create a pipeline from Canada's oil?

    March 21, 2012 at 1:32 am |
    • Gozo Posts

      RCDC writes, “This will not benefit us in the long run. So why create a pipeline from Canada's oil?”

      For jobs.

      But not for the price of gasoline, which rises and falls according to global market conditions.

      (($; -)}

      March 23, 2012 at 7:42 am |
  169. LJTurner

    Obama is a politician who is not concerned with anything other than getting elected; he's a coward who has not idea and doesn't care about the pipeline except what votes it may get him. It's a shame really. Very sad story.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:33 am |
    • Gozo


      President Obama thought he could change the political climate in Washington by finding ways to incorporate Conservative and Republican ideas into his policies. Sadly, right now in America, both parties find little choice but to oppose anything the other party puts forward. Thus did Nancy Pelosi blame President George W. Bush for high oil prices, and now the Republicans blame President Obama. (Both were equally wrong.)

      I wonder if individual Americans, in large numbers, put pressure on their legislators to compromise, America might move forward. But judging by the split opinions we see in online “comments” forums such as this one, we, the people, seem equally divided. So not much hope there...

      “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” a noted, Republican president once said.

      Will the Progressives lead us forward, out of this stalemate? Will the Conservatives leave us mired in it?

      Will China and the European Union and the rest of the world stand idly by, waiting to see if and when and how we work it out?

      (($; -)}

      March 21, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  170. K Ols

    It has been reported that the Canadian oil people are threatening Nebraska farmers with eminent domain if they refuse to sell their land when they offer a price less than the value of the land. You also need to be aware that the Ogallala Aquifer supplies 6 states with water, not just Nebraska so other states are also at risk of a contaminated oil supply.
    Port Arthur, Texas where the oil ships is a tax free zone so the U.S. and the state of TX will not get any money from taxes on oil exports.
    This entire pipeline is a bad joke on the United States. If Canada is so keen to ship their oil to foreign countries why don't they build their own damned refinery and ship it out through the St. Lawrence Seaway or the Great Lakes instead of running a pipeline the entire length of the United States.
    In case you haven't noticed, the United States already has a surplus and is exporting our oil. Also, the Obama Adm. has approved more drilling permits than under GWB.
    It is very disappointing to see Obama approve any pipeline extensions.
    Another point of note that no one talks about is the solution of conserving and using less gas. Spoiled Americans cannot sacrifice anything. Where's the high speed electric rail for instance? Oh that's right. The Republicans don't want that because high speed rail might compete with the airlines and encourage people to drive less.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:40 am |
    • Doug

      You do realize that Canada is pursuing their own pipeline to the pacific coast to export the oil right? What about the fact that there is ALREADY a Keystone pipeline bringing oil over the Ogallala Aquifer? Or the fact that the Aquifer is the size of Nebraska so there is no reroute that can bypass it! The reroute is to avoid a 50 or so mile segment they consider high risk... 50 out of 1700 miles! Not to mention the environmental study was ALREADY done before someone objected to this...

      You are correct though in that this is a bad joke! Now that campaign season is swinging into high gear we are approving sections of this pipeline...

      March 21, 2012 at 8:41 am |
  171. K Ols

    Correct comment to contaimined water supply, not contaminated oil supply.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:42 am |
  172. Premal D.Shah

    The President needs to do something fast to bring down the gas prices. Gas prices can cost him his second term in the White House, I was one of those who voted him to power and frankly, the gas price hurts me so much that I am willing to vote anyone who promises to reign in the prices soon.

    March 21, 2012 at 1:44 am |
    • Premal D.Shah

      Elections or no elections, Obama or no Obama, all I know is that I am hurting and unable to pursue my job because it involves travelling.So, yes, I will vote for the guy who can promise lower gas prices, removing the subsidies given to the oil companies and a 25% tax on the wealthy.

      March 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm |
      • Jimh77

        You most likely will be voting for an unrealistic no show. You have to understand how gas is priced. no President has any control over this. Unless that Country is a dictatorship ruling Country. You do not want to go there. And for your 25%, never happen, maybe 11%.

        March 22, 2012 at 12:15 am |
      • Gozo Posts

        If you always vote for the candidate who promises what you want to hear, you’ll always get the government you deserve.

        South Sudan Threatens to Shut Oil Pipeline:

        At least under President Obama, we get a President working to keep the American people as happy as possible, while making the difficult choices that work best to keep America moving forward.

        (($; -)}

        March 23, 2012 at 7:31 am |
  173. Marty

    Oh! Look! It's an election year!

    March 21, 2012 at 2:23 am |
  174. RetainingH2O

    Those of you who think the Texas refineries can't process the bitumen (heavy oil) from Canada... just keep smoking your pixie dust. We ARE refining it on a daily basis. Did you think the Keystone pipeline was the only one to carry this oil? It will certainly help increase capacity, but it may surprise you to learn that there are many smaller pipelines (as in a pipeline network) that carries Canadian oil from the oil sands to Texas refineries NOW, in significant quantities.

    I work in some of the plants that refine it. Do you realize that there is about a 1:10 chance that when you fill up your gas tank, at least 3-4 gallons of that gas came from Canadian oil sands? Did you know that when you buy plastics or cleaning solvents or rubber, when you buy super glue or tape or disposable diapers or even carpeting... part of the petroleum by-products that made it came from Canadian oil sands. The trucks that brought your food to the stores or keep your malls stocked with goods likely ran on diesel fuel partially derived from Canadian oil sands.

    Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of oil to the U.S., providing almost 2.8 Million Barrels per Day (over 100 Million gallons/day). They supply almost 1/6th of all U.S. Oil consumed. Did you think the oil magically appears at the border? Does it sit in large pools under Canada? NOOOO! A very large portion of that is from the Oil Sands. Do they now bring it in by train or ship? Well, some but most of it is sent here by PIPELINE.

