Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerrard, the head of the largest energy industry trade group in the U.S., on Wednesday lambasted President Barack Obama's decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Claiming the president caved in to political pressure, Gerrard questioned Obama's commitment to job creation in cancelling the 1,700-mile pipeline, a project that would create thousands of new jobs, he said.

"This decision is a clear abdication of presidential leadership," said Gerrard, adding the pipeline is essential to the nation's energy future and security.

Gerrard spoke during a teleconference in response to the administration's decision to reject the controversial pipeline.

In a statement the president released Wednesday explaining his decision to cancel the pipeline, the president blamed Republicans for imposing a deadline -- essentially forcing the president's hand.

"This announcement is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline that prevented the State Department from gathering the information necessary to approve the project and protect the American people," the president wrote. "I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil."

The president faced a Feb. 21 deadline to declare the pipeline in the national interest, which the State Department said was too little time to pronounce the project safe and worthy of approval. The government has been studying the proposal since 2008.

The State Department said it could have had its review and assessments concluded and been ready for a final decision by the end of the first quarter of 2013, which was agreed upon by TransCanada, the company trying to build the pipeline and the State of Nebraska which due to its environmentally sensitive lands, was at the front lines of the pipeline debate.

"The Department's denial of the permit application does not preclude any subsequent permit application or applications for similar projects," read a statement released by the State Department.

In November, Nebraska's governor signed into law legislation that would have rerouted the pipeline away from the state's Sand Hills region, which environmentalists were concerned would be damaged in the event the pipeline failed.

The president's decision has already proved to be an unpopular one, and Gerrard suspects the decision will likely become a lingering election topic throughout the rest of the year.

"The score is Job-Killers, two; American workers, zero. We are completely and totally disappointed. This is politics at its worst," Laborers' International Union of North America General President Terry O'Sullivan said. "Once again the President has sided with environmentalists instead of blue collar construction workers - even though environmental concerns were more than adequately addressed. Blue collar construction workers across the U.S. will not forget this."

Environment group Tar Sands Action, which has opposed the Key Stone XL Pipeline called the president's decision a "brave call."

Skjellyfetti wrote:deleted

President Obama’s jobs council called Tuesday for an “all-in approach” to energy policy that includes expanded oil-and-gas drilling as well as expediting energy projects like pipelines.

“[W]e should allow more access to oil, natural gas and coal opportunities on federal lands,” states the year-end report released Tuesday by the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

The report does not specifically mention the Keystone XL oil pipeline, but it endorses moving forward quickly with projects that “deliver electricity and fuel,” including pipelines.

“The Council recognizes the important safety and environmental concerns surrounding these types of projects, but now more than ever, the jobs and economic and energy security benefits of these energy projects require us to tackle the issues head-on and to expeditiously, though cautiously, move forward on projects that can support hundreds of thousands of jobs,” the report says.

The report retreats slightly from an interim report released in October that addressed the Keystone XL pipeline directly. The interim report appeared to offer cautious support for Keystone, calling on officials to “balance” environmental protections while realizing what it called the benefits of the pipeline.

But Keystone supporters will point out that the year-end report released Tuesday argues that energy projects like pipelines will result in economic and security benefits. It even echoes a common refrain from Republicans and the oil industry: that such energy projects "can support hundreds of thousands of jobs."

White House press secretary Jay Carney insisted Tuesday that the jobs council report does not endorse the Keystone pipeline.

"Well, first of all, the Jobs Council wasn't talking about Keystone specifically," Carney said at his daily briefing. "The Jobs Council was talking about the importance of expanding domestic oil and gas production, a goal this president shares and has expounded upon at length, and has taken action as a policy matter to demonstrate his commitment to."

The Keystone XL pipeline would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

“The Council recognizes that providing access to more areas for drilling, mining and renewable energy development is controversial, but, given the current economic situation, we believe it’s necessary to tap America’s assets in a safe and responsible manner,” the report says.

“Additionally, policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary to facilitate the delivery of America’s fuel and electricity and maintain the reliability of our nation’s energy system.”

Stakeholders should work together to develop “best practices” aimed at ensuring safety, while also expediting energy projects, according to the report.

“[R]egulatory and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed,” the report says. “Speedy adoption of best practice standards would allow government officials to reduce regulatory and permitting obstacles to important energy projects.”

Under a payroll tax cut packaged signed into law in December, the president must make a decision on the pipeline by Feb. 21. White House and administration officials have said they will have little choice but to reject the pipeline under the deadline, arguing they will not have enough time to adequately review the project.

The looming deadline has set off an aggressive lobbying campaign. Republicans and industry officials argue that the project has been subject to sufficient review and is essential for boosting the ailing economy and creating jobs.

But environmental groups and other opponents of the pipeline have raised concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands production, as well as potential oil spills.

House Republicans quickly pounced on the jobs council report Tuesday, noting that the recommendations echo their "all-of-the-above" energy strategy.

