Post by trapper7 on Jul 7, 2011 10:59:39 GMT -5
Most of our oil mined on US soil is sold to Canada, where it is refined and sold back to us because we don't have enough refineries here in America. This is one reason we pay a higher price at the pump.
Now, the Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the US at the same time China is investing in a pipline that could send that same oil to China.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee last week passed a bill requiring President Obama to speed up a decision on approving the pipeline. The Montreal Gazette reports that Obama has been too slow in making a final decision.
Delivering the oil will mean building two pipelines, one south to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast and the other west toward the Pacific.
If the US doesn't approve the pipeline promptly, Canada might look to China, thinking America doesn't want a big stake in what environmentalists call "dirty oil", which they say will increase gashouse emissions, according to the Associated Press.
Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said that the pipeline would create over 100,000 jobs and wondered, "Why is it that we're not working with Canada which will be producing more than 4 million barrels per day from oil sand and we've stalled on the application to build a pipeline?"
"If we continue to say we're not interested, Canada is going to turn around and build that pipeline not to the US, but to Vancouver instead, and from there ship the oil to China."
Environmental groups have urged Obama to reject the pipeline project.
They claim that extracting oil from oil sands requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases emissions, and threatens rivers and forests.
But Michael Levi, senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers of oil sand extraction. He says, "In the end this is the equivalent to half a percent of US emissions."
Russell Girling, CEO of TransCanada said, "The real issue here is those opposed to the Canadian oil sands believe that by delaying or denying this permit somehow they will slow down the development of Canadian oil sands. That's an unrealistic expectation, the Canadian oil sands will get developed, irrespective of this pipeline."
Republicans are determined on this issue and say they will have a bill on the House floor as early as next month.
David Goldwyn, a former State Dept energy official who left this year to work as a consultant, said it would be a huge waste of a great opportunity to provide supply security. "We don't often get the choice of where we can get our oil from. In this case we get to choose Canada. That's an opportunity we shouldn't miss."
Now, the Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the US at the same time China is investing in a pipline that could send that same oil to China.
The House Energy & Commerce Committee last week passed a bill requiring President Obama to speed up a decision on approving the pipeline. The Montreal Gazette reports that Obama has been too slow in making a final decision.
Delivering the oil will mean building two pipelines, one south to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast and the other west toward the Pacific.
If the US doesn't approve the pipeline promptly, Canada might look to China, thinking America doesn't want a big stake in what environmentalists call "dirty oil", which they say will increase gashouse emissions, according to the Associated Press.
Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, said that the pipeline would create over 100,000 jobs and wondered, "Why is it that we're not working with Canada which will be producing more than 4 million barrels per day from oil sand and we've stalled on the application to build a pipeline?"
"If we continue to say we're not interested, Canada is going to turn around and build that pipeline not to the US, but to Vancouver instead, and from there ship the oil to China."
Environmental groups have urged Obama to reject the pipeline project.
They claim that extracting oil from oil sands requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases emissions, and threatens rivers and forests.
But Michael Levi, senior fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers of oil sand extraction. He says, "In the end this is the equivalent to half a percent of US emissions."
Russell Girling, CEO of TransCanada said, "The real issue here is those opposed to the Canadian oil sands believe that by delaying or denying this permit somehow they will slow down the development of Canadian oil sands. That's an unrealistic expectation, the Canadian oil sands will get developed, irrespective of this pipeline."
Republicans are determined on this issue and say they will have a bill on the House floor as early as next month.
David Goldwyn, a former State Dept energy official who left this year to work as a consultant, said it would be a huge waste of a great opportunity to provide supply security. "We don't often get the choice of where we can get our oil from. In this case we get to choose Canada. That's an opportunity we shouldn't miss."