    That's what I don't understand about the whole argument. The Keystone pipeline was planned for routing right next to EXISTING pipelines from the Canadian border to SE Texas. Why would the oil companies go out of their way to route a brand new pipeline through Nebraska? They DIDN'T. They wanted to build it next to existing pipelines (that now carry the same exact oil) following the same exact route. It's easier to do maintenance that way, to use existing pumping stations and tie-ins to other piping network components. The Obama admin got bent out of shape over increasing the existing pipeline capacity by installing a new, larger pipeline. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last pipeline of it's sort to be built. It's only the most fought over. While our leaders argue, the oil continues to flow from Canada to the U.S. via pipeline. Bet on it.

    March 21, 2012 at 2:24 am |
  175. JB

    I wonder if this means they're not going to attempt to build a pipeline through BC. That's good news for the environment and especially the Kermode Bear. And I'm glad they're routing it around the Ogalala Aquifer too. 🙂

    March 21, 2012 at 2:29 am |
  176. Roland

    How will this help the country (USA) in the long run?

    March 21, 2012 at 2:38 am |
  177. John Tighe

    This is another sad example of how Obama is just a moderate Republican,
    and another sad example of how the pawns of the Right will believe that he's anything but a moderate Republican.

    When will Liberals ever get a liberal president?

    March 21, 2012 at 3:22 am |
    • Kris

      First he's too liberal. When he does something moderate, he's not liberal enough. Get your fizzy story straight. FAIL. And FYI...this pipeline will lower American prices by exactly zero cents.

      March 21, 2012 at 4:29 am |
      • John Tighe

        Are you replying to my post?
        Obama is not a liberal. He's a moderate Republican.
        When the Right got a president, they got Wars, Tax Cuts, Deregulation, almost everything except privatizing Social Security.
        When the Left gets a president, do we get liberal solutions? No. We get the GOP's proposal on health care from the Nineties.

        The pipeline will indeed not lower energy prices in the USA

        March 21, 2012 at 5:26 am |
  178. Maurice Steadman

    The only thing Governor Sarah Palin did was beat Democrats and “Frick & Frack” Republicans, become Mayor, chair an energy commission, become Governor and run as Vice President, raise her family, not abort her child, share earnings responsibility with her Husband, start a small business, and stick by her pregnant daughter. I can see how she would be a bad example for the woman's liberation movement, the establishment, Demoocrat & Republican, abortion for children without notifying parents and others who want us to buy oil from the Mddle East and hate Israel...

    March 21, 2012 at 3:43 am |
  179. me

    Ok, So build this pipeline that sounds great.. BUT MR.President what are you doing about the price of gas right NOW?... Its $4.00 Per Gallon yesterday!!!!.. We the american people need your help, I wonder who the next car manufacturer is going to be that falls?? Remember the last time gas was $4.00+ people stopped going places and the economy went into recession?? Mr. President won't you please cap the price of gas @ $1.50 Per Gallon MAX put and end to this madness please.. there is no need for this GREED from the oil companies.

    March 21, 2012 at 3:44 am |
  180. ipmitt

    Is this more mainstream media democrat balloney. Well of course it is. Obama put this project on hold, stoped it and now is fast tracking it. Give us a break and then give us the truth.

    March 21, 2012 at 5:39 am |
  181. BADGUY

    I think Obama has little choice but to approve the pipeline. Once the problems with the routing in Nebraska are worked through, the entire pipeline should be approved. BUT...we have to keep things in prospective! Even WITH the keystone oil and increased drilling in Alaska, the West and the Gulf, the United States can only increase the amount of World oil by a small amount. One estimate puts the increase at 1/2 of 1%, NOT enough to affect oil prices in the US. Also, the oil flowing through the keystone pipeline, belongs to Canada. It will be sold on the world world prices! So..what if will do for us, to lower OUR gasoline not clear.

    March 21, 2012 at 5:57 am |
    • odk1


      March 21, 2012 at 6:42 am |
  182. BADGUY

    It's my understanding that Obama NEVER "cancelled" the Keystone pipeline. He asked Congress to "delay" its construction until Nebraska (and the Republican Governor of Nebraska) was satisfied that pipeline route through their state was safe. The REPUBLICANS choose to make it a political issue to paint Obama as negative on oil (and lower gas prices). By approving the Southern portion of the pipeline, he's just continuing his original plan.

    March 21, 2012 at 6:04 am |
  183. 4 More Years!!!

    Nice. Now the GOP will start protesting the permit approval since this is something Obama WANTS.

    March 21, 2012 at 6:09 am |
  184. Bill

    This president's official library (which, it seems, ALL presidents end up building, after leaving office) should likely be built in a WAFFLE HOUSE. I'm just sayin.....

    March 21, 2012 at 6:09 am |
  185. bigdoglv

    This would be the section of the pipeline that could and would be built with or without the approval of the administration. Now that they were going to build it anyway, Obama is on board and taking the credit. Politics as usual. Nothing has changed.

    March 21, 2012 at 6:22 am |
  186. Free Man in The Republic of Texas

    “Under “MY” administration energy costs MUST necessarily skyrocket”

    Mr. President ! ! !... Mr. President ! ! !... It's working ! It's working !!!

    Gas is NOT even $10.99.9
    and people are starting to take PUBLIC transportation!

    "YOU" are so smart !!! Saving the planet and all...