"The President’s Jobs Council today confirmed what House Republicans have known all along, that American energy production will spur job creation and strengthen our national security," House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said in a statement. "Unfortunately, it appears President Obama is ignoring his Council’s recommendations, much as he has ignored the views of House Republicans on energy production, economic growth and job creation."

More broadly, the jobs report calls for expanded oil-and-gas drilling, as well as “safe and responsible” natural-gas extraction from shale formations.

The report notes that the Obama administration has called for new lease sales and said it will consider opening up new areas to drilling. But it says “further expanding and expediting the domestic production of fossil fuels both offshore and onshore (in conjunction with more electric and natural gas vehicles) will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil and the huge outflow of U.S. dollars this reliance entails.”

Beyond oil and gas, the report calls for policies that improve energy efficiency, encourage private investment in energy research and development and expand renewable energy.

There Are at Least a Dozen Solyndras

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

On September 7, the DOE announced its plan to guarantee 80 percent — or $275 million — of a $344 million private loan taken out by the firm SolarCity. The company installs rooftop solar systems that harvests electricity SolarCity then sells.

The guarantee means that if SolarCity’s project does not succeed, the DOE will use taxpayer money to pay back 80 percent of the company’s private loans

The current plan is for SolarCity to operate 160,000 systems on military bases around the country, and hire 750 workers over five years. It has been described as the “largest residential solar project in history.”

The Chairman of SolarCity, Elon Musk, is a major financial supporter of the president. On April 15 of this year, Musk donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund. He also gave an additional $5,000 to the Obama campaign.
Like Solyndra officials White House visitor logs show Musk has visited the Administration at least four times since 2009.

travelinman67 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:deleted

...as you should.

No defense here.

Shit for Brainsbarack is going to be politically eviscerated.

Super stupid action...

...which speaks volumes of his advisers.

He had the extreme left vote regardless of his decision on the pipeline; pissing them off is irrelevant (especially with Gitmo, Pat Act, etc..). The Republicans have him by the balls, now. He won't be able to backpedal on his failed energy policy. Even if he TRIES to reverse and approve the Pipeline, the Reps will block him or minimally extort more concessions.

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's my take:

In terms of $4 gas this summer or the Strait of Hormuz being threatened - that's a non-factor with the pipeline status as even if Obama and everyone involved said go it wouldn't actually be flowing oil until 2014 I believe when the project was complete.

On the other hand, don't confuse me with an environmentalist - I wouldn't say no to this deal based on concerns groups have over lands in western Nebraska or South Dakota where nobody lives or ever visits.

I do have to compliment Obama on bucking the trend that Washington has long been under the control of Big Oil. It's actually refreshing to me for once seeing ANYONE in D.C. stand up to Big Oil. Moving further, we've wasted 3-4 decades during Big Oil's reign and have got deeper & deeper into the oil problem. America needs to lead the way towards seriously & furiously trying to find alternatives to oil. I don't care if they are Canadians, if they're Arabs, South Americans, Asians, whoever - we need to become more energy self-sufficient & with all apologies to Sarah Palin & the conservative GOP it makes my stomach turn when I hear the phrase "drill baby drill". If/when we do have $4 gas have your lawamakers over the last 30-40 years look themselves in the mirror - that's who is to blame. Whether it's natural gas, electric, wind, solar, something else, we should never have got into the mess that we're in today & frankly I'm glad that yesterday we decided NOT to step in deeper.

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's my take:

In terms of $4 gas this summer or the Strait of Hormuz being threatened - that's a non-factor with the pipeline status as even if Obama and everyone involved said go it wouldn't actually be flowing oil until 2014 I believe when the project was complete.

On the other hand, don't confuse me with an environmentalist - I wouldn't say no to this deal based on concerns groups have over lands in western Nebraska or South Dakota where nobody lives or ever visits.

I do have to compliment Obama on bucking the trend that Washington has long been under the control of Big Oil. It's actually refreshing to me for once seeing ANYONE in D.C. stand up to Big Oil. Moving further, we've wasted 3-4 decades during Big Oil's reign and have got deeper & deeper into the oil problem. America needs to lead the way towards seriously & furiously trying to find alternatives to oil. I don't care if they are Canadians, if they're Arabs, South Americans, Asians, whoever - we need to become more energy self-sufficient & with all apologies to Sarah Palin & the conservative GOP it makes my stomach turn when I hear the phrase "drill baby drill". If/when we do have $4 gas have your lawamakers over the last 30-40 years look themselves in the mirror - that's who is to blame. Whether it's natural gas, electric, wind, solar, something else, we should never have got into the mess that we're in today & frankly I'm glad that yesterday we decided NOT to step in deeper.

ASUG8 wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's my take:

In terms of $4 gas this summer or the Strait of Hormuz being threatened - that's a non-factor with the pipeline status as even if Obama and everyone involved said go it wouldn't actually be flowing oil until 2014 I believe when the project was complete.

On the other hand, don't confuse me with an environmentalist - I wouldn't say no to this deal based on concerns groups have over lands in western Nebraska or South Dakota where nobody lives or ever visits.