    "YOU" MUST have 4 more years !!!
    LOL ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    March 21, 2012 at 6:40 am |
  187. Wrecks

    I cash a lot of royalty checks on oil.
    Environmentalists, democrats and the EPA drive up the price of oil and gas.
    That increases my royalty payments.
    What is wrong with that? I am not complaining.
    The more government controlls, the better for royalty payments.
    Hooray for Democrats, China, India, Texas refiners, dually pick-ups, diesel trucks and twelve cylinder motors.

    March 21, 2012 at 6:52 am |
  188. Guess What

    election games by the half breed obama, dont let him think he is grreat he just wants to be a "N" dictator who needs to go.

    March 21, 2012 at 6:58 am |
    • lauren fisher

      People like you Guess What will die off eventually. Your racist views are tiresome and old and not tolerated. The time of your white bs is over. Oh and i am from Canada and I am white...I can't wait to start cashing in on giving you all of our dirt to make money off of. Have fun dieing off in the South. Sucker

      March 21, 2012 at 7:34 am |
    • YtownSports

      Guess What – It's OK to disagree with the President's policies and tactics. You don't have to like him. You DO need to leave racism and prejudice out of it. It gives you ZERO credibility.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  189. Justin

    Glad to see that the prez is a principled man. His position on this issue has been unwavering. He must just wake up in the morning and make policy by flipping a coin accompanied with a plate full of "waffles".

    March 21, 2012 at 8:13 am |
  190. viknat

    Liberals and Enviromentalist- Keep hugging your trees, using trains to bring the oil down is about 1 mpg unless Obama pushes for electric trains LOL, using trucks is even worse for the enviroment and tankers are the biggest users of fuel to transport fuel. You all are need to be protesting Obama's methods of transporting oil. oops he changes his mind election time is coming, but I thought he said he couldn't do anything!

    March 21, 2012 at 8:31 am |
  191. Buzz144

    Fast tracking, my ass. Obama has already slow rolled the Keystone pipeline for nearly a year on the advice of one of the great minds of our time, Darrell Hannah. Hah, America is toast. We have put an idiot in the White House. And judging from the level of intellect shown on this blog, it is no wonder why.

    March 21, 2012 at 8:48 am |
  192. Ed

    Did you know the northern states already have pipelines connecting to Texas? The reason they want the new pipeline is for capacity. Right now a lot of oil is sold localy/domesticly up north because the capacity running south is maxed out.

    Once the new pipeline is built for the Canadian Sands, not only will the Canadian Oil be piped down south but the increased capacity will also allow the current domestically sold oil to be piped south as well.

    You guessed it, this means HIGHER GAS PRICES for the North.

    It's just like all the rush to change voting rules and ect. Republicans know they do not have majority support of the country, so their best plan of attack is to attack the other parties programs and make things difficult for blue states anyway they can. These people want failure so they can ride in on their dead horse and save the country they have already destroyed.

    March 21, 2012 at 11:46 am |
  193. On StreetWise

    The Keystone Pipe project is an example of "Drip Drown" economy... BIG Oil gets the oil and gas, and the dirty tar sand left over is what the taxpayer gets handled the bill after we're cleaning up the mess. Suckers, ha-ha-ha.

    March 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm |
  194. BCCitizen

    Please who have access to the new pipeline...please keep checking because that oil is full of contaminates and erodes that pipe.
    You need to be watchdogs for spills cause one thing for sure..that crud doesn;t sinks and is so thick making it difficult to remove from anywhere.
    Please ...just check up on some Canadian news on what is going on both against and for.
    Remember...keep your eyes open.
    And by the way...there is so much crap in that crude (creates leaks-erosion of pipeline welds) then when refining the poisons are in the extreme polluting (your spaces). I really do not know what else to say about this CRUDE. One, maybe the worst air refined pollutant crap around!! Also check out just what is in that will be amazed.
    So, Canada pollutes the North and sends it to the South to pollute the Southern U.S.A (air quality).
    So sorry Earth and its atmosphere.

    March 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
    • TJ

      Get real – the oil in the pipeline is NOT the bitumen from the oil sands. it will be either natural heavy oil or upgraded (meaning refined to improve the quality and make it pump-able) oil

      March 30, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
  195. CNnLoudMouth

    Thank God! Now gasoline will be slashed to $2 per gallon - thank you the Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House!

    March 21, 2012 at 2:08 pm |
  196. Rstlne

    If Obama supports the Keystone XL Pipeline in any way, he will have successfully sent this liberal-leaning centrist off to vote for someone else. This whole fiasco is just another in a long string of get-rich farces designed by greedy liars. Few American jobs would be created, and the first Keystone Pipeline in the U.S. Northeast leaks like a sieve! Not to mention the nasty stuff they will be pushing through this pipeline. Lies from start to finish – why do you think the Canadians will not allow this pipeline to cross their own lands????

    March 21, 2012 at 2:27 pm |
    • 1CentFree

      That's pretty funny. It's pretty clear that the next president will be either Obama or Romney. So, what other liberal-leaning centrist are you going to vote for? Romney? Pretty hilarious... actually.

      March 21, 2012 at 2:58 pm |
  197. jean alexander steffen careaga


    March 21, 2012 at 2:38 pm |
  198. jean alexander steffen careaga


    March 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  199. jim

    lol this portion has been approved for a while.also obama had no say in this.only thing the pres has to approve is if it crosses the US boarders nothing new obama taking credit for something.

    March 21, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  200. chill

    The section that was denied temporarily was denied because the Nebraska republicans wanted it re-routed away from their aquifer. Seems like a decent idea given the importance of drinking water and agriculture in NE. Fact is, it will be approved once the route is optimized. This "dirty" oil is going to get into the global supply whether it is routed to the gulf or to the Pacific, so it may as well be providing its limited jobs in the US as long as it can be done safely.

    March 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
  201. jj

    turns out Barak has no balls after all. Caving in. I'm disappointed.

    March 21, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
    • qruweiopruqiwoepr

      Actually President Obama, this time, made the right decision. However, unless you have an interest in Middle Eastern oil.

      March 21, 2012 at 6:38 pm |
  202. Think

    Seriously, higher gasoline prices are giving obama more tax revenues so that obama's trillions in annual over-spending won't look so bad.

    March 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  203. Fah-Q

    Nationalize our oil industry...I guarantee the very next day corporations would push alternate fuel technology and investment.

    March 21, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  204. rome

    Thank you for sharing this information. The information was very helpful and saved a lot of my time.

    March 21, 2012 at 8:14 pm |
  205. Dan

    Here he goes, Mr. Obama the liar attempting to play politics and make himself look like a hero. You're not fooling anyone.

    March 21, 2012 at 8:24 pm |
  206. Mario

    President Obama please don't betray your supporters. We voted for a man we thought would protect the environment, not destroy it. Please stand against allowing this pipeline to proceed.

    March 21, 2012 at 8:39 pm |
  207. jon

    Another case of Obama saying one thing and doing another, a classic political opportunist. By the way 1/2 a pipleine isn't going to do much good is it?

    March 22, 2012 at 6:00 am |
    • EmilyWatson

      I know, there is not another politician who has lied is there. Where is the honesty ?

      March 22, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
  208. J Rod

    ...think about it. Whose the number one importer of oil to the US; that's right Canada. Since his turning down of the initial pipeline initiative, gas prices have risen at a gradual but steep pace. ...couple that with Canada's close ties to the Wall Street Investor pool and viola! ...instant election year worries being brought to you by our neighbors to the North. Now i challenge you to re-read this article and pontificate. Good morning all.

    March 22, 2012 at 6:05 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  209. 4commonsensenow

    If you want a sense when it comes to safety, look at the company itself.Transcanada is a stacked energy company with plenty of experience.Look for yourself.

    March 22, 2012 at 6:44 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
  210. Joe

    Thanks Odumba the pipe line to nowhere. Ok to Tx. doesn't help a thing getting the oil sands from Canada to Us. Dumb A$$

    March 22, 2012 at 7:48 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  211. PJ

    Bonner and the GOP would blame the President if a weather forecast was wrong. There is nothing Obama can do right in their book. Perhaps this is why Congress is viewed with disdain by the Voters.

    March 22, 2012 at 7:51 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
  212. Free Man in the Republic of Texas

    OBAMA said "HE" would close GITMO too... "HIS" lips are moving again...

    March 22, 2012 at 8:12 am |
  213. EP

    Latin America does NOT depend on Gasoline refined here in the US. Venezuela has one of the biggest refineries in the world (second to Port Charles), Mexico produces and refines it's own oil as well. Venezuela and Brazil are building a pipeline and Refinery at Pernambuco. Colombia and Venezuela have a Pipeline. Argentine produces Oil but mainly imports from, this argument of Latin America sucking the oil out of the US is foolish. It is the US that needs the Oil. It is for US comsumption! Canada is actually the US's #1 source for Oil imports (not the Middle East, nor Latin America). A lot of refineries have suffered major downsizing, because they dont refine enough. This pipeline will revitalize a lot of the refineries on the Gulf Coast, and YES it will cut costs on bringing Oil from across the the oceans. Not to mention the fact that Canada is a politically stable country, so that will easy on the specualtion of gas prices in the US.
    This pipeline is important and we need it, dspite all the gains that Big Oil will benefit. We will benefit on the long run.

    March 22, 2012 at 8:17 am |
  214. Nate

    So he is "fast tracking" the section that goes ALL THE WAY from Oklahoma to Texas. Bold leadership in action....... That should silence the critics of his lack of a coherent energy policy.

    March 22, 2012 at 8:21 am |
    • rage

      Well Nate, that is the part that is NOT going through Nebraska. The whole problem is the route is traversing the aquifer in Nebraska. The (republican) governor wants it rerouted. Until a new route is decided on, this is the only part that CAN be built! Think more and listen to Faux news less.

      March 22, 2012 at 11:01 am |
  215. Jt_flyer

    Just get it done.

    March 22, 2012 at 8:35 am |
  216. EmilyWatson

    Now the Republican leadership says it's a trivial matter, while a year ago, it was a major problem. I see what is happening here.

    March 22, 2012 at 8:39 am |
  217. TexDoc

    There is no need for presidential approval for this part of the pipeline. Approve the connection for Candada and quit the meaningless media show.

    March 22, 2012 at 8:40 am |
    • rage

      If you can read.....the 'upper part' of the pipeline is already built. It runs through Michigan, where they have been fighting a spill since 2010. The problem is this oil sinks (into the Kalamazoo river) and is very hard to clean up. This river is still polluted today......thanks Canada!

      March 22, 2012 at 10:55 am |
    • rage

      Look it up..... Keystone spill in Michigan.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:56 am |
  218. jon

    more nonsense from this president. the worst part is he is cynically using the very people who elected him...this guy just lies to average ordinary americans smiles, and they believe him!


    March 22, 2012 at 8:50 am |
  219. ForGoodOfAll

    He is damned if he does and he is damned if he doesn't. That's just politics in an election year, folks. Get used to it.

    March 22, 2012 at 8:51 am |
  220. Ursula

    So, Brianna, do you write your own headlines? Yesterday when I got my Google Alerts, look what showed up in the headlines for your post. See below. Are you a right wing tool working for CNN or is someone else?