I do have to compliment Obama on bucking the trend that Washington has long been under the control of Big Oil. It's actually refreshing to me for once seeing ANYONE in D.C. stand up to Big Oil. Moving further, we've wasted 3-4 decades during Big Oil's reign and have got deeper & deeper into the oil problem. America needs to lead the way towards seriously & furiously trying to find alternatives to oil. I don't care if they are Canadians, if they're Arabs, South Americans, Asians, whoever - we need to become more energy self-sufficient & with all apologies to Sarah Palin & the conservative GOP it makes my stomach turn when I hear the phrase "drill baby drill". If/when we do have $4 gas have your lawamakers over the last 30-40 years look themselves in the mirror - that's who is to blame. Whether it's natural gas, electric, wind, solar, something else, we should never have got into the mess that we're in today & frankly I'm glad that yesterday we decided NOT to step in deeper.

Good post.

My concerns are that in spite of ever-increasing technology we still haven't really made a dent in US dependence on oil vs. alternative energy sources. As long as we have gas engines around and a need for petroleum distillates we'll have a dependence on oil. The Chinese will happily take the Canadian surplus and continue to kick our collective asses while we continue to fund crap like Solyndra at a federal level. Our education system in the US pushes out the best and brightest to all corners of the world, yet we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot with pandering to the enviro whackos and NIMBY’s. Oil production and alternative energy need not be mutually exclusive – a strong portfolio of nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, hydropower, solar, and wind can all contribute in changing %’s as we find options for getting off the Saudi teat.

Maybe we need some energy based version of the Ansari X prize as an incentive.

kalm wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:Here's my take:

In terms of $4 gas this summer or the Strait of Hormuz being threatened - that's a non-factor with the pipeline status as even if Obama and everyone involved said go it wouldn't actually be flowing oil until 2014 I believe when the project was complete.

On the other hand, don't confuse me with an environmentalist - I wouldn't say no to this deal based on concerns groups have over lands in western Nebraska or South Dakota where nobody lives or ever visits.

I do have to compliment Obama on bucking the trend that Washington has long been under the control of Big Oil. It's actually refreshing to me for once seeing ANYONE in D.C. stand up to Big Oil. Moving further, we've wasted 3-4 decades during Big Oil's reign and have got deeper & deeper into the oil problem. America needs to lead the way towards seriously & furiously trying to find alternatives to oil. I don't care if they are Canadians, if they're Arabs, South Americans, Asians, whoever - we need to become more energy self-sufficient & with all apologies to Sarah Palin & the conservative GOP it makes my stomach turn when I hear the phrase "drill baby drill". If/when we do have $4 gas have your lawamakers over the last 30-40 years look themselves in the mirror - that's who is to blame. Whether it's natural gas, electric, wind, solar, something else, we should never have got into the mess that we're in today & frankly I'm glad that yesterday we decided NOT to step in deeper.

Jimmy Carter said as much 30 some years ago.

kalm wrote: Another good post and I agree we need to simultaneously focus on both. But for the record, China is already leading the world in sustainable energy manufacturing and I'm guessing that much of it is government funded.

ASUG8 wrote:

kalm wrote: Another good post and I agree we need to simultaneously focus on both. But for the record, China is already leading the world in sustainable energy manufacturing and I'm guessing that much of it is government funded.

True, and the Chinese have a number of things that allow them to do so:
* vast tracts of land
* government/private partnerships
* no EPA (for better or worse - your call)
* nearly unlimited manpower
* cash rich economy with no signs of letting up
* improving technological prowess
* suppression of protests

China is probably behind us by 30+ yrs on energy consumption per capita with the lack of individual's ability to afford private vehicles and a stand alone housing. They're investing wisely in infrastructure to get ahead of the curve in individual Chinese affluence and the vehicles, housing, etc. that it brings.

This communism/capitalism experiment is interesting to watch.

ASUG8 wrote: Our education system in the US pushes out the best and brightest to all corners of the world, yet we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot with pandering to the enviro whackos and NIMBY’s.

dbackjon wrote:Great move for the country - anyone that thinks otherwise is a moron

The Conks tried to cram this down Obama's throat - he called their bluff.

There are serious issues with the pipeline, and tar sands in general. Think beyond the next 5 years.

It is funny - I care more about the world YOUR kids/grandkids are going to grow up in than you do. Sad, really.

bluehenbillk wrote:

ASUG8 wrote: Our education system in the US pushes out the best and brightest to all corners of the world, yet we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot with pandering to the enviro whackos and NIMBY’s.

Not to change the subject but -

Maybe you're saying people from other countries come here for schooling and then take that info to other countries? But the education system in the US is and has been failing for some time. It's astonishing that almost a third of kids today will not even graduate high school. Our universities may in fact be better than ever but with the costs associated with attending them - more kids (the two-thirds that actually graduate HS) are getting shut out from attending them. It's an accelerating problem too - one that needs tons more attention than it gets. If you don't think that education has an effect on the economy, well, you're probably one of the previously mentioned one-third.