    Subject: Google Alert – foreign trade zone

    3 new results for foreign trade zone

    DFW and Dubai Airport in Free Trade Zone Alliance
    Global Airport Cities
    The “collaborative alliance” between the DFW Airport Foreign Trade Zone and DAFZ will see the two zones exchange expertise to benefit business at both locations as well as develop new opportunities in the global markets. The agreement was signed by ...
    See all stories on this topic »

    Global Airport Cities

    Obama to Fast Track His False Image
    CNN (blog)
    The pipeline goes to Port Arthur, TX straight to refineries located in a Foreign Trade Zone that provides lower taxes for EXPORTS. What a strange place to send oil the GOP claims is destined for US consumption to lower gas prices.
    See all stories on this topic »

    Obama to fast track southern portion of Keystone XL Pipeline
    CNN (blog)
    Oil prices are set in international trade based on supply and demand. You might think – mistakenly – that the flow of oil through the pipeline will increase the supply and that will drop prices. It won't happen. Why? Two reasons: 1.
    See all stories on this topic »

    March 22, 2012 at 8:51 am |
  221. Ed

    Her's an idea. Why not make it a Federal law or regualtion that all oil and oil products produced in the U.S. or imported in the U.S. must be sold in the U.S.? Since most oil produced in the U.S. comes from public land leases it should indeed be sold in the U.S. Also if oil is imported into the U.S. it should be sold in the U.S. None of this should be sold on the "world market'. With this type of law expanded for all energy and if the U.S. utilizies all the vast and different energy resources we have and keep it here – we can be energy self-sufficient and not part of the "world market". That would stabilize energy prices and make them lower if we keep out of the "world market". Not to mention creating millions of jobs here and not depending on the Middle East for oil. With a real leader as president there are many solutions – time we get one.

    March 22, 2012 at 9:21 am |
    • Weldon Gebhard

      Brilliant idea the kind that helped nations deepen their problems during the 30's. You do know we are Not self suffient in Energy nor many other products.

      March 22, 2012 at 9:58 am |
  222. Gloria

    In a marriage they call this kind of control one maintains over another psychological abuse. We are his political codependents, his willing victims. I was first time around but no longer. Enough is enough. I do not have much but I do have my vote

    March 22, 2012 at 9:26 am |
  223. smsusaf

    NEWS; Obama can not ok the short section of pipline, it is not crossing into Cananda..Obama's ok is not needed, nice try

    March 22, 2012 at 9:27 am |
    • Insurance Salesman

      This will end up being like the bridge to nowhere. Build, Build, Build, but never will he allow it to be completed.

      March 22, 2012 at 10:29 am |
  224. brian in DC

    I'm actually embarrassed for Obama for his obvious disingenuous pandering and ineptness.

    March 22, 2012 at 9:31 am |
  225. Sean D

    It's about freakin' time!!!

    March 22, 2012 at 9:35 am |
  226. Weldon Gebhard

    Any product in the US is a plus for the US.
    Pipelines are much, much safer than any other kind of product transportation. Did you know that solids such a coal are shipped via pipeline?
    A finished product, finished in the US is a plus for the US
    Every product is effected today by the World market. Always was always will.
    Last and Least the President is using this issue to pander to political activits and the unrealistic Green energy merage

    March 22, 2012 at 9:59 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm |
  227. Jeff

    Why not build a refinery in N. Dakota where the bulk of our oil is booming right now... ? Oh, because that oil would go to us and not be sold over seas...

    March 22, 2012 at 10:00 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 23, 2012 at 11:06 pm |
  228. Canadian Crude

    Isn't the real problem the blatant speculation by Wall Street on all oil-related issues a major part of the problems connected to higher gas prices in the U.S.A. ? If the data is accurate & more than 60% of higher gas pricing stems from the speculation process & outcome , it would seem logical to put some controls with teeth on Goldman-Sachs , etc . It no longer is a "supply & demand" equation , it has become more one of market-tampering & unrestrained greed byy the very people who almost ruined your country economically just 4 years ago ! Wake up & support better enforcement by your government of the rules these "FAT CATS" play by at the expense of the American people !

    March 22, 2012 at 10:05 am |
  229. Thomas

    If a refinery were built in North Dakota or Minnesota that effort would create jobs and eliminate the need for a pipline the whole length of the country with all the environmental hazzards. If oil companies want to keep their taxpayer subsidies, then all domestically produced oil should only go to domestic markets and not global markets for other countries. a little common sense should be applied to a commodity that is so vital to our economy.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:06 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm |
  230. Jerry

    brian in DC, DITTO!!! What sense does it make to build only part of the pipeline? Is this president clueless or what?!

    If he REALLY wants to be reelected, he needs to get rid of his bunch of equally clueless advisors.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • rage

      Read Jerry(if you can). It connects to other pipelines there. The keystone pipeline is NOT the only pipeline in Oklahoma!

      March 22, 2012 at 10:47 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 23, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
  231. jdean

    What's that sound. Oh, jackboots. Thanks republicans.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:21 am |
  232. Steve

    They complain that Obama wouldn't build it. Now that its getting built, they still complain. Which is it? I'm comfused. America please stop complaining about everything. If its not gas prices, its healthcare. Now its the pipeline. STOP COMPLAINING!!!!! We live in a free and powerful country. We are blessed to live in this country. Be thankful.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:23 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  233. Mark from Louisiana

    obama taking credit for this pipeline makes as much sense as the pope taking credit for abortions. He has NOTHING to do with the permits for this section of pipeline. But the sheep will blindly follow him where ever he leads them.
    This so called news organization is just as guilty as obama by publishing stories like this that are full of lies.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  234. Insurance Salesman

    So now BO wants to improve his image, so we can build it.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • krehator

      Your name says everything about you....

      March 22, 2012 at 10:44 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  235. John

    Funny how Obama is "approving" the section of the pipeline that doesn't require federal government approval.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:29 am |
  236. Dale

    Another prime example of election year political pandering, "vote for me and I will agree with your issues until I am elected or reelected". Then as soon as they are in office, the issue is placed on the back burner until reelection time come around.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:35 am |
  237. wolfpackbob

    Must be the the President also owns an Etch-A-Sketch? Thought he made a big fuss about being against the line a few months ago?

    March 22, 2012 at 10:36 am |
  238. YtownSports

    Did I miss something? Who is building the pipeline from our northern border to Cushing? What good will a pipeline from Cushing to anywhere do if it's not connected from the north? There'll be no immediate impact on oil or gas prices because of construction time. The point made by several that more refining capacity is needed is an important one. The fact that this country is already a net EXPORTER of petroleum products is disturbing, but it does reduce the trade deficit which has an impact on the economy as a whole. Finally, the politics needs to come out of this. The President can take credit for taking steps to enhance oil supply until "green" energy is more viable; the GOP can take credit for its part in keeping the issue alive in the name of "energy independence." The oil companies? they're multi-national, so there won't be much credit for them to take. Although I am against "anti-business" government practices, I do believe it is time to begin phasing out federal subsidies to oil companies.

    March 22, 2012 at 10:54 am |
  239. Tiggers99

    Ok I see everyones point here, but ask yourselves this for one moment, why is all this happening right now. Here it is, the U.S and Isreal have secertly commited to going to war with Iran, in which turn drives up all costs of gasoline EVERYWHERE. The corporate elite's have lost alot of money back in 08 due the money meltdown led by AIG in which if all of America would know was the cause of the mortage meltdown by the credit default swaps which AIG and other money lenders were on the hook for. This being said they had to find a way to be ready to pay for all those cds's and to do that they put all of the money they had into the oil commidity market, and at that time the price was 120-125 a barrel and it was climbing in July 08 of that year. And when it started to fall after it hit 150 and it fell below the 120 mark well then margin calls were having to be made, so they all kept pumping millions, possibly billions into that market, but the price kept falling and if we all remember what happened in Sept 08, panic set in at AIG and others where the government had to step in with the bailout/tarp money. Now because they lost all that money, they have to somehow ,someway re-coup all those losses again and what better way than to re-amp the war machine drive up the costs oil/gasoline and return to profitablity and the backs of us as their slaves in which they know are in numbness and dumbness to which we will pay for. I WILL LET YOU IN ON A SECERT WHICH PROBABLY MANY OF YOU KNOW THE U.S. IS SITTING ON THE LARGEST OIL RESERVE IN THE NORTHWEST CORRIDOR AROUND THE BIG SKY COUNTRY. IT HOLDS TRILLIONS, YES TRILLIONS OF OIL. ENOUGH TO SUPPLY THE GLOBE FOR 2041YRS!!!! THATS RIGHT... SO NOW WE SHOULD ALL BE ASKING OURSELVES WHY DO WE NEED IMPORT ANY OIL??? BECAUSE THE ELITES WANT TO DRAIN EVERYONES ELSE BEFORE THEY EVEN CONSIDER TOUCHING THAT ONE MASSIVE RESERVE. PLUS THE COST WOULD GO DOWN TO 15 A BARREL AND THE ELITES WOULDN'T WANT THAT NOW WOULD THEY, IT MAY PUT A DAMPNER IN THEIR WALLETS.....I'M GUESSING YOUR GETTING THE PICTURE NOW....

    March 22, 2012 at 11:11 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      April 4, 2012 at 9:26 pm |
      • Gozo Posts



        Your responses in support of the President are appreciated. But keep in mind what happens when you confront a child with its bad behavior:

        The tantrums just get louder and angrier. The behavior grows more childish.

        While “Conservatives” claim to support free-market capitalism, their response to the price of oil shows that they don’t understand how free markets work.

        The same limitation probably affects Republican political behavior. As the saying goes:

        “Of course Republicans hate government: they don’t know how it works.”

        (($; -)}

        April 5, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
  240. EnuffAlready

    Is anyone actually buying what this is saying? This is just another case of he say's what the people want to hear and turns around and does what he wants to do. This pipeline will never be built under the Obama administration. I just hope it is because he loses the election not because he halts construction after being reelected.

    "All the above strategy" sounds like something a bunch of 20 somethings came up with for a college project.

    March 22, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  241. Florian Schach Engage America

    Fast racking the Pipeline Is a great measure to get ahead on this project. But the truth of th e matter is we shouldn’t have taken this long to decide a course of action nor should it have taken this long for us to arrive at this point. The Keystone pipeline had (and still has) the potential to move us forward in our economic recovery more than any other project available now ( flip flopping on such an issue continues to affect blue collar and middle class workers every single day. This process with no sort of even temp replacement labor makes us rather sluggish and perhaps even confused as to what we think our goals should be.

    March 22, 2012 at 11:49 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Sorry, sir, but crucial decisions that may make us dependent on foreign countries cannot be taken lightly. Our presidents have several advisors (four, I think) even reagan had the inner circle, remember? Some counselors are on vacations, or take weeks to decide how they will vote. I understand your urgency but political decision making takes weeks. Look how the supreme court justices were first going to produce results in three days; but now they said they would conclude until June! I agree the system is slow in producing positive results. Now blaming President Obama for what the republican supreme judges are doing is totally unfair and biased.

      April 4, 2012 at 9:38 pm |
  242. EnuffAlready

    This part of the pipeline was already approved and was going to be built whether the Obamanator chimed in or not. This guy is a blatant liar counting on the American people to sit idly by trusting that he does what he says.

    March 22, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 22, 2012 at 4:39 pm |
  243. iamcanadian

    Hey America, don't hate Canada's dirty oil. People think that this pipeline is going to push gas prices down for Americans? Lay off the drugs America, you are going to sell it to other countries (actually China). The keystone is not going to give huge jobs in the U.S. We Canadians know that-how? Well we produce oil right here in Canada but we pay almost $5 dollars a gallon. We don't complain, we don't cry, we know that our government just like yours will sell the people out over some money. Its about the rich getting richer folkes- oh yeah, don't hate our dirty oil.

    March 22, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
  244. checker99

    Don't be fooled by all the O'ministration shills posting to this story, or by CNN openly shilling for Obama's election this fall.

    First and foremost, China is gonna get oil, so why not at least get corporate taxes and personal income taxes from at least a small portion of it? Second, any addition to the global oil market that is not controlled by OPEC is going to help keep oil prices lower, and yes it will. Third, corporations are supposed to make money, and they pay taxes on that income, as well as employ people who pay income taxes on their earnings.

    And don't fall for that enviromental argument either. There are pipelines all over the country and all over the world, we know how to build them well, we know how to build them so they don't leak, and how to deal with any issues when they arise.

    March 22, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
  245. Nan

    Why aren't you reporting the story about Obama bypassing the sanctions imposed by Congress and giving the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD 1.5 BILLION dollars!!!

    March 23, 2012 at 10:07 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 23, 2012 at 10:31 pm |
    • Gozo Posts

      Nothing like this ever happened.

      Why would a person spread vicious lies and rumors?

      To spread a lie is to admit one’s true side is inadequate to the task of moving forward.

      Life and politics are challenging enough without people making up outrageous claims like this, just to stir others up.

      With sad regards,
      (($; -)}

      March 24, 2012 at 9:56 am |
  246. JRC

    I can't believe how stupid some of your environmentally minded people are. Do you really think that the oil that would flow through the Keystone pipeline will not FLOW in some other manner?? Delivery oil and gas through pipelines is statistically the safest way of delivering that product. But, you would rather see it get moved via ship and truck which is a much more potentially dangerous way of moving it.

    If this oil is not going to affect the prices of oil and gas in the US then why is this President so interested in expediting the building of the southern portion which, by the way, doesn't require any govt approval since it doesn't cross an international border. This President is such a phony, all he cares about is putting on propaganda shows and of course some of you fall for hook line and sinker.

    March 23, 2012 at 10:27 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf


      March 23, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
      • JRC

        Your claims are the ones that are not valid. Pipelines are safer because they don't move at highway speeds. They're safer than tankers because they don't run aground when the ships captain decides to tie one on. The fact is our entire economy is based on petroleum products and one way or another it's going to get delivered. Terrorist.....really, that's the brunt of your argument? I would rather be dependent on Canada then on Saudi Arabia. As far as the jobs go, I used to work in the construction industry and temporary is the nature of that business. You take a contract, you build whatever it is that you're supposed to build and move on to the next contract. Building begets more building. Sure the jobs to build the pipeline will come to and end but the pipeline itself will spur other jobs and other construction. You libs just can't see the forest of for the trees. Your arguments extremely weak.

        March 24, 2012 at 12:10 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf

        hahahahahahahaha, you and your gangs whined so much about the sept. 11 terrorist bombing of New York...and now dismiss it? you fools, little chicken was right! Remember my words.

        March 25, 2012 at 12:18 am |
      • JRC

        Tachmy Wolf , wow I don't even know what to say to that. So I'll just say this, if we choose to live our lives trying to avoid everything that we think might make a nice target for a terrorist then we're never ever going to progress. You idiots love to use things like 9/11 when it's politically expedient and then you blow it off when it doesn't suit you. Try making an intelligent argument instead of making yourself look foolish by simply laughing off other's points.

        March 25, 2012 at 10:26 am |
      • Tschrny Wolf


        March 25, 2012 at 10:23 pm |
  247. Tschrny Wolf


    March 25, 2012 at 10:32 pm |
  248. easy and quick money

    Great website. Plenty of useful information here. I'm sending it to several buddies ans also sharing in delicious. And obviously, thank you on your sweat!

    March 30, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
  249. fogbeültetés

    Simply desire to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness to your publish is just excellent and i could suppose you're a professional in this subject. Well together with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to stay up to date with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the gratifying work.

    March 31, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Who were you amazed by?

      April 4, 2012 at 9:04 pm |
  250. loan

    I like the helpful information you supply to your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and take a look at once more here regularly. I am rather certain I will be told plenty of new stuff proper right here! Good luck for the following!

    April 2, 2012 at 9:44 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Thanks, just vote for President Obama, okey-dokey:))))

      April 4, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      LOAN: I thank you:) I like your posts too. 🙂 Words can be as powerful as swords, especially when they are true 🙂 but cheap aluminum sables like the conservatives make in Asia, easily break 🙂 so welcome to our Obama battalions!

      April 4, 2012 at 9:47 pm |
  251. top car games

    You know thus considerably in relation to this subject, made me in my view consider it from numerous various angles. Its like women and men don't seem to be fascinated unless it is something to do with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs nice. At all times maintain it up!

    April 3, 2012 at 2:47 pm |
  252. Cleaning Services Las Vegas

    Hello There. I discovered your blog the use of msn. That is a very well written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful info. Thanks for the post. I'll certainly return.

    April 4, 2012 at 2:14 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Sir: I appreciate your kind assessment 🙂 Thank you so much and best luck to you and your family 🙂 Remember to go vote for President Obama, see you at the polls :)))))

      April 4, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
      • Tschrny Wolf

        Excuse me Sir, I do not know computing as well as my husband so, what does blog mean? If it happened, I did it involuntarily. I do erase posts I get after I read them, though. I am not a hacker. You can trust me in that. 🙂 bye.

        April 4, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
  253. Gozo Posts


    One wonders why the force of anti-Obama seem willing to work so hard against the President of the United States of America, during a time of spectacular economic challenge.

    (See all the anti-Obama comments below, and elsewhere.)

    The Republicans and so-called “Conservatives” have worked so hard since the very beginning, that clearly they have lost sight of the goal: not so much to dominate America with failed ideology as to work together to move America forward.

    “E pluribus unum.” What do “Conservatives that is? Some form of European socialism?

    It’s inscribed on the seal of the United States of America. It used to represent the best of us.

    In the course of the last several years, one finds it hard to disagree with Tschrny Wolf when she writes:


    For their refusal to respect majority rule, and their embrace of tantrums and minority obstruction, the “Wrong” side of the American body politic should feel ashamed.

    (($; -)}

    April 5, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Sir, I appreciate your words. I do not know much latin, however upon reading your post, the phrase: quo vadis the republicans, comes to my head 🙂

      take care and call rep O
      Malley to vote for President Obama's anti guns proposal. Barbara Mikulsky is a committed Democrat, but O'Malley can be influenced by republicans 🙁 Thank, you, happy 2013 🙂

      January 18, 2013 at 4:24 pm |
  254. hot box vaporizer

    It is appropriate time to make some plans for the longer term and it's time to be happy. I've read this put up and if I could I want to suggest you some attention-grabbing issues or tips. Perhaps you can write subsequent articles regarding this article. I want to learn even more issues about it!

    April 10, 2012 at 9:09 pm |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Ok, how early and how did this defective materialistic system end in ruthless capitalist system the founders set up end in unfair elite democracy and lower classes semi slavery?
      Even george washington owned slaves! It is true he fred them when he died. How did an anti-slavery party end up with the present disguised racist conservative KKK, evangelists and the rest if filthy prejudiced radical conservatives? How sincere was the gop about its alleged anti-racism? Was President Lincoln the only real equalitarian? Was the purpose of the war he led, to grab the land of their foes, or establish freedom?

      January 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm |
  255. fly agaric

    I will right away clutch your rss feed as I can not find your email subscription hyperlink or newsletter service. Do you have any? Please let me know in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

    April 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
  256. Maurice 11

    Oil pumped from the Gulf of Mexico, a sudden oil strike in Pennsylvania, oil pumped out fo the ground in Texas–none of this matters as far as the USA oil supppy is concerned. Oil is sold by Shell, Chevron, BP and the rest of the oil companies on the international market. Oil discovered somewhere in Texas can be slated for shipment to China before it is pumped out of the ground, if china's bid is lower than someone else's bid. Most Americans simply don't understand how oil is sold. As far as Keystone is concerned, oil taken from a transcontinental piple line will be largly controlled by Trans Canada, and employment of workers will be determined by Trans Canada. Morever, the oil taken fro keystone comes to us in the form of shale oil, and this requires a dangerous and expensive process call "fracking"–but's that's another story.

    June 9, 2012 at 6:05 pm |
  257. here

    Hi there, You've done a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and for my part suggest to my friends. I'm confident they will be benefited from this site.

    July 31, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
  258. Abercrombie Hamburg

    You could certainly see your skills within the paintings you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. Always follow your heart.

    August 20, 2012 at 8:46 pm |
  259. Increase your social presence easy & fast for FREE!

    hello!,I really like your writing so so much! percentage we be in contact more approximately your post on AOL? I need an expert in this area to resolve my problem. May be that is you! Looking forward to peer you.

    September 21, 2012 at 9:42 am |
  260. Coral

    Woah! I'm really loving the template/theme of this website. It's simple, yet
    effective. A lot of times it's difficult to get that "perfect balance" between superb usability and appearance. I must say you've done a amazing job with this.

    Additionally, the blog loads super quick for me on Internet explorer.
    Exceptional Blog!Tron: Uprising Season 1 Episode 9 Online Free Stream

    October 28, 2012 at 5:52 am |
  261. Free Online Movies And Entertainment Hollywood Bollywood BollyHolly News Live Hd Tv Channel Torrents Music Documentary Comedy Shows And Pranks Powered by movies

    Wonderful items from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you're just extremely great. I really like what you've acquired here, certainly like what you are stating and the way during which you are saying it. You make it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to keep it smart. I can't wait to read much more from you. That is actually a wonderful web site.

    October 28, 2012 at 8:55 am |
  262. foodies

    Magnificent put up, very informative. I wonder why the other specialists of this sector don't understand this. You must proceed your writing. I am sure, you have a huge readers' base already!|What's Happening i'm new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It positively helpful and it has aided me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & aid other users like its aided me. Great job.

    October 30, 2012 at 2:57 am |
  263. half-life 3 half-life three half life episode 3 выход half life 3 half life 3 дата half life 3 скачать half life 3 бесплатно half life

    Awesome issues here. I'm very glad to peer your article. Thanks so much and I am having a look ahead to contact you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?

    November 7, 2012 at 2:15 am |
  264. stylesheetnqb

    Well , this is very interesting article for my new sight.

    Your ideas inspires my good prospecting spirits.
    I have a good news for Your guys. How about my webpage?

    January 7, 2013 at 2:09 am |
  265. Kredit Blog

    My brother recommended I may like this blog. He was once totally right. This put up truly made my day. You cann't consider just how so much time I had spent for this information! Thanks!

    January 15, 2013 at 8:45 am |
    • Tschrny Wolf

      Wow, I thank YOU, sir. We are all together in this; it is make it, or break it 🙂 Although my style is make it, romney and his gang are the "break them" type, too aggressive for this age.
      rather, firm decisions are much better 🙂

      January 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm |